Movies that are adaptations of books {Read my post first!}

[Mr.HyDe807]

Now im not insulting these movies,not at all. But dont you feel so pissed when certain parts of a book are not in the movie. Im honestly a fan of Harry Potter and i enjoy the movies.....its just that they leave out soo many things that made the book fun. In the first HArry Potter, i wished they would spend more time with Fred and George's character {although they did have a little comic relief, i wish they had more development}. IN the second one, fred and george just about absoleutly nothing! Another thing that bother me was leaving out Peeves the Poltergeist, he had a pretty good part in the books and is entirely left out in the movies. Now i know im complaining about something stupid but is there anyone else who just gets angry when movies leave out parts from the books?

[Scarface98.9]

For me, it all depends on the book, and the movie. Like, Hannibal for instance. It has a completely different ending, and a different death entirely for one of its main characters. There was even a big subplot that was cut because of the alternate death. I'm glad it was cut since I can't possibly imagine it working on screen, without getting an NC-17, and without being completely over the top. The ending wouldn't've worked at all, due to the movie's context.

But then again, for something like Jurassic Park, there was a lot of parts that could've made great cinema, but were cut out. The raft scene, among others, could've provided some bone chilling moments, though the movie went in a completely different direction at some parts, bearing little resemblance to the books

[one_crow_sorrow]

Sometimes it makes sense to cut a book for a film. For example, American Psycho. Not too many people would be able to watch a lot of the things that happened in the book.

[rupert pupkin]

hmm tricky

i guess the quality of the writing is key here

often a brilliantly written book can make an otherwise incoherent and complex plot come to life and be fascinating

the first one that leaps to mind is trainspotting.....a book whose anecdotal style makes it eminently re-readable

it was bound to be frustrating that so many of ones favourite tales had been left out of the movie....yet it would have been impossible for danny boyle and john hodge to do them justice on the screen....nor make them relevant or interesting to an audience unfamiliar with the book

however....books with a poor writing style can have their interesting ideas well adapted by filmmakers

this can be seen by the various adaptations of stephen kings novels....some unsuccesful...but others...like stand by me and shawshank.....were excellent

i would say that movies should be made according to their independence as a medium....and hence run the risk of being entirely different to the book.....sadly insulting avid fans....it is impossible to try to completely replicate the tone or meaning of a book into a film because they are different art forms with different techniques of expressing their ideas.

[AceD]

Blood Work was a great book by a great modern author (Michael Connely) that was completely turned around for the movie. **Spoiler, I guess, if you've read the book but haven't seen the movie**.....they change the identity of the killer!!! And they change it to one of the books most lovable characters!!!! Unforgiveable, and I'm still in shock that Connely would allow this, being a respected author. Terrible.

[Shockwave]

They took Sarumon out of ROTK, that pissed me off to no end considering hes been the face of saurons forces for the last 2 movies.

As is, i dont know why they put him in the movies in the first place.

[Jon Lyrik]

Movies and books are two different things. When you adapt a book to film and make it exactly like the book, it's crappy and awkward and doesn't feel like it is it's own film.

Sacrifices have to be made to the book's plot to make a palapable adatation.

[Mog]

I agree with the above statement. My screenwriting teacher is in the process of adapting a book to a screenplay, and he says that a lot of the things he had to cut out had to be taken out to fit the right structure and whatnot a usual screenplay follows. I've never seen a film that has adapted a novel word-for-word, with the exception of Kenneth Brannaugh's(sp?) Hamlet. Now, Hamlet is a rather short play when read...I have a copy of it and the book itself is about 120 pages. Last I checked, Kenneth's Hamlet was two VHS cassette tapes. I've seen some of the Harry Potter books...and the ones I've seen are thicker than most of the books I read for college. If you ask me I couldn't sit through a 9-hour long Harry Potter movie. I can barely sit through the Lord of the Rings films.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Movies and books are two different things. When you adapt a book to film and make it exactly like the book, it's crappy and awkward and doesn't feel like it is it's own film.

Sacrifices have to be made to the book's plot to make a palapable adatation.

I understand that. But what im saying is why leave out important characters in a book that make the book enjoyable? I just dont like movies leaving things out that i like in the book. I never said anything about adapting the enitre book into the movie.

[Lynn7]

but on the other hand, if you like the movie you know that it'll be great to go out and get the book cause the book is often filled with so many extra things. The best job I've ever seen of adapting a book to a movie is Stephen King's "the Dead Zone."

[MarkItZero]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
For me, it all depends on the book, and the movie. Like, Hannibal for instance. It has a completely different ending

After reading the book, I was almost positive that they were gonna change the ending. I really liked the book ending it is so much more interesting. Comparatively, the movie ending was pretty predictable and bland.

It seems the Clint Eastwood has a history of massacreing the books he makes into movies.

SPOILERS FOR 'TRUE CRIME' and 'ABSOLUTE POWER'

In True Crime the main character in the book is a young strapping ladies man. Sorry Clint, you are a little too old for that part. Plus, the racial issues addressed in the book are completely turned around and dont make any sense in the movie. Great book, lousy movie. In the book Absolute Power, Clint's character is killed off about halfway through the story! Another great book, and I thought a decent though unspectacular movie.

[Ronaldinho]

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
I understand that. But what im saying is why leave out important characters in a book that make the book enjoyable? I just dont like movies leaving things out that i like in the book. I never said anything about adapting the enitre book into the movie.

NObody ever says, "Oh, this is an important character, let's cut him out."

The fact is that the adapters have to make choices. Hard choices, because most people won't sit through a four hour movie.

(I mean, honestly, those Harry Potter movies really needed to be cut down some more!)

Different people find different things important, which is why no two adaptions (even of the same work) are the same.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by Ronaldinho
NObody ever says, "Oh, this is an important character, let's cut him out."

The fact is that the adapters have to make choices. Hard choices, because most people won't sit through a four hour movie.

(I mean, honestly, those Harry Potter movies really needed to be cut down some more!)

Different people find different things important, which is why no two adaptions (even of the same work) are the same.

Thats not what i mean. What i mean is that movies should develop characters {such as some characters in Harry Potter} that brought the book fun or made it. By the way, the plot would probably seem thin if the harry potter movies were cut down. If those movies were cut down the plot would be too confusing

[Avid_Fan]

Minor Spoilers throughout for the Harry Potter book and movie.


One of the main things I remember from the first Harry Potter book that they didn't put in the movie, was near the end when they had all these obstacles to get through (The Devil's Snare, the Chess Table) well, in the book they have this part when they get in a room with bottles of potion sitting on a table and then the way to get out is through a wall of fire. So, Hermione has to solve a riddle so find out which potion to drink, so when Harry walks through he won't get burned.


End Spoilers

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by Shockwave
They took Sarumon out of ROTK, that pissed me off to no end considering hes been the face of saurons forces for the last 2 movies.

As is, i dont know why they put him in the movies in the first place.
Well, technically, Sauramon wasn't in the 3rd book at all, even though they were gonna save his death scene for it. But he's essential to the movies since you need some kind of central villain for the audience to root against. You can't have it be Sauron exactly, since he's basically a giant eye. You always need some central figure, and although sad he was cut, I'm still very interested in what happens in the last movie

[moviemuffin]

I was disappointed to see so much of the humor (Fred, George, Peeves, Jordan's quidditch commentary) cut from the films, too.

But consider this: the first two movies clocked in at 152 and 161 minutes. This in an age of ever-dwindling attention spans. The fact that kids sat through them without getting bored, distracted, or needing fifteen bathroom breaks is extraordinary.

My personal opinion is that directors (and writers) need to keep as closely to the source material as possible or just not make the film. There is no shortage of stuff out there to adapt.

That having been said the Rowling and Tolkien novels have suffered VERY little in translation. Length alone dictated a lot of the changes. Jackson has done an incredible job. Columbus did great, particularly recreating the look, and I believe Cuaron will improve upon the series.

[Common Sense Man]

I am not sure how many of you have ever read a screenplay or script, especially a finished one. On this board it should be quite a few I would think.

But when I read the Matrix script after seeing the movie I was like this is it!

I never realized how little there is to a screenplay. How much is left to the director to interpret.

So imagine trying to get a 500 page book into a 50 or 60 page screen play that doesn't even fill every page. Very hard.

And yes some things that seem to be so obviously needed are often cut.

I agree that Jurasic Park could have been even better with a bit more added.

I saw the movie then read the book and was amazed at all they left out.

But this will always happen. It is simply not cost effective to make movies literally from novels. If it was they would do it, it would be easier as they would not have to adapt but simply follow the book.

Out........................................