Why Bother "Making Films of the Books"? Why not write a whole new movie?

[Rei-chan]

I can get behind Shawshank, and The Dead Zone, but not The Stand.  I LOVE me some Gary Sinise, but the others cast (with the exceptions of the guy that played Tom Cullen and "Albert" from Twin Peaks) left a lot to be desired from the original, uncut version.   Flagg especially bugged me, but that's because I know his history from King's other books......

Other movies from books that bugged me:

Kubrick's The Shining:  Scary in it's own way, but totally missed the mark.


The ones that I liked:

A Clockwork Orange
A Scanner Darkly

[Yarnspinner]

I forgot the Shawshank Redemption and The Dead Zone.  The Green Mile was also good.  

As for the third Harry Potter movie:  oh, so agree!  What I hated most about it was the constant yattering about how it was so much closer to JK Rowling than the first two which "slavishly followed" the books.  Hmmm....not really, I thought.  I certainly understood about having to cut things out: it's impossible to put it all up there.  But, if they have to cut things out, why then was it necessary to MAKE UP STUFF and add it in?  That made me growl.

[TZ]

It's funny, Willow, because I was going to mention Kubrick's The Shining as a film that is far and away better than the book.  The miniseries remake, on the other hand, followed the book much more faithfully and was terrible.

For me, one of the the most disappointing screen adaptations of all time was The Thorn Birds.  I read the book when I was about 12, and it has always been a favorite.  After I finished the book, I rented the miniseries, but I just couldn't make it through.  Since then, I've tried watching it several more times, thinking that maybe I was just too immature to "get" the miniseries.  Nope, it's simply boring and unwatchable to me.  I can't get past the fact that Meggie is supposed to have red hair.

[Lysitheia]

I loved Interview with a Vampire, Shawshank Redemption , the new 'Salem's Lot movie and the new Shining. The problem seems to be that when Hollywood sinks it little claws into a great book, they want to attract a bigger demographic and paste on things they *know* will draw people, like graphic s/ex or violence. What they don't realize is that unless the book is some mega hit (Da Vinci Code, anyone?), probably most of the fans are fans of the book first and foremost, and changes will bother them.

Trying to find the nice way to say this: I have the impression that some people in entertainment don't read  in the same way that true 'readers' read or at all ( Lest we forget Victoria Posh Spice Beckham's infamous "I've never read a book in my life" statement), and while certainly many of them are probably very intelligent, it seems like many of them might really think all these stupid changes make the book better. Or else they don't know what made it great to begin with and have a very limited understanding of what is cuttable and what is not.

[Venus193]

Venus' best Books-to-Film:

Rosemary's Baby
Gone With the Wind
The Godfather
Tom Jones (1963)

[artk2002]

It's a general consensus among my friends and myself that the Heinlein novel Starship Troopers and the (fairly recent) film of the same name had exactly two things in common:  The word Starship, and the word Troopers.

My sentiments exactly.  I remember some interviews with the filmmakers and it was clear that they completely misunderstood what Heinlein had written.  They interpreted him as somehow supporting facism, because in the ST milieu there was a requirement for military service before one could gain full citizenship.  Of course, they missed the little fact that active military couldn't vote, or the little fact that RH had wrote this just after WWII where he was fighting against facism.  Oh yes, and the major fact that the book is a basic coming-of-age tale.  And then they turned it into a 2nd-rate monster flick.

I'll stay home and watch my black-and-white Jane Eyre or my BBC Pride and Prejudice, thanks. 

A friend just told me tonight that the BBC is producing a new Jane Eyre.  She said that at least the lead actor looks more like he is described in the book -- having someone say that Timothy Dalton was unattractive just didn't work in that production!

[Yarnspinner]

A friend just told me tonight that the BBC is producing a new Jane Eyre.  She said that at least the lead actor looks more like he is described in the book -- having someone say that Timothy Dalton was unattractive just didn't work in that production!

Giggle.  When I saw the Timothy Dalton version, I thought his acting was way better than that of William Hurt in what I think of as "Best Scenes From Jane Eyre Butchered" production but not as good as Orson Welles in the "Cut out a lot of the story but stayed true to the original" production.  Still he was so darn pretty it got silly when people kept saying he was ugly and a beast.  (On the other hand, the young Orson Welles wasn't so bad, either.)  I've had a not so secret crush on Rochester for years.  My fantasy when I was in my teens was to star in a production of Jane Eyre opposite (drum roll) Oliver Reed.  Guess that's out of the question now.  *sigh*

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

For me, one of the the most disappointing screen adaptations of all time was The Thorn Birds.  I read the book when I was about 12, and it has always been a favorite.  ...  I can't get past the fact that Meggie is supposed to have red hair.

The hair thing didn't bother me; it's more that in the mini-series (and this was a criticism made by columnists here) the characters seemed anti-Catholic when they're not at all that way in the book - it was MEGGIE who felt she was competing against God, not the church that was out to ruin her life by depriving her of this man she loved! (And I'm not Catholic.)

Richard Chamberlain says he likes The Thorn Birds the most out of all the things he's done because he could identify with the character. Nah, I think his best work (and a GREAT novel adaptation) was Shogun. Now there's a fantastic mini-series. The costumes alone!!

[hobish]

It's a general consensus among my friends and myself that the Heinlein novel Starship Troopers and the (fairly recent) film of the same name had exactly two things in common:  The word Starship, and the word Troopers.

I cannot think of a word that describes how much i agree. Calling that movie a travesty of a Heinlein novel is only a little bit overboard.

[hobish]

OP, i haven't read the movies or seen the books for the ones that you mentioned but i know where you're coming from.

The movie to The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things left out a chunk for no reason, and that results in the next few minutes being disjointed.

[hobish]

Battlestar Gallactica

I really wanted to hate the remake. Starbuck is a woman? Oh really? P'ss off i will never watch that.
Ummm...it's a good sci-fi show. I can't help but like it.

Star Wars
The movies are for the most part amazing. The Star Wars books ... oh. whooo. give me a second or two to try to get back to 2nd grade reading level. They're so bad (if you disagree suggest a book, i'll read it, i swear).

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

This book is so embedded in my imagination that i don't ever want to see the movie. I know for sure that i prefer my own visualization of what people look like & how they speak & everything else to what some movie guy came up with.

Fight Club
The movie is a remake of a Chuck Palahniuk novel. I doubt i ever would have read his books if the movie hadn't come out. There are better Chuck books than Fight Club, but FC isn't so bad. I just can't read it w/o hearing Ed Norton's voice.
The movie made me a fan of the author in that case.

[Lisbeth]

As for the third Harry Potter movie:  oh, so agree!  What I hated most about it was the constant yattering about how it was so much closer to JK Rowling than the first two which "slavishly followed" the books.  Hmmm....not really, I thought.  I certainly understood about having to cut things out: it's impossible to put it all up there.  But, if they have to cut things out, why then was it necessary to MAKE UP STUFF and add it in?  That made me growl.

True.  The third Harry Potter book is my favorite in the series (so far-obviously I haven't read the seventh yet  ) so before the movie came out I was really looking forward to it.  It was a huge disappointment.

As for "slavishly following" the books, why else make movies of them?  I don't get the need to be more "creative" with material you've already decided to use!

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

As for "slavishly following" the books, why else make movies of them?  I don't get the need to be more "creative" with material you've already decided to use!

I think many books don't translate well to film, so the screenwriter and director have to be careful: they have to include all the most important plot points and themes, try to cast actors correctly, and then make sure that they aren't SO faithful that the movie is static and boring to anyone who hasn't read the book.

I mean 1984 was (to me, anyway) VERY static and boring and I'd read the book numerous times!

Thought the first two Harry Potter movies were slightly static. The third wasn't, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. I still can't explain why, except for the wanting to dry everyone off thing. It's not that it was BAD per se; I just don't think the director had any idea of what makes the Harry universe work.

I just hope they don't eff up the fifth movie. That's my favourite of the books.

[Ginger]

 
Anyone else been disappointed by a book to film translation?

Almost every one I've ever seen

The most recent Narnia movie was great.  The Harry Potters are okay - they leave a lot out but I can understand why they left some of it out, and I much prefer the books.  Can't speak to Lord of the Rings as I never read the books but I adore the movies.  Eragon was good, but again, they changed some big things and left a lot out.

I can't think of a single other book-to-movie translation that I would call well-done.

It was a long, long time ago, but I think that the movie version of "Gone With the Wind" did credit to the book. Of course, they had to leave out a lot......a full version would have taken half a day! ;-)  but the movie version was true to the story. Scarlett, Rhett, Ashley and Melanie looked exactly as described in the book - something which doesn't often happen.

Recently saw "The DaVinci Code," which was not true to the book. It was equally awful, though. Don't know why they bothered.

Ginger

[TZ]

It was a long, long time ago, but I think that the movie version of "Gone With the Wind" did credit to the book. Of course, they had to leave out a lot......a full version would have taken half a day! ;-)  but the movie version was true to the story. Scarlett, Rhett, Ashley and Melanie looked exactly as described in the book - something which doesn't often happen.

I agree.  It's interesting that Clark Gable absolutely did not want to do the film because he was afraid fans would be disappointed.  He didn't want readers to dislike him because he didn't look how they envisioned Rhett Butler.  The book and the film are very different, but I think the fiilmmakers did a good job deciding what to keep in and what was expendable (i.e. Scarlett's first two children).  I once read that they didn't think the barbecue scene was all that important to the plot (except Scarlett's confrontation of Ashley), but they kept it in because they thought people would miss it.