Jump to content

  • Home
  • Help
  • Contact
  •  

Photo

Books to Movies - Pros and Cons


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#41 Elisa Scalzi

Elisa Scalzi

    Noob

  • Newbie
  • 4 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:24 PM

I personally prefer reading books rather than watching the movies. Books offer me the possibility to imagine the characters and the whole plot the way I want and, on top of that, the action seems more realistic and engaging. I do not like the movies that pretend to be adapted after the books - they do not contain the action from the book and, apart from that, the characters are always... strange. Not to say that they destroy my perception of the book in question. For instance, Harry Potter was extremely... plain. The action in the book was much more interesting (except the 5th book, which was a total mess) and the characters seemed more animated.

 

Some books make great movies, but there are only a few such cases. I like Pride and prejudice, with Keira Knightley as Elisabeth, this was one of the few movies I really liked!


  • 0

#42 jayant102

jayant102

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 12:22 AM

Well most movie adaptations just don't sit right with me. I have a nagging feeling even about the ones that are done right. If a movie is completely faithful than it leaves nothing new for the reader to watch. Very rarely does a movie hit all the right spots. Lord of the RIngs is a prime example. GoT also does a very good job of adapting the books.


  • 0

#43 westmost

westmost

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 10:39 PM

I remember reading somewhere that the novelette/novella is the best length for a screen adaptation. A novel is too long, meaning you have to leave out either background, depth, or plot, when adapting it to a film. A short story is likely to have too little plot, and necessitate padding.

 

I don't think it is universally the case, but it's usually pretty on the nose. And certainly there are plenty of great movies based on shorter works that are well regarded, they don't seem to get the same amount of discussion as novel adaptations, though.


  • 0

#44 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:09 AM

I have never really been opposed t books that have been turned into movies or anything like that. A lot of people don't like it because it apparently ruins the picture of the characters that they had in their head by giving them a fixed representation of the characters via actors and actresses, but I am fine with that.


  • 0

#45 jayant102

jayant102

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:31 AM

I remember reading somewhere that the novelette/novella is the best length for a screen adaptation. A novel is too long, meaning you have to leave out either background, depth, or plot, when adapting it to a film. A short story is likely to have too little plot, and necessitate padding.

 

I don't think it is universally the case, but it's usually pretty on the nose. And certainly there are plenty of great movies based on shorter works that are well regarded, they don't seem to get the same amount of discussion as novel adaptations, though.

 

Well, quite a few novella do have good screen adaptations. (Shawshank Redemption immediately comes to mind) but I don't think it's a general trend. I mean you can get a good movie out of a massive source material as well (LOTR). It depends on how well the director handles things.


  • 0

#46 westmost

westmost

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:58 PM

I remember reading somewhere that the novelette/novella is the best length for a screen adaptation. A novel is too long, meaning you have to leave out either background, depth, or plot, when adapting it to a film. A short story is likely to have too little plot, and necessitate padding.

 

I don't think it is universally the case, but it's usually pretty on the nose. And certainly there are plenty of great movies based on shorter works that are well regarded, they don't seem to get the same amount of discussion as novel adaptations, though.

 

Well, quite a few novella do have good screen adaptations. (Shawshank Redemption immediately comes to mind) but I don't think it's a general trend. I mean you can get a good movie out of a massive source material as well (LOTR). It depends on how well the director handles things.

 

Well, you got three extremely long movies out of LOTR, to be fair ;)


  • 0

#47 NDN

NDN

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 05:47 PM

I think one of the biggest problems with movie adaptations of books ,is that so often the producers don't stick to the guild lines of the book. Too many times, actors that do not resemble the description of the characters are placed lead roles. Sometimes important parts of the stories that are crucial to understand the plots are left out.
 
 
On the plus side you get to see a book come to life from the pages.

  • 0

#48 jayant102

jayant102

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:23 AM

 Too many times, actors that do not resemble the description of the characters are placed lead roles. 

 

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher being the most shocking example. Keanu Reeves (a canadian) as John Constantine (a British guy who is blonde) is another one.


Edited by jayant102, 28 October 2013 - 03:24 AM.

  • 0

#49 frightmare

frightmare

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 359 posts

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:35 AM

There are times when I don't mind directors and writers of movies based on books changing things around and missing out various details but a lot of the time it does tend to get on my nerves. I think the characters not looking how you expect them to is another thing too. I can let it slide if the actor does a good job but sometimes I just think "Why on earth was this person cast again?"


  • 0

#50 annadandelion

annadandelion

    Cordial

  • Newbie
  • 10 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 02:48 AM

On the other hand, there are some instances where the actor's portrayal has completely replaced my "book-actor" (the way I imagine a character looks like) because it was so good. Jaime Lannister comes to mind, as well as Mads Mikkelsen (I was one of those who imagined Hannibal Lecter exclusively as Sir Anthony Hopkins).


  • 0

#51 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 04:14 AM

On the other hand, there are some instances where the actor's portrayal has completely replaced my "book-actor" (the way I imagine a character looks like) because it was so good. Jaime Lannister comes to mind, as well as Mads Mikkelsen (I was one of those who imagined Hannibal Lecter exclusively as Sir Anthony Hopkins).

 

This is true. A lot of the time it is really nice to put a face to the characters. Also, they are hot!!! Lol!! If I am reading a story I will often browse random pictures online and give the characters a face, but it is nice to have the writer's vision come to life by way of an actor.


  • 0

#52 annadandelion

annadandelion

    Cordial

  • Newbie
  • 10 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 06:48 AM

This is true. A lot of the time it is really nice to put a face to the characters. Also, they are hot!!! Lol!! If I am reading a story I will often browse random pictures online and give the characters a face, but it is nice to have the writer's vision come to life by way of an actor.

 

I hadn't done the browsing images thing before, usually because I already "cast" the characters as they appear in the books, but there are some instances where a face just isn't coming to me. Thanks for the idea, I may use it :)


  • 0

#53 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 26 April 2014 - 01:57 AM

This is true. A lot of the time it is really nice to put a face to the characters. Also, they are hot!!! Lol!! If I am reading a story I will often browse random pictures online and give the characters a face, but it is nice to have the writer's vision come to life by way of an actor.

 

I hadn't done the browsing images thing before, usually because I already "cast" the characters as they appear in the books, but there are some instances where a face just isn't coming to me. Thanks for the idea, I may use it :)

 

Lmaoo! You are welcome. I usually google model images and what not, Unless the character is specifically not a beautiful character and is overweight and whatnot. I google for images according to the character's description. I write too, and have often googled for images of my characters. Makes writing them that much easier.


  • 0

#54 jneanz

jneanz

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 11:29 AM

The first book that I read that became a movie adaptation was Fame.  I saw the movie first and thought 'I have to go to a performing arts school'.  However, after reading the book, I was like 'Whoa, that was so deep.'  I mean, it's tame by today's lifestyle standards but to an 11-year-old kid in the 1980s, it was mind-blowing.


  • 0

#55 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 01:11 AM

Really? Fame. It is bad that I didn't even know that fame was a book first? I have always thought that fame was just a movie, and that books followed. Not that it was the other way around lol. I guess that you can tell when I was born :P


  • 0

#56 frightmare

frightmare

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 359 posts

Posted 20 May 2014 - 09:08 AM

On the other hand, there are some instances where the actor's portrayal has completely replaced my "book-actor" (the way I imagine a character looks like) because it was so good. Jaime Lannister comes to mind, as well as Mads Mikkelsen (I was one of those who imagined Hannibal Lecter exclusively as Sir Anthony Hopkins).

 

I agree with the Mads Mikkelsen thing. He IS Hannibal for me now, with no offence intended towards the great Sir Anthony Hopkins haha.


  • 0

#57 evelynmcgregor

evelynmcgregor

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 26 June 2014 - 05:38 PM

Over the years I have seen many movies that were adapted from books I have read.  I have always been disappointed in the resulting movies.  Some actuall loosely follow the story line, while others are completely different and unrecognizeable.  I feel cheated when this happens.  As a result, I no longer watch anything that has been adapted from a movies I have seen.  And I do not know who the author is that no longer allows his work to be made into a movie, but I applaud him/her for that decision.


  • 0

#58 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 05:36 AM

Over the years I have seen many movies that were adapted from books I have read.  I have always been disappointed in the resulting movies.  Some actuall loosely follow the story line, while others are completely different and unrecognizeable.  I feel cheated when this happens.  As a result, I no longer watch anything that has been adapted from a movies I have seen.  And I do not know who the author is that no longer allows his work to be made into a movie, but I applaud him/her for that decision.

 

There is never going to be a movie that will be able to depict what was depicted in the book version accurately and to everyone's liking. for one, there just isn't enough time in a movie to do this. Harry Potter is one of the only adaptations that is a lengthy movie, and I am sure that even they missed stuff out.


  • 0

#59 Livvvy

Livvvy

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 72 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 11:37 AM

 Too many times, actors that do not resemble the description of the characters are placed lead roles. 

 

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher being the most shocking example. Keanu Reeves (a canadian) as John Constantine (a British guy who is blonde) is another one.

You know what?

I don't mind Keanu as John. Sure, he doesn't look anything like John does in the comics, and sure he's not even British, but that was a damn good movie in its own right if you ask me. Hopefully the new series will be better mind, although they've already said that John won't be allowed to smoke anymore. He certainly looks and sounds the part though.


  • 0

#60 Zyni

Zyni

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 159 posts

Posted 23 October 2014 - 07:04 PM

 Too many times, actors that do not resemble the description of the characters are placed lead roles. 

 

Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher being the most shocking example. Keanu Reeves (a canadian) as John Constantine (a British guy who is blonde) is another one.

You're not kidding. Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher was very disappointing. Well, it was actually laughable after a while. As if his little self was some force to be reckoned with. Please.


  • 0