Why do filmakers sacrifice the quality of a good book when they make it into a movie?

Question

Just like The lord of the rings...it missed a lot of good scenes.It did not even mention one of the characters, tom Bomabadil. Then theres the Bourne identity...the first one was better with chamberlaine and jacklyn smith.

Answer 1

Hi!

A book is a book and a film is a film. Keep these two ones separate. We have the time to read a book and have the luxury to spend a month to read it. A film must be done in three hours time maximum. There are plenty of good ideas in a story, but the filmmaker must chose the most appropriate and interesting scenes to tell the story, and must be constantly aware to avoid making the audience start yawning in the middle of the film.

When we read a book, we are free to imagine the characters in our own minds. Everybody has a unique ability of visualising this imaginary world in their own way. So do the filmmakers. When you suddenly see their own version on the screen, it is very normal that you will get disappointed in a way, if their own visualisation does not match yours. I believe it is a matter of satisfying our own ego. On the other hand, you may discover some new things, even better presented than the writer has. And this is the magic among people...we all have the freedom to imagine in a different unique way. How boring the World would have been if we all visualised in the same way! If we all had exactly the same images and thoughts in our minds...

Somebody in this column mentioned: "They massacre the book by trying to make it into a movie. All they care about is the $$ and not loyalty of readers." Also another person says: "The film will never match up to the book anyway." Please allow me to answer to these opinions:

Art= Expression of our inner souls.

A filmmaker's job and any artist's PRIMARY target does not have to do with pleasing the public. Their very first target is to please themselves first, by bearing in mind at the same time that their work of Art will also offer something positive to the public. Joanne Rowling had to confront people who were not happy with her work and they had the impression that she was obliged to write what they think is right. They fail to realise that this is Art, and that every single person in the World is free to create what really speaks to them. There are thousands of fairy-tales with witchcraft within the story, but nobody ever complained about them.
If we ask everybody else how to make our own piece of Art, we have to change the word 'Art' into another familiar one called 'manipulation'. And of-course, I do not mean by that, that we should take advantage of this freedom and abuse it. (Presenting a huge amount of negativity in combination with disrespect towards others or various issues, with the intent to schock) What is of outmost importance in the field of Art, is the Artist to convey positive messages to the public in his/her own way. Tolkien has included lots of messages in his story. Please try and compare The Lord of The Rings's main theme, with the state of our own World now. Where are we heading to?

It is not about loyalty to the readers. They are not obliged to do this. Filmmaking is a huge process of thinking what is right to present, in what way, and what hidden messages would be positive for the public. Also, a director's job is NOT to match up the film 100% to the book. Every filmmaker is free to present their story in their own way. You cannot 'massacre' a book. The book will continue to remain valuable and worthy for all eternity. We have the good luck to enjoy a filmmakers continuity of a worthy piece of Art, and if we do not like it, then we simply do not watch it!

The Lord of the Rings, still has the necessary quality as a film.
As an audience, we get tired very quickly. The director's job is to present the story in a way that will instantly catch our attention and feelings. If they make us think for too long-like they do in soap operas- the film will be wasted. You cannot bombard a story like this with too many characters. Within these three hours, our brain does not have the luxury to remember every single character and what they eat for breakfast. You must also think as a filmmaker of the people who have never read the book. I had not. As a reader, I would love to go back to the book after I have seen the film, and learn a few more things about the characters, now that I have encountered them and loved them throughout their adventure. As an audience, I was left with a feeling of happiness and as a person who also shared the same feelings with the characters. Peter Jackson has the amazing ability to influence our feelings in a very powerful way, by chosing the right characters, the right scenes, the right camera motion with the right perspective, and just the right quantity of 'salt' to make his 'food' a great temptation to our senses...
His job was to make us stick to our seats, overwhelmed by emotions, and that is exactly what he did!

Answer 2

Visual presentation is different.What you read cannot be shown as such in a film.The language of camera is different from written language.It requires editing or modification,some characters may have to be left out to maintain tempo of the story.People always say book was better than film.This is a feeling.Some time people take films on popular books which cannot become good film.
An example is I have read a book called Saviour Krishna,the book is centred on a character who had studied Krishna and Christ and he finds both philosophy as equally good and he is unable to decide which is better.When you read it is right,In the film the director showed person placing Bhagavat Gita on top of Bible and doing reverse again changing the position.No body under stood what was the meaning.The film failed.Similarly many stories written by Tolstoy are good for reading but films are not up to the mark.Pickwick papers cannot be filmed properly to give the full effect of the book.Book is book,film different.Medium has its own limitations,Do you agree Ten Commandments film
is better than book?

Answer 3

I thought the film of LOR was amazingly close to the book given the time constriction. It's been a while since I last read the book but the characters were close to how I visualised them. There wasn't as much hopping from one set of characters to the next which I thought a flaw in the book.

I can think of better examples to make your point. Dune didn't begin to show any evidence of why the book is so loved. Some of the Bond movies only share a title with the book and have a completely different plot. I was very disappointed with The Spy Who Loved Me because I loved that story - unfortunately it didn't lend itself to high-tech gadgetry.

Answer 4

I think it was because they has to squeeze it all into film length, and that was three hours, They also spent so much money on making the film that they had to make a huge profit, so they made it into a film that many age groups would enjoy! Also they marketed it well, McDonald's promotion etc. It's all about £££££ or $$$$$$. But they are good films.
The Bourne Identity is one of my favourite films, I didn't know it was based on a book! Will have to look that one up!

Answer 5

If you checkout audio books you'll understand why. Even a fairly simple unabridged audio-book is likely to take 6 to 8 hours to listen too. Yet films need to be 3 hours or less to be commercially viable. So as suggested by others there is a need to shorten the overall story; however films can set scenes easily and develop characters with out difficulty, so they needn't cut out any of the essential material. Finally films are developed to a budget and as such only a set number of scenes and performers can be afforded; this again limits the films presentation of a book. Personally I prefer to read the book.

Answer 6

if they make a good coherent action movie, with constant moving plotlines (which is a flaw some moviemakers cannot do when trying to convert a book into a movie), it will attract other people who haven't read the book.

and for box offices, it lures the general audience AND those who have read the book and are curious. after everybody has seen it, regardless of what they think, the offices get the money and what's been paid has been paid.

if flimmakers get every scene from the book, it will either be: #1) too long or #2) confusing.

but i agree w/ u, i think they massacre the book by trying to make it into a movie. all they care about is the $$ and not loyalty of readers.

Answer 7

A very good question. My response is: to make a skow of so called originality at the expenes of the author. You have the same phenomenon with classical operas. Siegfried in black tie; Siegmund in the forest with a waterproof and a wallet,etc. Making oneself important at the expenses of a masterîece is apparently the obsession of many "metteurs en scène". Another question of the same kind: why do the filmmakers plague their movies with such loud music and noises that it becomes impossible to understand what the actors are saying. And don'tell me I am deaf because a) I undestand perfectly the actors when the music's level is acceptable and b) I ca hear a trush singing at 200 yards in spite of my ninety years! The same with the lord of thje rings. I have read the book several tiùes but was unable to understand the picture. Thy should jave used subtitles to clarify the progress of the story.

Logicusloulou

Answer 8

Artistic Licence!
Sometimes it's just not possible to put what we imagine onto film. Jurrasic Park the book is nothing like Jurrasic Park the movie! About the closest and most faithfull representation of a book I have read and film is Day of the Jackel, starring Edward Fox, whilst Bruce Willis as the Jackel.....claimed to be a remake has nothing in common with the book!

Answer 9

Some written words can not easily be portrayed on screen which is why they don't do it. It would increase costs, etc.
Could you imagine how much longer LOTR would have been if they had included everything from the book !
That is why the films are listed as "based on the book by ....."

Answer 10

Because not many of us would sit through an 8 hour movie. It all boils down to $$ and a screenwriters adaptation which may not include all the material we would like to see.