Do you approve of book to film adaptations?

Question

Please give specific opinion and reasonings behind them. Are you a purist? Do you prefer word for word, artisitc license, modern interpretation? What are some of you favorite and least favorite adaptations (i.e. 2006 version of Pride & Prejudice was great because..., etc.)? What is your background (i.e. student, teacher, average Joe, etc.)? (This is for a research paper, detailed answers very appreciated and links to information even more appreciated. Thank you.)

Answer 1

A lot depends on the adaptation.

Lord of the Rings was tremendous, despite the major renovations to it.

How to Eat Fried Worms was terrible.

Answer 2

I don't mind the adaptation if it holds reasonably true to the book.
However some books cannot be turned into a 2-3 hour movie without letting something out. You can't show on film what the person is thinking as you can in a book, and yet the thoughts sometimes mean a lot to the story. On old subjects as Pride & Prejudice
I appreciate word for word, a modern interpretation just won't do.
I'm an average Joanne who is a avid reader and movie watcher.
i.e. the Da Vinci Code, I found the book very laboured and I just
couldn't get into it. Yet I saw the movie and picked the book up again and now I don't mind it. But something like that doesn't happen often.
Good Luck with your research paper.

Answer 3

I usually disapprove of them. They're only attempts to bring a story in a book, usually a fine piece of writing, closer to people who don't like to read. If done well, that's okay, though I think one should rush to the library way before going to the movies. What's really absurd is the said story could get distorted and modified to fit the silver screen. If anyone thought, after watching the movies, that The Lord Of The Rings was great, please get hold of the trilogy and read it. I remember how upset I was when I saw the movies. Maybe I'm being a little harsh on them, they were well produced, nice scenery and all, but I can't help pointing my finger at the horrible changes they made in the plot: the characters, the parts they omitted and added... The only two movies faithful to the books they were based on that I can think of are The Godfather, which was just as bad as the written story, and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. This last one was very good, and stayed true to the book.
That's my opinion as a student, and an avid reader. Reading makes people wiser, books are wells of culture. True, there are some great movies out there that make us reflect on things, but usually the novel adaptations to the screen don't get even close to the magnificence of the original stories.

Answer 4

I think it depends on several things: what the book is, how well it is done and whether you've read the book or not.

Generally books with deep meanings behind them will not make as good films as those which are just a story as it is much harder to convey depth in films, although some manage it.

If you've read a book before you see a film then you can't help but pick holes in it (e.g. The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter etc), whereas people who haven't read the book will simply appreciate the film for what it is, and book to film adaptions may encourage people who would never normally read to read the book of the film that they enjoyed, which means that they might get in too reading.

Generally I think books are better than films but I definitely don't disapprove of book to film adaptions as they can be quite effective.

As for background, I am just a student, but I read a LOT of books and watch a LOT of films and always have, so I know what I'm talking about.

Answer 5

I think there have been some excellent movies based on books, from Gone With the Wind to The Lord of the Rings. Except for very short books, you have to expect considerable abridgment when a story moves to the screen; a typical movie script only runs 120 pages, after all.

I think a literal, word-for-word adaptation is bound to fail. Wise use of dialogue from the book is good, and was well done in LOTR. But a lot of what dialogue does in a book can be done visually in a movie - a look, a gesture, or a camera movement can replace pages of dialogue or description.

Plot, dialogue, and character can translate easily from book to film. Other aspects, such as structure, can be more difficult. What works in a book often doesn't work in a movie, and vice versa, although many modern authors, consciously or not, write in a cinematic style. In LOTR Return of the King, the movie changed the narrative structure by intercutting events in Mordor and Gondor that had been separate sections in the book. While this wouldn't have worked in Tolkien's literary style, it was very effective in the movie. As a counter-example of a carefully structured book losing a lot in the translation, there's Catch 22.

I think a lot of literary character is difficult or impossible to translate to film. Ulysses, for example. Not much really happens, and a good deal of the appeal is in the shifting literary styles. A skillful director might be able to create analogous shifts in cinematic style, but it would be a very different work, not a film adaptation of Ulysses.

A few movies in recent years have dealt with the translation problem by being about the medium or the process; Naked Lunch, Adaptation, and Tristam Shandy come to mind.

Put me down for average Joe; no background in academic criticism.

Answer 6

I'm usually pleased to see a film made from a book. Often it draws more readers to the book. As a librarian, I'm pleased with that.
I understand when the film maker needs to shorten a book, but want them to stay as close as possible to the original.
Some that I think were well-done are:
Series of Unfortunate Events
The Harry Potter books
Lord of the Rings (the recent series)
The Black Stallion
One that strayed too much from the original was Under the Tuscan Sun. The result was a good film, but not a good representation of the book and it's spirit.
It is really bad though when they take a book's title and concept and make a trash film out of it like the Cheaper By The Dozen with Steve Martin.

Answer 7

Some book to film adaptations are wonderful, others are garbage. It depends largely on how close the film version stays to the book. But there is always a missing ingredient, and that is the reader's imagination. When I read a book, the descriptions in it don't always mean the same to my friends as they do to me, because some places, things, music etc. call up special memories, and these are invested in my version of the book. When that book is made into a film, the film maker doesn't have access to my memory banks, and uses his own. So there is a slight warp in his perceptions, as against my perceptions.
One of the magic things about 'radio theatre' (which was popular 50 yers ago) was that you could imagine what the hero looked like. No one described him. All you had to go on was his voice. If you asked a dozen other listeners what the hero looked like, you'd get a dozen different answers, because each listener used his or her own memory banks and imagination, to paint a mental picture of the hero.
Of course, film doesn't just include depicting the characters. Film adaptations often involve radical plot changes and these, to me, are inexcusable.

Answer 8

Generally most book to film adaptations fail miserably. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Books allow us to make a story our own as every person will use the authors words to paint a picture that is unique and personal. A film will usually be the directors or the screenwriters interpretation or worse a movie made by committee where too many opinions and compromises result in a mediocre product.

Answer 9

well, speaking subjectively, I say it's just a matter of entertainment. It's a matter of opinion. It also depends on how the movie is done. Alot of times, the writers of the movie change things from the book. I always prefer the book. One of my favorite books ever is the amityville horror. I thought the movie was ridiculous. I also loved great expectations and romeo and juliet. the movies in my opinion were horrible. One other that comes to mind is flowers in the attic. the movie was perhaps one of the worst i've ever seen and yet it's one of my alltime favorite books. I just got done reading the da vinci code and I don't want to see the movie because I don't want to be mad at how bad it probably will be. By the way, I'm just an average joe.

Answer 10

As long as it's true to the book and the author has the final say, then yes.

Harry Potter is a good example. I never read the books but I'm told that the movies are very close to the books. Of course, hollywood has to change some things such as to limit time or make it feasible to the viewing audience.

Spider-Man for instance, had to have a few changes in the movie compared to the comic, but still kept very close the orginal.

Changes are necessary when adapting books to film, but as long as they sync with the authors' vision, they should turn out just fine.

Answer 11

If they are done well, then yes. I like, not love, the Harry Potter movies and the reason being is that so much details, pretty important ones too, are left out and that upsets me. I usually commit every part of a book to memory and to watch a movie that is only covering half of what I have in my memory from the book is a travesty. I am a mum, one of the most important jobs in all history.