2006-12-05 01:09:44 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I can see arguments on both sides.
Captain Corelli - Superb book, weak film
Shawshank Redemption - Superb Film, weak book
2006-12-05 01:15:25 · update #1
I think it needs to stay loyal to the spirit of the book and the major plot points, but that to translate a story into the medium of film you sometimes need to experiment and try different ways of expressing the same ideas. If you just literally follow everything in the book down to the last detail the film can seem quite flat. The actors also might sound like they are reading lines from a book. A bit of creative adaptation here and there can actually make a film feel more like the book even if when you analyzed it closely it did not copy it exactly.
2006-12-05 01:13:08 · answer #1 · answered by braennvin2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most films are too short to cover an entire book faithfully. Sometimes as with Shakespeare the story can be so well known that giving a different setting e.g. modern interpretation, can give an audience a better enjoyment or even add modern poltical and social comment.
2006-12-05 01:26:01 · answer #2 · answered by simon w 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the contract set up and whomever instigated the film in the first place. Final say should lie with the author, but that is not always the case because the author may sign away his rights for the rights of creative interpretation for commercial benefit on the producers behalf and his own.
2006-12-05 01:13:52 · answer #3 · answered by the critical umbilical 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I used to think so, and was peed off when they totally changed the story of Blood Work by Michael Connelly, except they then mentioned the movie in a later book, with one of the characters complaining about how the movie turned him into a killer, which was quite clever.
So now I don't really mind.
2006-12-05 01:16:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read both Bridget Jones books and laughed out loud on every page...but the films really bored me!
If the books are well written and are a success, then why the need to change them?
2006-12-05 02:57:28 · answer #5 · answered by Muppet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should. But most films/movies based on books are dissapointing. Hannibal is one. The author Thomas Harris wrote the book so well, it was better reading it than watching the movie.
2006-12-05 01:13:32 · answer #6 · answered by happykat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Almost impossible.
Cost is one and would the public like what they see ?
The one`s that did stay close to the book are the
old English them films like Wuthering Heights,Rebbecca and
Gone With the Wind the last one was tinted to bring it to colour.
2006-12-05 01:24:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. take for instance James Herbert's The Fog read the book and when i watched the movie staring Jamie lee Curtis completely different.
2006-12-05 23:57:17 · answer #8 · answered by El Greco 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not ALWAYS; but some of the greatest stayed true...i.e. The Godfather, The Big Sleep, Goldfinger, 2001: A Space Odessey,...
2006-12-05 07:08:49 · answer #9 · answered by mike s 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, the books are always best and the film can only be a copy so it is better to make it a good 1
2006-12-05 01:13:17 · answer #10 · answered by tmswainyboy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋