book to film?

Question

do people think that film productions of books are effective or do they detract from the meaning of the book

Answer 1

I'm not here to debate about which book to movie adaptations are good or bad. Thats not the point. You asked if the movies detract from the meaning of the book. I would have to say yes it does. No matter the quality, good or bad, things are lost or often left out because of: 1. Money issues 2. Time restraints 3. Studios pushing for a lower rating(i.e. PG-13 instead of R) 4. Conflict of 'public interest' (such as cutting out religious elements) Sometimes this ends up being successful on screen because it cuts out some of the fat of a book and creates an entertaining slimlined version. Other times it eliminates important points and details and can lead to confusing elements or cause gaps in the storyline.

I just feel many of the bad adaptations of books are due to studios "copping out" as I like to say. They know a good, popular book would gain fans and interest but they butcher the story to save time, money, and appease all. Then when the movie comes out and it is a disappointment they cant figure out why it wasnt as popular or good as the book.

For instance: Late in 2007(Dec) a movie is coming out called "His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass" (also known as "Northern Lights" in the UK) which is based on the book by the same name(s) by Philip Pullman. This is a teen fantasy book, in the same category as Harry Potter. I bet this movie is going to be cut down compared to the book because it had heavy elements of religion in the book as well as a few scenes that were violent/intense that would not be suitable for a younger audience. So the meaning of the book will be detracted upon by the movie studio to cut out the fat and make it a streamlined version of the book that would be acceptable by all and enjoyed by a wider range of ages.

Studio companies dont care about the integrity of the origional book, they care about the money that the books title may carry with it.

Answer 2

It depends on the book and it is all a matter of opinion. Take, for example, the Lord of the Rings. If you incorporated everything in the book into the movie, each of those movies would be 6 or more hours long. I do think that if you are going to make a movie from a book, you should stick to the storyline of the book. So many times I have been dissapointed because the climax of the movie is different than the book.

There have been some excellent movies from books (LOTR, Conan the Barbarian, the Outsiders, The hunt for Red October). There have been some terrible adaptations (A Clear and Present Danger, That Was Then, This is Now) Again, it all depends on opinion. No two people are going to read a book and get the exact same impression.

Answer 3

There are film adaptations that are good, I.E the Bourne Identity, Pride and Prejudice, Lord of the rings, and then there are those that are Bad, Sin City,The last two Batman movies.
They can detract from the book, but adversely they can also make a shabby book, seem better.
And i don't know about you, but i was never going to read Lord of the rings, so i'm quite happy for the film to be made, and from what i've heard from people who have read the book there are only a couple of scenes that don't make it to the movie. So i'd say they work if the book was good in the first place.

Answer 4

There are very few films made from books that, in my opinion, are better than or equal to, the original book. (In fact, I can't think of any at the moment) I think it's because when you read a book and enjoy it, you create your own pictures in your head and when the film comes along and it doesn't match what's in your head, its a disappointment.

Edit: The Green Mile film was a pretty good version of a book .

Answer 5

Almost without fail,
those books written for their own sake are better as books,
whilst those books written in the cinematic style are better as films.

You know the ones I mean, you read them and think 'this guy has written a script to sell to Hollywood, not a book'.

There are certain films that are good homages to the feelings and style of a certain book, but don't try to faithfully re-create it. These can stand alone as good films, without having to rely on comparison to the book.

Answer 6

if the book was great to start off with, the books are always better. just by default... the film can only be as good as the book unless it adds content i.e. bridget jones' diary or lord of the rings

however if the book sucked then the film can only improve on or expose how poor the book was

Answer 7

That can go both ways.
I Cr 13;8a