Why don't Movies live up to the glory of the books they were inspired from?

Question

I've read quite a number of books, some of which have been made into movies. Movies that do not live up to the expectations, not of the reader, but of the book.

It is not the reader that we should be cocerned about, but the book.

The life that the book holds, has been put into a 9mm film that does not do the book justice, rendering it a mediocre attempt at bringing the work to life. Where does all the grace and glory that was in the book go, when it's made into a movie?

People! I mentioned, that the movie need not live up to the Reader's expectations... i humbly ask only to live up to the expectation of the book.

If the book had life instilled in it... it would most definately spit out fire and burn the celluliod which attempted to bring life to the work so gloriously written.

Answer 1

Books are the writer's point of view. Thats original and new. But the movies are the director's point of view. Thats second hand. So when you read a book you deal with first hand creative which is more inspiring. But the movie is often disappointing because that is not often what the writer wants to convey. It is this difference in point of view which decreaese the quality of the movie.

TW K

Answer 2

Books and movies involve various elements and you will rarely find any movie to be as good as the book from which it has been inspired. The reason is not far to seek and understand. The author of the book is like the real mother of the child (book), the director of the movie becomes akin to a foster mother now the passion with which a story is told by the writer can seldom be found in the way that a movie director interprets it on the celluloid. As far as the readers are concerned each reader will get personally invloved in the characters and story of a gripping novel and would make a mental movie of the book and that mental vision that is entirely to the whims and fancies of the reader shall never be found to be doing absolute justice to the the interpretation as presented by the movie director. There shall always be a gap that is very difficult to bridge. Thus making movies out of classic novels is a very risky business. See how the gripping novel, 'Da Vinci Code' has fallen flat as a movie and has gone on to become one of the highest best selling novels of all times.

Answer 3

You got a bunch of great answers here.
I will just add one footnote:
There are a few films that are actually better than the books.

I have read five or six books by Michael Crichton, and I think they would all make better screenplays than novels.
His books that have become movies were always better on the screen than on paper.
Sorry Michael.

Also, some of the classics that were written over a hundred years ago do well as films, because writers back then favored an omniscient POV that is a bit off-putting for modern readers, but translates well into film.

Answer 4

The grace and glory of the book has to do with the artistry of the writing. The way the author puts words together to create scenes and imagery is lost in a realistic depiction. Often, images, scenes, and events in a book all work together to create a certain effect that the author wants, and the only way that the effect can translate is if the director fully understands it and is enough of an artist to recreate it on screen.

I had an English teacher once tell me that the great books only make good movies, but that good books made great movies. I've found that to be mostly true.

Answer 5

The book has a lot of freedom, which a good author uses to full advantage, in presenting pictures, characters and events that create deep perceptions in you, the reader, to suit your perspective and analytical skills when you read and get intimately associated with those pictures, characters and events! The screen has limitations of not only space and time, but of the characters presented through actors and actresses, whom you tend to look at with some pre-conceived opinions and images, thanks to your familiarity -, as a cinema fan, - with those faces that you know already! Thus, Tom Cruise, or Lee, or Khan (any Khan!), or Jollie, or Paris, or Shetty, or Padukone, or Gopika, or anyone in that galaxy, has a 'value' for you already -- which is not the case when you read a book, well written! It would certainly take a mighty good effort and great skills of direction and acting and screen scripting, to produce an equally good film from a good book! For that matter, the abridged versions of some books are an injustice to the parent version! So also the celluloid attempts!

Answer 6

I'd say it mostly has to do with details and people's attention spans. There's way more details in books than in movies. And if the movie people tried to make a full-out adaptation of most books currently published, at least the big-kid books, then the movies would be running AT LEAST 3 hours. I'm sure you heard people complaining about the length of the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

There's also the issue of casting. There's plenty of good, decent and great actors out there, but the casting directors don't always get the right person to play characters. See Steve Zahn in the movie Sahara. I've read most of Cussler's books, and while Mr. Zahn is a good actor, he is NOT who I personally would have cast as Al Giordino.

Answer 7

The main point, I think, is that film can't, or has a very difficult time, convey (ing) the internal drama characters go through that readers can enjoy through the book.

Other times the author's (and by extension the reader's) vision in the book isn't effectively brought out in the film or else is interpreted differently by the film-makers. The worst example of this is Battlefield Earth, talk about bastardization!

Also, the best visual effects lab/engine/program/media is still the human brain.

Answer 8

I'd say the big reasons are:
1) The movie needs a quicker pace, so things are cut, and emphasis is placed on dialogue or action since that's what translates to movies well. Internal thoughts and motives of the characters are forced to be visually shown somehow if they are in a movie.
2) If you are reading the book, you will supply all the visuals specifically tailored to your experience and taste - in a movie it's done for you. For example if there's a robot in a book, you can come up with 50 billion ways he could look, but in a movie it can only be what shows up on the screen.

Answer 9

I often feel sad when a book is made into a film, for the very reason you have given. I hate it when a book is reissued with a cover showing a scene from the film. But, just occasionally a not very good book is better as a film. For example, I would place Atonement and Notes of a Scandal in that category.

Answer 10

Think about how long it takes for you to finish a book. If you're really into it it may take 6-10 hours. If you're an average reader it may take a couple of days to a week.
How can you fit all that experience into a two to three hour film? Its impossible.Things will be missing from the plot, the story and the film suffers.