Your Favorite Book, Now a Movie

There is an article in the Guardian (a UK publication) about how slighted people can feel when they've taken the time (a few days or weeks, perhaps) to read a book while others sit in front of the movie for 2 hours. It detests how people think that after watching the movie they are an expert.

Here's the article:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/08/cinema_stole_my_favourite_book.html

I was wondering what everyone's take on that is.

Personally, it doesn't bother me greatly even if they butcher a movie according to the book. Partially, because I know how much better the book was (and how it really happened.) But, I also find it a good jumping off point for others that aren't big readers.

I managed to get a number of people to read I Am Legend by Richard Matheson by raving about how much better and different the book was. My copy is falling apart because I've loaned it out so many times. There were people that read the book because they liked the movie and could only imagine how much better the book was.

Occasionally I'll watch a movie first. If I absolutely hated it, odds are good I won't read the book. But...if there was a glimmer of interest I'd pick up the novel.

Then again there are some movies I don't look forward to, such as Twilight because I'm just too afraid of what they're doing to Stephenie Meyer's books.

Just a thought...

I generally avoid film adaptations of books I've really enjoyed because I know the movie won't do it justice, and I'll just sit there stewing for two hours.

I made exceptions for the Lord of the Rings movies and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, and I was rather pleased.

The irony lies in that I occasionally enjoy movies based on books I would never read. It's a complicated matter.

I too will watch movies knowing they are based on books I would never read. As well, I will not watch certain movies until I have read the book because I know the movie will put images of the characters and setting in my head that may be better imagined while reading. Like IT by Stephen King. I've had the movie for a while but refuse to watch it until I read the novel.

When my daughter wanted to see the first Harry Potter movie (she was 8 at the time), I read the book out loud to her before I'd let her see it. We loved the book. We also loved the movie. They were related but different. Afterward, we had a great discussion of how they were the same and how they were different - it was amazing how much detail she remembered from the book and was able to compare to the movie.

Books always come first in our house.

I saw HP first. In fact, with as hard as it still is for me to read the part at the Dursley's in the first book, if I hadn't seen the movie I never would have trudged through the first few chapters. And that is a sad thought indeed!

I've always loved doing the compare a book to the movie book report and any book report I was allowed to design myself would follow that recipe.

I can think of a couple of movies that did justice to the book.
East of Eden, the movie, with James Dean, Raymond Massey and Julie Harris.
Mystic River with Sean Penn starring.
Both, I felt, were good adaptations of the books and I'm sure there are many more that should not be dismissed out of hand.

karenmarie: Thanks for reminding me of Harry Potter--those movies are also an exception to my rule.

House of Sand and Fog was a book I didn't like, then Mr, Man Netflixed the movie and it was good. Well, better than the book was to me.

Generally speaking, I go to the movies to see a movie and not have someone read me the book. It's why I leave with met or unmet expectations based on the movie, not the book. High Fidelity was another case of an excellent movie based on a pretty good book. The top-ten lists wore me down in the book and I loved them when it was John Cusack delivering them to me in the movie. Then again, John Cusack can deliver anything he wants to me and I will giggle and squirm like a little kid.

Sometimes I find if I see the movie first, I like it better than the book. This happened for both Ella Enchanted and Stardust. But most of the time I like the book better than the movie.

I'm very back and forth on the whole "Twilight as a movie" thing. I love the book but never thought it was a story that would translate well to screen. That being said I do plan on going to see the movie on opening day.

I am not much of a moviegoer or movie renter. While the two media are so often interdependent, I prefer not to co-mingle them.

House of Sand and Fog was highly touted as a movie, I saw it and loved it. Never read the book and have no desire to--as the movie told the story to me perfectly. Thanks for confirming my decision, richardderus.

I usually try to read the book before I see the film, although I don't always manage it.

Film adaptations is a constant bone of contention between me and my other half. He feels it's perfectly acceptable for a director to rework a novel for reasons other than the practicalities of transferring a story between two media. As far as he's concerned, if the director wants to tell the same story in a different way, that's fine.

Personally, I think the author wrote the story the way they did for a reason, and if the director wants to change it for any other reason than absolute necessity, they have no right to give the film the same title as the book. By all means let directors be creative, but let them be creative with new stories, not ones that have already been told.

What bugs me most of all is when films give characters different personality traits from the book. Notable examples would be Faramir in The Two Towers and Peter in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Just to end on a positive note, two film adaptations I did like were Girl with a Pearl Earring and Memoirs of a Geisha, both of which stuck pretty well to the plot and did an ace job of recreating the atmosphere of the novel.

EDIT: Oh yes, and I thought Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix worked better as a film than a book - having to keep it down to about two hours made it much tighter and slicker.

Very interesting...

House of Sand and Fog made a MUCH better movie than book, imho. I struggled to get through the book, but the movie put it so plainly that it was much easier to digest.

#11 I agree with the decided difference in character for Faramir in Two Towers. That was one of the things I had a big problem with in the movie. Likewise, how Boromir was treated at times. Or the creation of quotable movie lines, such as "Let's hunt some Orc" from the end of Fellowship of the Ring. Uncalled for (although, amusing, none the less.)

As for Order of the Phoenix I detested what they did to the book. I still want to see jelly brains attacking Ron! ...among other things... Things were described to such an extent in the book it is hard for me when it doesn't match when the movie comes out. (I, likewise, felt that Goblet of Fire was a poor representation of the book.)

I suppose that I find vague books to make a better movie than those that are very detailed and intricate. But that is similar to my feel for musicals, as well.

Jekyll and Hyde has been that way for me. (I thought the book was truly horrible, yet the concept always intrigued me.) Dracula has also been vague enough for me to accept the many versions of it that are available.

Quite frankly, I think feeling slighted is a bit of an overreaction. I don't usually avoid films that are based on books, and many times, I can enjoy both the movie and the book, even though the book is usually better. And there are a few cases where the movie is just as good, if not better, than the book itself. Atonement and the Lord of the Rings saga are a couple examples. (I know the LotR books are absolute classics, but I've never been able to enjoy the books...I'm not a big fan of Tolkien's writing style.)

And then you have cases like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I enjoyed the movie, but I felt like they cut out WAY too much at the end, in terms of Dumbledore's explanation where he explains the prophecy. I know you can't include EVERYTHING, but it just seems like that was a little too important to cut out almost completely. On the same token, I'm a little afraid of how they're going to do the next two Harry Potter movies (three movies if you're being nitpicky) because of the alterations that they've made in the previous films. And it seems to me that the focus in the Half Blood Prince is going to be on the many love triangles, instead of the memories and the Horcruxes. Granted, the flashbacks present filming issues, and I understand they have to cut back, but in one article, it sounded like they were going to replace the missing memories with flirting and love triangles.

And there is my rant on the Harry Potter movies...sorry that I sound so negative...I really DO enjoy the HP films! I'm just getting a little nervous about the upcoming ones!

I'm not much of a movie watcher, but to tell you the truth most of my favorite movies are based on books I like better. I try not to feel upset when the movie is different from the book because I know going into a movie that something has to be taken out to make it fit in an hour and a half to two hours. Also, a visual format is just different from the printed word and certain things that work in books -- like flashbacks, to use coloradogirl's example -- just don't translate well on the screen.

Keeping this in mind helps me, um, swallow directors' choices even though I usually prefer the book (Fried Green Tomatoes being one of the few exceptions). What I mainly want to see is that a director retained the general thrust of the book. So I really loved The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe on film even though some scenes -- like the wolf chase -- never happened, because I felt it still stayed true to the book and even made some of the duller parts of the book a little more exciting (I mean, can you really imagine a half hour of the children and beavers walking, then a switch to Edmund and the White Witch on the sledge?). But Faramir's complete character switch as #11 and 12 point out, really annoyed me.

Regarding the article, however, I don't think that I feel "slighted" because I worked harder for the story than anyone who just watched the movie. Generally, I feel like I have a deeper understanding of the story (especially when important details that come up later than a series are left out...). Plus, there are a lot of people who are curious to read a book just knowing it's going to be made into a movie, so it can drum up interest that wouldn't have been there otherwise and I can't help but think that's a good thing.

If I've seen a movie based on a book I have to wait quite a while until I can read the book- I have to forget enough of the movie for the book to be a new experience.
When I read a book I like that I know has been made into a movie, I have to see it. Even though I am often disappointed, I still can't resist. It's my way of staying in that world. I also have an immense desire to see what I've been imagining. Though many movies fall short due to the difference of format and time, there have been some that have met my expectations- Pride and Prejudice (the 6 hour BBC version, not that Keira Knightly crap), Daniel Deronda (again a BBC production), and Everything Is Illuminated were all what I was hoping for.

#14 > bell7

I have to disagree with you (politely, I hope!) about the film of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It seemed to me that they completely changed the character of Peter. In the book, his immediate reaction when they heard that Mr. Tumnus had been arrested was to say 'He saved my sister's life, we have to try and help him.' Suddenly, in the film, he's saying things like 'This isn't our war, we just want to get back home.'

I suspect the directors wanted to make him closer to the experience of the children who'd be watching - modern heroes all seem to go through the denial phase before they get on with the job in hand, and perhaps it was felt that the audience would think it strange if Peter didn't do the same. But it really irritated me - he was supposed to be a child of the 1940s, where the 'not my war' ethos simply didn't exist, so why set the film in the right time and then characterise one of the main roles anachronistically?

The other thing that annoyed me was the dialogue, for the same reason. In the novel, the children talk the way schoolchildren did in the 40s, lots of 'by Jove!' and 'I say!' So it irritated me that the dialogue in the film was very modern - yes, it's closer to the experience of the children watching it, but would it really hurt them so much to be made aware that children 60 years ago talked differently?

Although the film had a lot of great aspects, these things rather spoiled it for me.

Good points, indeed.

I'm at issue right now with the book A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray because, while it is set in 19th Century England, many of the phrases and language used comes from more recent times. With the target audience I can understand that, but I don't have to like it. (It's easy to get over and otherwise the book is wonderful!)

>16 Eruntane: Eruntane, you're right about Peter's character changing a lot. I forgot about that, though now that you remind me it definitely irritated me. That happened in Prince Caspian too; for example, in the book Peter said to Caspian, "We're not here to take your place but to put you in it," and in the movie they had a bit of a rivalry going on. The dialogue change didn't bother me as much, probably because even reading it as a little kid it sounded odd to my ear.

The only adaptation for me that stayed true to the book was If tomorrow comes by Sidney Sheldon but I haven't read the book or seen the movie since I was like ten..or is it thirteen, so I don't know.

Everything else...The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe and others I can't readily call to mind seriously disappointed me. Oh, Beouwulf was the most offensive. I felt personally slighted.

That Kiera Knightly crap, i liked. It has inspired me to go and get that Jane Austen book set. I try to avoid HP anyting, but my BFF is reading the books, and my siblings keep buying the movies.

There are lots of movies from books that I don't like and a few that are decent, but the worst one for me has to be the movie version of Queen of the Damned. I honestly don't understand how Anne Rice let them do that to her book.

I'm not even a big fan of hers, but Queen of the Damned is by far my favorite book of the Vampire Chronicles. In fact, even thinking about the movie makes me cringe, it was just so..well wrong! Basic information about the characters was off, information about Lestat's background was wrong, and major sections of the plot were totally cut out - it fact its so different that they really should have just called the movie something else entirely and maybe mentioned that it was "loosely based on.."

Incidentally, I liked the Kiera Knightly version of P and P also, but I like the British version too.

>19 Timi:: Timi, I thought Beouwulf was not only disappointing, it was completely rubbish. Made me wonder if the producers and writers had really read it at all or if they had just read the CliffsNotes .....while drunk.

I thought the movie of Cider House Rules was one of the worst book-to-film movies ever made. It was almost a different story altogether. I was so annoyed that I was apparently muttering under my breath during the movie each time a particular scene deviated from what was written in the book and my husband had to tap my knee periodically to get me to stop.

The majority of the time, movies based on books, in my opinion, are simply not as good. On rare occasions, they are both excellent versions of the same story, like my fave book and movie A Clockwork Orange. I read that one first in high school, then saw the movie. Both were brilliant versions of the same story and the movie added things that the book couldn't, like the soundtrack.

If I find a book to be just okay, then I don't have any qualms about seeing the movie. Someone above mentioned High Fidelity. I totally agree that the movie was a really good version of it. I didn't see how it could be Americanized, as I am a fan of many things British and wondered why they would want to base it anywhere other than London, but John Cusack was great in it.

On the other hand, if I love a book, then I am very reluctant about the movie version. I am experiencing this now with The Time Traveler's Wife which I read and reread a number of times now. The book was so detailed and rich and spanned a lifetime, I don't see how they could condense it into a 2-hr film. I knew it was inevitable that it would get a movie deal and am so grateful that Jennifer Aniston didn't end up being involved or playing the lead(she & Brad Pitt originally bought the rights). That would have instantaneously made it horrible. But I am still interested in seeing what they do with it. And at least I like the actress playing the lead (Rachel McAdams).

My husband read American Psycho last week and wanted to see what the movie adaptation was like, so we rented it last night. I haven't read the book, and I thought it was a pretty good movie--freaky and well-acted and definitely would have been very edgy back when it first came out.

My hubby enjoyed it as well but noticed that they left out or changed a lot of the details that made the book so disturbing. He figures that if the movie were to be made now, they'd leave most of it in, but movies were a little cleaner 11 years ago, so oh well.

Has anyone else read & seen American Psych?

It depends for me on how good a job they do and how faithfully they stick to the book.

We recently watched 1408 and I was really disappointed. I know they had to make a full length film from a short story but they ruined it. It was a very creepy story and a very dull film. They should have stuck to the original plot.

But, they cut a lot out of Lord of the Rings and I was glad because they cut Tom Bombadil and I hated him in the books.

So it's not what they cut or keep that really upsets me but what they change that makes or breaks a film of the book for me.

I agree with framboise too, it also depends on who they have staring in the film. Sometimes an actor just doesn't look 'right' to me to play my favourite characters.

#21 - Cameling

Beouwulf sucked big time! I didn't even watch it except for a few scenes here and there but then again I didn't even like the original poem. I think I slept in class when it was assigned.

#23 bnbooklady

I've read and seen American Psycho, and I have to say that American Psycho is one of the only books that I ever had to put down because it was so thoroughly disgusting. Now, that's not to say that I disliked the book, or was offended by it in any way...when I tried reading it a few years ago, it was simply too much violence and sex for me to handle. I finally finished the book this summer, and a part of me is glad that they cut some of those scenes out for the movie...it might have been too much for me to handle. As it is, however, American Psycho is one of my all time favorite movies...dark humor at its very darkest! I think the movie embodied the narcissism and the disturbing nature of the novel quite well without getting caught up in the minor details that make up a large part of the book.

I thought All the Pretty Horses with Matt Damon made a surprisingly good movie out of a literary book.

And for pulp fiction -- gotta go with Mystic River or maybe The Shining.

For classics -- I love, love BBC's Middlemarch series.

Fairly disappointed by the recent The Other Boleyn Girl, The Kite Runner. Although Atonement was pretty good.

I try to keep books and movies separate, but when I know I'll be exposed to both versions, I try to read the book first.

My husband has an interesting (to me, at least) habit. Whenever we see a movie that he really enjoys, he always checks to see if it was adapted from a book, then tries to get ahold of the book as soon as possible.

coloradogirl: my husband said it was hands-down the most disturbing book he had ever read because it was so realistically horrific. He can handle that kind of stuff, but he kept having to put it down and walk away. On principle, I usually prefer for movie versions to be faithful to the book, but he filled in the blanks for me as we watched it, and I, too, am glad they left some things out.

I did think that The Lord of the Rings was pretty well done. The movies were close enough to the books to be credible although Froddo Baggins didn't look anything like what I had in my mind when I first read them but I thought they had Gollum down pat. I have to give them credit for finding the perfect location for the shoot and for their attention to detail.

I also thought Pride and Prejudice were good movies although I preferred the Keira Knightly/Colin Firth version to the one before that. I can't remember the name of the actor, but I thought he didn't make a good Mr Darcy.

Keira Knightly and Colin Firth didn't star together. She was in the 2005 (?) film and he was in the 1992 (?) BBC adaptation which, if I may be permitted my tuppence ha'porth, was so much better.

I agree - the BBC caught lightning in a bottle with Colin Firth and the wonderful Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth.

I completely agree about the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice. As one of my all time favorite books, I was a little hesistant to see it but I fell in love with Mr. Darcy all over again. Colin Firth was excellent!

As for other movies based on books, I try to read first then watch. There have been a few that I enjoyed without reading ahead. Mostly the romantic comedies are worth the watch without reading first. Must Love Dogs and P.S. I Love You are two that come to mind.

The book is almost always better than the movie, isn't it? But occasionally a movie captures the essence of the book. The BBC's Pride and Prejudice did that and I would add the movie versions of To Kill a Mockingbird and maybe the BBC's latest version of Jane Eyre. Harlan's Coban's Tell No One got a wonderful interpretation this summer with Ne Le Dis A Personne from France. My husband is not subtitle kind of guy, but he loved it.

Since we are in the topic of movies adapted from books, below is the list of books that will be shown as movies on the fall of 2008 in the U.S.

On the right side is the date of the release of the movies in theaters in the U.S.

____________________________________________________________

Hallam Foe - Peter Jinks 2008SEP05
Un Secret - Philippe Grimbert 2008SEP10
Towelhead - Alicia Erian 2008SEP12
Appaloosa - Robert Parker 2008SEP19
Elite da Tropa - Rodrigo Pimentel 2008SEP19
Georgiana: Dutchess of Devonshire - Amanda Foreman 2008SEP19
Blindness - Jose Saramago 2008SEP26
Choke - Chuck Palahniuk 2008SEP26
Miracle at St. Anna - James McBride 2008SEP26
Nights in Rodanthe - Nicholas Sparks 2008SEP26
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People - Toby Young 2008OCT03
Nick & Nora's Infinite Playlist - Rachel Cohn, David Levithan 2008OCT03
What Just Happened - Art Linson 2008OCT03
Body of Lies - David Ignatius 2008OCT10
City of Ember - Jeanne DuPrauv 2008OCT10
Ernie Davis: The Elmira Express - Robert C. Gallagher 2008OCT10
All the Way - Andy Behrens 2008OCT17
The Secret Life of Bees - Sue Monk Kidd 2008OCT17
Lat Den Ratte Komma In - John Ajvide Lindqvist 2008OCT24
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas - John Boyne 2008NOV07
House - Ted Dekker 2008NOV14
The Road - Cormac Mc Carthy 2008NOV14
Twilight - Stephenie Meyer 2008NOV21
Awful Ends - Philip Ardagh 2008NOV26
Defiance: The Bielski Partisans - Nechama Tec 2008DEC12
The Class - François Bégaudeau 2008DEC12
The Tale of Desperaux - Kate DiCamillo 2008DEC19
Yes Man - Danny Wallace 2008DEC19
Marley and Me - John Grogan 2008DEC25
Coraline - Neil Gaiman 2008DEC26
Revolutionary Road - Richard Yates 2008DEC26

___________________________________________________________

I hope you include these in your "next to read" lists.

Well I remember Colin Firth as Darcy ... hmm... I thought Elizabeth was played by Keira Knightley. Oh well ... I do have a terrible memory for actors and actresses in movies most of the time.

I did like the movie adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird too. There was only 1 screen version, right? The one I'm referring to is the Gregory Peck black and white version.

The Gregory Peck one, yes. To the best of my knowledge that's the only adaptation. I think it was so well done because Pulitzer Prize winning playwright and Academy Award winning screenwriter (for To Kill a Mockingbird and Tender Mercies) Horton Foote adapted the novel. His work, coupled with an exceptional score by Elmer Bernstein, captured the book so beautifully. It's one of my favorite movies, can you tell?

#35 I went through your list and I've read Nights in Rodanthe and House... I look forward to Nights, I loooooooove Nicholas Sparks, I thought the movie version of Message in a Bottle didn't stay true to the story, but they came pretty close. Ted Dekker, I don't know. I thought the book had holes, let's see if the movie helps.

I'll definately be using your list. Thanks!

For Dean Koontz fans, Odd Thomas will be coming in movie form, but not this year. A release date had not been made.

#34 - I had forgotten about the BBC's new Jane Eyre - that really was excellent.

Am I just imagining it or did I hear also that The Time Traveller's Wife was also going to be out as a movie.

I can go both ways on books-to-movies. If it weren't for the movie version of Trainspotting, I never would have read Irvine Welsh so obsessively in college. And the same goes for Fight Club, American Psycho and A Clockwork Orange. I can appreciate the books and movies on their own, but that could just be because the adaptations were so good. Had I seen The Golden Compass, I NEVER would have read it.

There are some books I love so much, the movie adaptations almost offend me-like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Others I like the changes in because I know the author wouldn't have minded (though having "So long, and thanks for all the fish" stuck in ones head at work can be annoying). I do feel sorry for graphic novel fans when it comes to this, though. In a novel, you create the visuals completely, so when the artistic director messes everything up, you can at least say "He just didn't see it the same way I did." When you foul up a graphic novels look and feel, what's the excuse then? Oh, and there's no excusing what they did to V for Vendetta.

Pride and Prejudice...both adaptions, well, I didn't think the acting for the first one was very good but I did love the movie...and the second one was just beautiful.

And The Princess Bride.

Forever.