The current thread about World War Z inspired this one. I didn’t comment in that thread because I haven’t read the book and thus had nothing useful to contribute, but the discussion brings up something that puzzles me. I do not understand why people so desperately want to see novels they love made into movies.
Now please don’t misunderstand me. I do not intend to mock movies as a genre, or even any particular motion picture adaptation or adapter in this thread. But the desire many fans have to see their favorite novels and short stories – hell, even comic books – made into movies mystifies me. Partly it’s because movie is not the superlative of book. Partly it’s because the things I love about books do not make for good movies. Take, for instance, the adaptations of the Chronicles of Narnia. Three have been made, I believe, of which I’ve seen only the second (and that one because I was dragged to it). I found it boring, which is not to say that the changes the director made were ill-thought but simply because the [del]best parts of that book[/del] the parts of that book which I most enjoy (and other books I love) simply are not cinematic. I like prose because of the beauty of language (not simply dialogue), because of internal dialogues, because I find the effort of visualizing an author’s descriptions takes me into a story and character far more than movies ever do.
Am I alone here?
Can someone who is always keen to see a favorite novel made into a movie explain why such is desirable?
There’s just something exciting about seeing the people and the worlds you love portrayed in a kind of larger than life medium. And sometimes - sometimes - they actually make it better than you could have imagined.
Film is a totally different and very beautiful medium. I am a word person primarily, but seeing Greer Garson bring Elizabeth Bennet to life sold me on movie adaptations.
And I cannot think of a less faithful adaptation - they just cut two sisters completely.
Okay, I shouldn’t joke. I read the all of Horatio Hornblower after seeing the series with Ioan Gruffudd. Cured me of ever saying ‘the book is always better than the movie,’
Right, they’re different mediums. Each can bring something different to the initial story. Or spin the initial story into a cousin, related to the original but not entirely the same.
I mostly like books better than movies, but in LOTR 3, the visual of seeing the summoning bonfires spread across the mountain was pretty impressive, I must say.
I think the best movie adaptations are the ones that have the freedom to mess with genre conventions. Scott Pilgrim was an excellent comic book adaptation BECAUSE it was allowed to act like it was a video game version of Toronto, and because of this it could clash with established conventions. The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was an excellent adaptation choice because the plot of the Light Novel was so out there, the anime could get as out there as it wanted, especially with genre conventions, and still be good.
I think adaptations are also often good if they’re loose. Howl’s Moving Castle is very, very different from the book, but it’s a good movie in its own right. However, it’s similar enough that it needed to be called an adaptation. A lot of people complain that they “ruined” it, when they simply altered it to be more cinema friendly. Straight adaptations rarely work, and fans/authors need to accept that things (sometimes major things) need to be changed to make it work, and fans need to not demand scene-by-scene adaptations. It works on the odd occasion, but I think most of the “poor” adaptations come from the scene-by-scene do it EXACTLY or it’s ruined FOREVER mentality.
I like to see the emotional cadence or the situations unfold in real time. As fast as you can read, no matter of pacing can QUIIIITE replicate how it would look in real life. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy literature, it’s just a different way to express the plot. And like I said, you have to accept that if it’s good, it needs to have a differing focus (say, visuals instead of prose).
Same reason (to invert the question in the OP) that I read the first few comics of *Buffy *Season 8, even though I can’t get into the comic media. Heck, I’ll admit it; I’ve even read a couple of the *Buffy *novels. I missed my “friends” and was excited to see them anew, even though it wasn’t the best way (IMHO) to do it.
There have been movies that were good adaptations of their source book: Scott Pilgrim vs The World, True Grit, and The Lord of the Rings for example. There have also been movies that were poor adaptations of their source books but were good movies nonetheless: Dr Strangelove, The Godfather, and The Iron Giant for example.
As an aside, Skald, Prince Caspian was the weakest of the Narnia movies thus far. But then, I think you’d probably agree that it was one of the weaker of the books, too.
Because we hope that a good book will be used to make a good movie. Then we have a good book and a good movie. And if it doesn’t work out and the filmmakers screw it up, we still have the good book. Plus the author of the good book made some extra money from the movie rights.
This is pretty much my feeling. Also, even a half-decent movie can improve my appreciation of the book series, if the casting is good.
Ever since seeing the ‘Wrinkle in Time’ adaptation in Toronto, when I read the Time Trilogy books, Meg is played by Katie Stuart, and Calvin by Gregory Smith. (I wasn’t so impressed with the little boy they got to play Charles Wallace.)
I have a crap visual imagination. Often when I see the movie of a book, I’m thinking…oh, that’s what they meant.
I don’t necessarily want my favorite books made into movies. Usually what makes books my favorites is untranslatable to film.
Bridget Jones’s Diary is a wonderful book especially because of the diary format. The log of pounds, cigarettes, drinks at the beginning of each entry, the lack of personal pronouns, the way the mood changed markedly with entry, the space between the dates…humor expressed by every detail. These particular things could not be imitated by movie…
but I loved the movie of Bridget Jones Diary. It gave me things the book did not, especially the casting of Colin Firth, who was mentioned frequently as himself in the book. Very meta.
I love books and I love movies. I often love it when the two come together. And it’s not exactly like Hollywood is brimming with new ideas. I’m happy for them to enrich authors.
Quite generally, I don’t want books to become movies. I want certain books to possibly become movies if they can capture the magic and spirit of the source material.
Harry Potter = Yep, they got the vibe for the most part.
Lord of the Rings = Oh, yes, they got the vibe. Again, for the most part.
Most books I read I don’t want to see in movie form. I don’t want to see a Mistborn movie series, really.
I’d say it is the best movie, but the 2nd worst book(Last Battle is not great).
*I *don’t. I have refused to see the recent-ish film version of Waugh’s Vile Bodies, because it is perhaps my favorite novel and any film version–however good–would fall flat to me.
Well, I want some reading material to be adapted for movies/TV because I really like the concept and characters and want to share that enjoyment with a broader audience (For example, I would love a good Showtime or HBO series based on the Transmetropolitan or Preacher books, and I myself would not likely have ever managed to wade through the thick LOTR series of books, so I am grateful to have the excellent movies) and sometimes it’s just because the visuals would make for great eye candy (Jurassic Park being the first one to spring to mind).
.But here are the exceptions I think of off the top of my head:
Blade Runner (which is more of a movie based on ideas from the original story)
The Godfather
Bridges Of Madison County (not a great movie, but much better than I expected. Probably because so much of the original book was trimmed and watered down.)