You can’t expect a movie to go into greater detail than a book when they are distilling a 300 page book into a 2 hour movie.
I think you could define a book whiner as anyone who complains about the movie being different than the book. If you are someone who will only be happy if the adaption is exactly the same as the book then don’t ever go to a movie based on a book. They have to be different for logistical reasons. They also have to be different because it is someone else bringing their point of view to the source material. Each should be judged on its own merit and not based on how similar they are to each other. If you want something that is exactly like the book, reread the book.
I’ve enjoyed quite a few movies made from books I like. I’m intelligent enough to know that they are different mediums, and that changes have to be made from one to the other.
I do think the preview for this particular film shows that there are major changes that were made. But I’ll bow out of the discussion since I’ve been labeled a whiner.
Well I’m not the one who coined the term nor would I myself use it. But you made my point. It doesn’t matter if they made major changes. Those major changes could be good, bad or indifferent. It is a totally different product that should be judged on its own merits not how it changed the source material. The other path leads to fanboy madness.
You started a thread about the TRAILER to a MOVIE, but the thread itself is about the book. It isn’t about the trailer or the movie. Those of us who haven’t read the book don’t give a shit about your objections because we’ll judge the movie as a movie. Start a thread (or change the name of this one) to something like The Giver: Book vs trailer (spoilers) then we’ll know that it’s a book reader’s thread. I for one would not have opened the thread fearing spoilers. Now I already know too much about the movie. I know a lot more about the book’s readers.
And book reader or not, it’s crazy to judge a movie by its trailer anyway. I prefer to pre-judge (positively) based on the quality of people involved and the basic synopsis, which sounds interesting.
I know nothing about The Giver, book or movie. But I am of the opinion that, if you’re going to adapt a book into a movie, of course you are going to have to make some changes due to the nature of the media. But you should keep to the spirit and the message of the source. If you’re going to “bring [your] point of view to the source material,” then come up with your own title and characters, and leave the original alone.
The original is left alone. Its right there on the bookshelf. Totally unchanged.
I have no problem with going back and criticizing a movie over changes that were made. I will question a director’s choice in changing certain aspects. That can be an interesting topic of discussion. But that is after I judged the movie on its own merits as a stand alone work. I immensely enjoyed the LoTR movies. As I was watching them I did not try to compare them to the books. Afterwards I did scratch my head about some of the choices. But that did not diminish my enjoyment as I was watching them.
This thread made me read The Giver for the first time yesterday, so thank you for posting it. I’ll definitely watch the movie, although I don’t think it could really pull off the magic unless it started in black and white.
Oh I completely agree. I wish a movie studio had the guts to actually do this story right.
What they’re going to do is reject obvious ideas like that in favor of “black and white sucks, only a movie that’s in color will sell commercially”, and from then on, they’ll continue to change and alter the story until it’s a wispy shadow of its formerly glorious self, and it will go in the theaters and it will be a mediocre movie that gets three stars and makes the film makers a small bit of money, and convince themselves they did it right.
Completely missing the opportunity to make a truly spectacular and daring movie, one that has the impact that the story had.
There’s so much they can do with it… they could start off in black and white and occasionally, Jonas could see something in color and not know what it is or why. And they could not depict the color as a color, they could distort it somehow so the audience knows there’s something unusual about what Jonas is seeing, but they don’t immediately make the connection that it is a color. We would know, having seen in color all our lives, but not the protagonist. Perhaps only later on when the Giver explains colors would we see it in color and recognize it.
They could really approach this in a way that takes you through Jonas’ actual journey, not start the movie off in color and with an ordinary looking society. I mean if you’re going to do that, you’re not letting the audience feel the total stranglehold over the human mind this society imposes. You’re just putting someone in a normal community and telling the audience that it’s oppressive.
Show me, don’t tell me. Isn’t that the mark of a good story?
Rather than informing the audience of the horror of this world, why not let them actually experience it.
That’s the point of a movie, it’s supposed to be an experience. Bring me along on Jonas’ journey, and your movie will be the next Avatar.
Fail to do so, and your movie will be the next Paul Blart Mall Cop.
She actually didn’t want to write any sequels at all but she admits she bowed into the pressure of so many fan letters containing the question “What happens to Jonas and Gabe?” But she always believed they survived.
I’d never heard of it and I was curious. Wretched? Is it the new Adam Sandler crapfest? Is it a new comedy with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson? Is it a stupid romantic comedy with Reese Witherspoon? A wretched action movie by McG? A god knows what by Uwe Boll? I had to find out. No no, it’s an interesting-sounding, original concept, directed by a filmmaker I really like (and have met), with an intriguing cast, that’s being shit on by book whiners who would no doubt prefer the above movies because at least their precious book isn’t being messed with and there’s no danger of the unwashed masses discovering the book.
I never even heard of the book. I guess I’m not in the target demographic. But the movie looks intriguing if only because of those involved in making it, producers down to the actors.
I wasn’t going to post again but I can’t believe how I’m being insulted just because I think the preview makes the movie appear to be a bad adaptation. Sure I’m judging by small evidence but so are you guys who are judging by the cast etc.
I’m not a “book whiner” & to assume I like Adam Sandler, etc, Equipoise, just because I hated this preview is obnoxious.
by the way I’d love for everyone to read this short book. It’s good.
The Giver was the first book I read that had an ambiguous ending…and I guess it was my first “young adult” novel too. I’m going to stay away from the trailer and the movie though; from the description, I don’t think they’ve grasped the atmosphere of the book.
I’m not someone who reads a ton of books for entertainment, most of the books I read are non-fiction or reference, I tend to get my entertainment reading online, but The Giver is a book that I actually enjoyed in a long line of books I did not.
Not judging the movie by its cast and crew, just more willing to give a movie made by quality people a chance. That’s no guarantee it will be good. Talented people have been attached to crap before.
Otherwise, yeah someone is going way overboard in this thread and it’s not you.
I think your point is a good one: a movie can be good AND be a bad adaptation. The movie can be judged on both those elements- one can recognize a good movie, but be disappointed that the adaptation was lacking. For some, that will even diminish the movie, if what they wanted to see was the adaptation come to life.
I just read this book for the first time tonight. So um I’m pretty sure the giver intentionally sent Jonas to his death.. Is this how many or any others read it?
[spoiler]I read it as the giver intentionally forcing the situation to be one where there are no successors to him, not as a doomed mission, necessarily.
Meaning, once there are no more Receivers, the rest of society will be forced to experience emotion and think freely for themselves.[/spoiler]