Novelisations and movies based on books

Chrisse · 06-15-2005, 05:54 PM

This is basically a thread for discussing novelisations and movies based on books in general. The pros the cons the doubt, post it all here.

I think I'll start. I have multiple times tried to watch a movie based on a book i had read/ was reading. Mainly it was the Harry Potter books, who I've now lost interest in the movie versions of, for no real reason other than lack of time. I still however have the books, who I enjoy reading a little in once in a while. I wouldn't really say that this is a victory for the books over the movies, seeing as how I only own the books because I got them as presents.

Tom Clancy is a more mixed story. My dad bought The Hunt for Red October on DVD, but we never really got around to watch it, so I deciede to try and read the book, which I almost choked in because of the highly technical nature of the writing style. So I decided to watch the movie, and that actually made understanding the book much easier, even though the movie is very simplified and leaves out a lot.

All in all I think the movie beats the book here, and I doubt the book would have had that much succes if Ronald Reagan had not named it one of his favorites. But then again, if it had flopped, we would not have had the exciting sequels and prequels.

Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger I watched in that order, because I had more or less given up on the books. However the movies tickled my interest enough to make me buy and read both books. I think they do a very good job of saying with many chapters what the movie says with a few pictures and sounds, but that is not meant negatively, I liked them very much as these particuler movies were made in such a way they don't really feel like a movie series per se, and as usch seem more independent as opposed to the books, where you feel like part of a special circle when they refer to each other in subtle ways that you might easily miss otherwise.

I am currently reading The Sum of All Fears (which has been oddly translated into something that means The Price of All Terror) and I have promised myself that I not see the movie before I have read the book, as I have heard that the movie is very different from the book.

Well, I've talked enough for now. Let me hear your thoughts.

Slanter · 06-26-2005, 06:19 PM

I'm going with the big. My wife gave me a one-volume edition of the LOTR trilogy for Xmas of 2000. She knew I always wanted to read it and I was very pleased to finally own it. Around that same time I learned they were shooting all three movies back-to-back. This heightened my interest in reading it. So I started The Fellowship of the Ring in March of 2001. To be honest, I found it tough to get into. I wasn't used to Tolkien's writing style. I didn't have much time to read it at all since this was the year I got married, had our first child, and changed careers. (complicated year) I probably would've enjoyed the book at a different time in my life, but it just happened to collide with giant events in my life. Oh, and I took a break from Fellowship to read the first four Harry Potter books too.

Anyway, I finished Fellowship in November and jumped into Two Towers immediately. I was half-way through it when we saw Fellowship the movie. I thought and still think it’s the best adapted screenplay from a novel ever done period. Absolute brilliance.

I remember at the end when Boromir is fighting all those Orcs and my wife whispers, "does he die?” And I shook my head no. Because in the books, you learn he’s dead in Two Towers, not Fellowship. This was fresh in my head since it wasn’t long ago I had read that very scene. After I realized they were going to climax this movie with his death from the second book, I quickly tapped her on the shoulder and said “yeah, yeah he does” while nodding franticly.

It's examples like that scene, which made it such a wonderful adaptation.

MooglePorn · 06-26-2005, 07:32 PM

Lord of the Rings focused too much on being a good adaptation, and not enough on being a good set of movies.

Dilmo · 06-26-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Lord of the Rings focused too much on being a good adaptation, and not enough on being a good set of movies.

I must disagree with that. The LOTR Trilogy renewed my faith in great movie making.

Slanter · 06-26-2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Lord of the Rings focused too much on being a good adaptation, and not enough on being a good set of movies.

If you really think that, then you are damn hard to please.

MooglePorn · 06-27-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

If you really think that, then you are damn hard to please.

I'm far from alone my friend, those movies are overly long, full of useless dialogue and scenes, and rife with pacing issues. I'm glad you liked them, and I liked them too for the most part, but they're far from great movies, and it's mostly because he was way too worried about cutting material from the books.

Slanter · 06-30-2005, 11:47 AM

Wow. I like every single scene. I guess he made those movies for the book fans. Did you read the books Moog? Because that first movie is the BEST adaptation ever.

Dilmo · 06-30-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

I guess he made those movies for the book fans.

While he did stay true to the books, he made these classics for everyone, not just book fans. Book fans alone wouldn't have made them the huge blockbusters that they were.

Bananaslug79 · 06-30-2005, 06:44 PM

I'll switch from one fantasy saga adaptation back around to the thread author's first topic: Harry Potter.

There is no doubt the books themselves are very enjoyable, and there are some things in them that just can't be done in a film (at least that would make any sense in a film). The first two movie adaptations suffered somewhat from trying to be such great interpretations of the books that they often forgot it was a movie. While I enjoyed the first two Potter films, the second more so than the first, they do often have things in them that just seem lifted right off the page to make the book fans giddy but actually affect the movie making aspect suffer.

This is where the third movie actually gets it right: it focused so much on making an actual movie that it wasn't afraid to cut stuff out, change things around, and in the end make everything as cinematic as possible while still using the source material to its best use. I've said it before, but to me The Prisoner of Azkaban is as much a fantastic movie as it is an adaptation of a book (in fact I would say the better description goes to the former, and that only credits the film more). While the first two movies in the series are great book adaptations, they miss somewhat in being great movies in themselves.

Slanter · 06-30-2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

While he did stay true to the books, he made these classics for everyone, not just book fans. Book fans alone wouldn't have made them the huge blockbusters that they were.

Yes, I agree. They were given a budget bigger than God and had the freedom to tell this story through three 3 hour plus movies at once. They were able to cover all fan bases with that formula, including the non-fans.

MooglePorn · 07-01-2005, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

Wow. I like every single scene. I guess he made those movies for the book fans. Did you read the books Moog? Because that first movie is the BEST adaptation ever.

No, I am judging them as movies and movies alone. Fantasy as a genre doesn't really do much for me, so there's a ton of books I must get to before those.

Reaver · 07-01-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Lord of the Rings focused too much on being a good adaptation, and not enough on being a good set of movies.

I could not disagree more. I thought that Jackson and Co. did the right thing in not being slavishly devoted to the novels, instead choosing to honor the spirit of the novels. There are a great many changes that were made going from book to screen, but the heart of the novels is still there, and that is what counted. Technically speaking, the LotR films are poor literal adaptations, but wonderful spiritual adaptations.

MooglePorn · 07-01-2005, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaver

I could not disagree more. I thought that Jackson and Co. did the right thing in not being slavishly devoted to the novels, instead choosing to honor the spirit of the novels. There are a great many changes that were made going from book to screen, but the heart of the novels is still there, and that is what counted. Technically speaking, the LotR films are poor literal adaptations, but wonderful spiritual adaptations.

No movie needs two hours of nothing but two hobbits talking with a skeleton, which these films had. ANY movie would have cut that down, but not these. If that's not slavingly keeping book dialogue, than I guess it was just bad film making period.

Reaver · 07-01-2005, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

No movie needs two hours of nothing but two hobbits talking with a skeleton, which these films had. ANY movie would have cut that down, but not these. If that's not slavingly keeping book dialogue, than I guess it was just bad film making period.

Don't fall into the trap of mistaking your opinion for fact. You didn't like it, that's cool, but the box office receipts show that a great number of people did. That's life, I suppose.

MooglePorn · 07-01-2005, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaver

Don't fall into the trap of mistaking your opinion for fact. You didn't like it, that's cool, but the box office receipts show that a great number of people did. That's life, I suppose.

I don't have to put "in my opinion" at the end of everything for that to be a given. I can't speak for anyone but myself.

Chunkblower · 07-01-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaver

Don't fall into the trap of mistaking your opinion for fact. You didn't like it, that's cool, but the box office receipts show that a great number of people did. That's life, I suppose.

Don't fall into the trap of mistaking box office reciepts for signs of quality. The public will consume any shit that's shoveled into their mouths via advertising.

And when you have Peter Jackson himself admitting that he hated the army of the dead scenes from Return of the King but was afraid to cut it for fear of negative fan reaction, I think that's a sign that he was much more a slave to the books than you'd care to admit.

Slanter · 07-02-2005, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunkblower

Don't fall into the trap of mistaking box office reciepts for signs of quality. The public will consume any shit that's shoveled into their mouths via advertising.

And when you have Peter Jackson himself admitting that he hated the army of the dead scenes from Return of the King but was afraid to cut it for fear of negative fan reaction, I think that's a sign that he was much more a slave to the books than you'd care to admit.

Oh damn. If anything makes over a billion dollars domestic in under 8 months AND wins every nomination at the Academy Awards, I'd say it was quality, the highest. Sure, the public will consume the shit, but NOT THAT MUCH.

And please, cutting out the army of the dead sequence would've crippled the whole ending of that film. He probably said the "fan thing" as a side note. Don't believe everything you read, even if he said it, if ya follow me.

Dilmo · 07-02-2005, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

And please, cutting out the army of the dead sequence would've crippled the whole ending of that film. He probably said the "fan thing" as a side note. Don't believe everything you read, even if he said it, if ya follow me.

I am in total agreement. The sequence needed to be in it.

Chunkblower · 07-02-2005, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

He probably said the "fan thing" as a side note. Don't believe everything you read, even if he said it, if ya follow me.

Wow. Keep them blinders on. Glad they're workin' for ya.

If that's the case, then you can never use any quotes by Peter Jackson to back up any opinion of yours; after all, he may not have actually meant it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

And please, cutting out the army of the dead sequence would've crippled the whole ending of that film.

As written in the holy text, sure. Heaven to Christ forbid that Jackson should deviate from "scripture" in any way.

I think LOTR fans are just as responsible for the films flaws as Jackson and his cronies are.

MooglePorn · 07-02-2005, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

Oh damn. If anything makes over a billion dollars domestic in under 8 months AND wins every nomination at the Academy Awards, I'd say it was quality, the highest. Sure, the public will consume the shit, but NOT THAT MUCH.

Bullshit, I like Titanic just fine, but no way was it as amazing as it's box office and awards would have you believe.

As for LotR, I said I like them, and I do, and I own them. They're fun movies with some cool parts, no doubt about it. I just think they would have been much better, much MUCH better really, with a lot more editing.

Slanter · 07-02-2005, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moogleporn

I just think they would have been much better, much MUCH better really, with a lot more editing

I'm cool with that, but I like all the fluff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunkblower

I think LOTR fans are just as responsible for the films flaws as Jackson and his cronies are.

That makes no sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunkblower

If that's the case, then you can never use any quotes by Peter Jackson to back up any opinion of yours;

Hate to burst your bubble, but I wasn't planning on it. Unless it comes from the 23 hours of documenty footage from the EEs.

Chunkblower · 07-02-2005, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

That makes no sense.

To spell it out: Jackson was (metaphorically) held hostage by fans of the novel who demanded absolute fidelity to the source material. In doing so, he made errors that, in my opinion, caused the films to be less than what they could have been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

Hate to burst your bubble, but I wasn't planning on it. Unless it comes from the 23 hours of documenty footage from the EEs.

Don't see what that has to do with anything, and don't really care either. Glad you enjoy Jackson's descent into wretched excess and find little or no fault with it. Cheers and congrats.

Slanter · 07-02-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

To spell it out: Jackson was (metaphorically) held hostage by fans of the novel who demanded absolute fidelity to the source material. In doing so, he made errors that, in my opinion, caused the films to be less than what they could have been.

Were they getting death threats during production? Was Jackson telepathicly linked with all the fans of Tolkien? His wife, a friend, and himself wrote the scripts. They happen to be fans themselves. They knew what to cut and what to augment. The first movie they hit right on the head. The second movie, I thought they cut too much out or sent to the third film. The third movie was very well done. Overall, it's the best substitue to reading the novels, -bar none.

Chunkblower · 07-02-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slanter

Were they getting death threats during production? Was Jackson telepathicly linked with all the fans of Tolkien?

Yeah, because that's exactly what I was trying to imply.

Slanter · 07-02-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chunkblower

Yeah, because that's exactly what I was trying to imply.

Thank you for noting my sarcasm.

Volcane · 07-03-2005, 07:31 PM

I admire the LOTR trilogy more than enjoy it. I can watch Fellowship repeatedly but Towers suffers with pacing problems and Return I find rather boring (yes, really).

I wish they'd kept to the books more faithfully myself as I've been a fan of all thing Middle-Earth since my early school days. One day the film(s) adapation I always hope for will emerge.

Anyhow, back on topic, the film adaptions of books I am happy with are :

Jaws : to me the only film that is better then the book it is based on.

Interview With The Vampire : to my mind very faithful, but that could be something to do with Anne Rice being on board as a consultant

I've also heard that Fight Club and Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas are better films than their novel predessecors but I have only seen them, not read them!

Slanter · 07-03-2005, 09:08 PM

Fight Club was a novel first? heh-heh.

06-15-2005, 05:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
Chrisse Supporting Actor Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Earth, I Think	Novelisations and movies based on books This is basically a thread for discussing novelisations and movies based on books in general. The pros the cons the doubt, post it all here. I think I'll start. I have multiple times tried to watch a movie based on a book i had read/ was reading. Mainly it was the Harry Potter books, who I've now lost interest in the movie versions of, for no real reason other than lack of time. I still however have the books, who I enjoy reading a little in once in a while. I wouldn't really say that this is a victory for the books over the movies, seeing as how I only own the books because I got them as presents. Tom Clancy is a more mixed story. My dad bought The Hunt for Red October on DVD, but we never really got around to watch it, so I deciede to try and read the book, which I almost choked in because of the highly technical nature of the writing style. So I decided to watch the movie, and that actually made understanding the book much easier, even though the movie is very simplified and leaves out a lot. All in all I think the movie beats the book here, and I doubt the book would have had that much succes if Ronald Reagan had not named it one of his favorites. But then again, if it had flopped, we would not have had the exciting sequels and prequels. Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger I watched in that order, because I had more or less given up on the books. However the movies tickled my interest enough to make me buy and read both books. I think they do a very good job of saying with many chapters what the movie says with a few pictures and sounds, but that is not meant negatively, I liked them very much as these particuler movies were made in such a way they don't really feel like a movie series per se, and as usch seem more independent as opposed to the books, where you feel like part of a special circle when they refer to each other in subtle ways that you might easily miss otherwise. I am currently reading The Sum of All Fears (which has been oddly translated into something that means The Price of All Terror) and I have promised myself that I not see the movie before I have read the book, as I have heard that the movie is very different from the book. Well, I've talked enough for now. Let me hear your thoughts. __________________ "Okay, who blew up Panama Canal?" - Team America "It's a city, It's a dinosaur - It's a BLUESCREEN" - Me

06-26-2005, 06:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
Slanter Actor Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Maryland	I'm going with the big. My wife gave me a one-volume edition of the LOTR trilogy for Xmas of 2000. She knew I always wanted to read it and I was very pleased to finally own it. Around that same time I learned they were shooting all three movies back-to-back. This heightened my interest in reading it. So I started The Fellowship of the Ring in March of 2001. To be honest, I found it tough to get into. I wasn't used to Tolkien's writing style. I didn't have much time to read it at all since this was the year I got married, had our first child, and changed careers. (complicated year) I probably would've enjoyed the book at a different time in my life, but it just happened to collide with giant events in my life. Oh, and I took a break from Fellowship to read the first four Harry Potter books too. Anyway, I finished Fellowship in November and jumped into Two Towers immediately. I was half-way through it when we saw Fellowship the movie. I thought and still think it’s the best adapted screenplay from a novel ever done period. Absolute brilliance. I remember at the end when Boromir is fighting all those Orcs and my wife whispers, "does he die?” And I shook my head no. Because in the books, you learn he’s dead in Two Towers, not Fellowship. This was fresh in my head since it wasn’t long ago I had read that very scene. After I realized they were going to climax this movie with his death from the second book, I quickly tapped her on the shoulder and said “yeah, yeah he does” while nodding franticly. It's examples like that scene, which made it such a wonderful adaptation. __________________ I quit smoking. :p Last edited by Slanter : 06-26-2005 at 10:41 PM.

06-30-2005, 11:47 AM	#7 (permalink)
Slanter Actor Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Maryland	Wow. I like every single scene. I guess he made those movies for the book fans. Did you read the books Moog? Because that first movie is the BEST adaptation ever. __________________ I quit smoking. :p

06-30-2005, 06:44 PM	#9 (permalink)
Bananaslug79 Actor Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: The Land of Mary	I'll switch from one fantasy saga adaptation back around to the thread author's first topic: Harry Potter. There is no doubt the books themselves are very enjoyable, and there are some things in them that just can't be done in a film (at least that would make any sense in a film). The first two movie adaptations suffered somewhat from trying to be such great interpretations of the books that they often forgot it was a movie. While I enjoyed the first two Potter films, the second more so than the first, they do often have things in them that just seem lifted right off the page to make the book fans giddy but actually affect the movie making aspect suffer. This is where the third movie actually gets it right: it focused so much on making an actual movie that it wasn't afraid to cut stuff out, change things around, and in the end make everything as cinematic as possible while still using the source material to its best use. I've said it before, but to me The Prisoner of Azkaban is as much a fantastic movie as it is an adaptation of a book (in fact I would say the better description goes to the former, and that only credits the film more). While the first two movies in the series are great book adaptations, they miss somewhat in being great movies in themselves. __________________ -Spoon!

07-03-2005, 09:08 PM	#27 (permalink)
Slanter Actor Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Maryland	Fight Club was a novel first? heh-heh. __________________ I quit smoking. :p

06-26-2005, 07:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	Lord of the Rings focused too much on being a good adaptation, and not enough on being a good set of movies.

07-03-2005, 07:31 PM	#26 (permalink)
Volcane Actor Join Date: Jan 2004	I admire the LOTR trilogy more than enjoy it. I can watch Fellowship repeatedly but Towers suffers with pacing problems and Return I find rather boring (yes, really). I wish they'd kept to the books more faithfully myself as I've been a fan of all thing Middle-Earth since my early school days. One day the film(s) adapation I always hope for will emerge. Anyhow, back on topic, the film adaptions of books I am happy with are : Jaws : to me the only film that is better then the book it is based on. Interview With The Vampire : to my mind very faithful, but that could be something to do with Anne Rice being on board as a consultant I've also heard that Fight Club and Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas are better films than their novel predessecors but I have only seen them, not read them!