This conversation is closed.

Are the books we love being done justice with the films that proceed them ?

With our ever growing population, modern day society lusts for entertainment and everyday takes steps to destroy more of our greatest paper bound stories and traps an echo of their brilliance in a hollow cinematic shell.

Are books and by extension their authors being treated unjust with video representation of their work?
Is there any great films that come from books? and do they live up to the standards set by the book? Oppositely is their any books that come from films and do they set a standard?
how well is the film industry doing converting these stories into picture and is their any book you would never want to see as a film , where would you draw the line?

  • thumb
    Apr 9 2012: I think you mean the books proceed the movies.

    Its hard to literally convert and entire book to a movie script. But you can convey the essence of the plot and meaning. Some do this better than others.

    Agree there is also an imperative to make money.

    It is impossibe to match everyones imagined world from a book.

    Re LOTR movies: The fellowship of the ring was the truest to the books. The orcs were too holliwood and Strider/Aragorn was nothing like my imagination. However the hobbits, black riders, and Balrog were pretty close.
    Gollum was perfec t. Kate Blanchet was as close to perfect as Galadrial.

    The last movie was the worst. Idioiotic horse charges against war olliphants, the stupid ghosts killing the orcs and easterlinfs Minas Tirith, the stupid eye of sauron, Legolas's hollywood moves. This really destracted me. But overall done with respect for the work, great design values, talent. HE did better than anyone else might have. I'm glad I got to see them.

    I'm looking forward to On the Road later this year.

    I see movie interpretations of books as interpretations, to complement not replace or copy the book. I try to keep my expectations low and am sometimes plesantly surprised.
    • Apr 9 2012: i completely agree i think from now on though, I'm going to stick to either reading the book or watching it's film.
  • W T

    • 0
    Apr 14 2012: I have two examples that come to mind right off the bat, one is definitely not recent, the other one is more or less...

    One- The grapes of way did that movie do justice to the way.....

    Two- Cold mountain.....I was so disappointed that I stopped the DVD player.

    I think, that when it comes to kids movies which are based on books, many movies are far superior to the book. For example, "The Polar Express".......have you read the book? Pick it up sometime and you'll see what I mean.
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2012: In the case of Lord of The Rings I'd say the best of jobs has been done, those books need serious cuts, they're of completely useless detail.
  • thumb
    Apr 11 2012: a book and a film are two different forms.

    can one translate a film into a book?
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2012: Yes and no.

    I believe that when a filmmaker is allowed to go beyond the theater-limit time barrier (roughly 90 minutes), they can do a book justice. I read Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" and have watched the A&E 5-hour version and I feel that they are fairly identical, with only some very minor differences. To me, this film version is the truest to a book that I've ever seen, but it's 5-hours long!

    Most filmmakers are held to the 90 minute limit by their film companies that want a product (film) that will fit neatly in the prescribed time periods for movie theaters to maximize theater viewings. A 5-hour film cannot exist long at a theater for too many logical reasons to include here. Maybe filmmakers should be allowed to make an expanded version for home viewing and an attention-deficit version for the theater masses? Just a thought...
  • Apr 8 2012: i know for sure that 'The Shining' by Steven King, the film plot wasn't true to the books. There is a different ending. i have to say i was a little disappointed. 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy - stayed true to the original story, in the book there was very little speech which the created tension through out, a great read . The film on the other hand didn't ruin the story as the director kept true to the plot but i think he had (in order to entertain) added speech that , or because the film unlike the book didn't have chapters of description to create suspense between each tiny conversation. The film because of an attempt to make it more entertaining became more of a disappointment. Or maybe just put the book on a high horse.
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2012: Both of these two are different in the form, medium , content and so on........both of these have got their intrinsic strengths and weaknesses as well as audiences.......comparing these sounds like comparing apple to orange & vice versa
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2012: Those damn vampire movies.

    I think Peter jackson did a good job of tolkien but i haven't seen a movie yet that hasn't changed something to suit the producers and directors.maybe someone else can think of a few.