movies based on books

orangekows

well last night i watched Along Came a Spider after reading the book, and it really annoyed me on how many important parts of the plot were either changed or completely taken out. i mean i can understand them changing things that were irrelevant to the plot, but that definitely wasn't the case. that and Kiss the Girls were the only movies that i watched after reading the book, so i wouldn't really know if this is common or what.

either way, what do you guys think about them? do the plot changes bother you, or do you just not care?
 
Well, I am pretty excited about I am legend staring Will Smith. So I picked up the book and finished it in a few days. Never knew it was a short story in a collection. Still an amazing story and I can imagine the movie could capture alot from the book.
 
It's very common. If you read the book first, you almost always get disappointed because in the movie things don't look as you interpreted them to look.
I got this when I read the DaVinci Code and then watched the movie.
 
It's easy to say that the book is better (especially when it often is) but imo they are 2 different mediums that are enjoyed differently so it's usually hard to compare which i "enjoyed" more. A book is a long term commitment and you make everything up in your head. I think translating from one medium to another is definetely a tough job and it certainly has been "done right" just less and less these days =\
examples of good book to movie conversions exist though
clockwork orange (mostly because of kubrick)
LoTR and Harry Potter were well done (not as good as the books in LoTR's case but very well done and not a disappointment by and stretch of the word)
American Psycho (again not as good as the book but an excellent movie)
Fear and Loathing, The Shining, Full metal jacket i think was based on a book i just dont remmeber the title. Shawshank redemption too.

lol die hard is based on a book now that i think of it.
 
I read "Of Mice And Men" and then watched the movie of the same name. I was pleasantly surprised how accurate the movie was to the book. Practically all conversations were exactly like those of the book, and very few parts were left out. Then again, "Of Mice And Men" is quite a short book.

I heard that Angels And Demons is being adapted to the big screen too.
 
Personally I'd say the only major dissapointing omission from LotR would be how they just mentioned that Sarumon had "no more power" or whatever and just left it at that. That really should have been expanded on especially because I feel it was one of the more important subplots.

Harry Potter movies, for the most part, are garbage. So much is needlessly edited or taken out (Goblet of Fire is a prime example of this, what with the Barty Crouch bullshit) and while I still greatly enjoy them, I really feel that they can't be compared to the books. I mean seriously they changed how Harry meets Hagrid for absolutely no reason, the original could've been done in the same amount of time.

I'm not sure if it counts because it's a graphic novel, but V for Vendetta was done surprisingly well. Unlike the changes made in the Potter movies, the ones made in Vendetta were tasteful and kept the plot moving along. My only major complaint was that they made V some guy who just hates Parliament, rather than a total anarchist, which is what he was in the original.
 
Da Vinci Code (the movie) was a major disappointment after reading the book, which is one the best books I've ever read.
 
Harry Potter movies, for the most part, are garbage.
Click to expand...
[/quote]i shouldnt have really brought those up as ive never even seen all of one lol
and while I still greatly enjoy them, I really feel that they can't be compared to the books.
Click to expand...
that's exactly my point
I'm not sure if it counts because it's a graphic novel, but V for Vendetta was done surprisingly well.
Click to expand...
i could have counted graphic novel/comic book adaptaions but the fact is the entire storyboard is pretty much done for the director already so it's not as daunting a task. im not saying its easy its just theres alot less to flesh out.
 
I thought holes has a pretty good book and movie. Nothing was really taken out, despite the length, and the events were pretty close to what I imagined.

I was actually dissapointed with the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith movie. I had read the book beforehand, and its been a while, but the book did a better job of explaining things. In the movie, Anakin just seemed like a bad actor for some reason, but in the book he was better.
 
to capture everything in a book a film would become ridiculously long, ridiculously boring, or both.
Click to expand...
I thought the Lord of the Rings did an awesome job of this. Who cares if it's ridiculously long, as long as it's awesome?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top