Movies based on books

[Babiole]

How do you feel about movies/TV series that are adapted from books? Do you generally like them, or do you find them to be inferior to the books?

I feel that the Hobbit movies aren't as good as the books and that the additions were annoying, such as the Legolas/Kili/Tauriel love triangle. I didn't like the fact that it was split into three movies because I think it would have been fine as a stand-alone movie. Besides, Peter Jackson is just trying to replicate his success with the LOTR movies.

I felt the same about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I loved the book, but I hated the 1971 version and have mixed feelings about the 2005 version (though at least I liked it better than the 1971 version). The drastic amount of changes in the first one (plus the fact that it's so damn trippy) and the addition of Wonka's backstory in the second one really detracted from it IMO. But at least the 2005 version does get things right that the 1971 version didn't (such as Charlie having both a mother and a father and Veruca being attacked by squirrels).

There are many others I can think of. What about you?

[danibu]

I usually like them.
What I really dislike, is when people start bitching like "that didn't happen in the book, they missed that line!, that character never appeared before"... and so on. Movies based on books, comics, etc are ADAPTATIONS, of course many things will be different.

[Melodic]

There has been a few disappointing ones, but the majority I have liked

[Semi_IronMan]

How do you feel about movies/TV series that are adapted from books? Do you generally like them, or do you find them to be inferior to the books?

I feel that the Hobbit movies aren't as good as the books and that the additions were annoying, such as the Legolas/Kili/Tauriel love triangle. I didn't like the fact that it was split into three movies because I think it would have been fine as a stand-alone movie. Besides, Peter Jackson is just trying to replicate his success with the LOTR movies.

I felt the same about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I loved the book, but I hated the 1971 version and have mixed feelings about the 2005 version (though at least I liked it better than the 1971 version). The drastic amount of changes in the first one (plus the fact that it's so damn trippy) and the addition of Wonka's backstory in the second one really detracted from it IMO. But at least the 2005 version does get things right that the 1971 version didn't (such as Charlie having both a mother and a father and Veruca being attacked by squirrels).

There are many others I can think of. What about you?

haven't seen a lot of them, only the Twilight Franchise and I thoroughly enjoyed it

[Hideous]

Some movie adaptations do the books justice, some don't.

[Cognizant]

I usually like them.
What I really dislike, is when people start bitching like "that didn't happen in the book, they missed that line!, that character never appeared before"... and so on. Movies based on books, comics, etc are ADAPTATIONS, of course many things will be different.

Oh my god yes!

People need to realize that in screenwriting, you can't translate every single word for word into the screenplay. If you have an issue with that, simple solution - don't go to the movie with me and bitch about it to yourself at home.

[Babiole]

Oh my god yes!

People need to realize that in screenwriting, you can't translate every single word for word into the screenplay. If you have an issue with that, simple solution - don't go to the movie with me and bitch about it to yourself at home.

Usually, that's not what bothers people. They tend to get most annoyed with changes to the overall plot. Think of how some movies change the endings of books, usually to give them happier endings if the original book ends unhappily.

[PinkFloyd]

Usually, they aren't as good as the books in my opinion. One exception however, is "the Boy in the Striped Pajamas." Holy hell that was a feels trip.

[James Dean]

I think that's the only reason people get into writing nowadays. So it can turn into a television series/film. I can't really name one book series that didn't adapt itself into a tv show or a movie.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I felt the same about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I loved the book, but I hated the 1971 version and have mixed feelings about the 2005 version (though at least I liked it better than the 1971 version). The drastic amount of changes in the first one (plus the fact that it's so damn trippy) and the addition of Wonka's backstory in the second one really detracted from it IMO. But at least the 2005 version does get things right that the 1971 version didn't (such as Charlie having both a mother and a father and Veruca being attacked by squirrels).

I never read the book, but I like the 1971 version better than the 2005 version because:
A. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka was too fucking creepy
B. The movie made you feel like you were on acid
C. It seems like they tried a bit too hard to make the movie interesting.

[Urban]

You know one thing I will say about recent movie adaptations of books - they're spreading it out way too much into trilogies and crap with cliffhanger endings. Example would be The Maze Runner - the ending was pretty damn unsatisfactory and it sucks that you have to wait a whole year to find out what happens next.

[Zachary G]

I find that movies made from books are very inferior to the book because the book gives you way more detail than they do in the movie, plus they are always adding or taking away tings that never really happened in the book in the first place. For once I would like to see a movie made from the book the way it was written, not the way it was interpreted by the directors.

[HUSTLEMAN]

Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Fantastic book series. HORRIBLE movies.

[dauntless]

I actually LIVE for these. Not the ones you named but the thg series, Divergent, tfios, if I stay, tmr and a bunch of others.

[Karkat]

I usually hate them, but there are a few good ones.

Holes, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (if you disagree, you aren't a big enough fan, imo. Douglas Adams was constantly changing the storyline- like alternate universes. It's practically cannon to say that they are.), A Series of Unfortunate Events, and a few others were decent. I feel like there are also some stellar adaptations, but I can't think of any at the moment...

A lot of the thing about movies based off of books is you have to exclude TONS of details. Some people get pretty aggressively (and somewhat unreasonably, usually) angry about that. You can only make a movie be so long.

[SethfromMI]

I think it depends. I go in knowing there are going to be some differences between the book and movie. more so if the book was very long. it can just depend. how much didthey leave out or more importantly did they cange anything in the movie which was very different from the book. the actors/actresses they get to protray the characters, etc.

A lot of times, I like the book more. some movies do a great job at adapting the book, others just flat out suck. I do try to read the book before I see the movie though or at least afterwards so I can compare

[Descene]

What has helped me greatly in enjoying adaptations is to treat it like a stand-alone piece. I enjoy them a fair bit! Even if you do compare them, at least it isn't another super hero movie (wait, just me?). If you compare them, you're pretty much only left with... LOTR and Fight Club. Can't think of others. It's so much more fun to have low expectations.

[sweetcake]

You know one thing I will say about recent movie adaptations of books - they're spreading it out way too much into trilogies and crap with cliffhanger endings. Example would be The Maze Runner - the ending was pretty damn unsatisfactory and it sucks that you have to wait a whole year to find out what happens next.

Have you read TMR?? If I remember it right, the ending was a freaking cliffhanger also.. So at least it did the book ending some justice.

------
I always read the books before watching the movie. I used to be bummed since a lot of crucial scenes weren't there, but I figured bitching wouldn't do anything. Instead I read the book again (more like flipping it randomly) and play scenes that weren't in the movie in my head. IMO, nothing beats our imagination.

[Babiole]

You know one thing I will say about recent movie adaptations of books - they're spreading it out way too much into trilogies and crap with cliffhanger endings. Example would be The Maze Runner - the ending was pretty damn unsatisfactory and it sucks that you have to wait a whole year to find out what happens next.

What's worse is that they do it to books that aren't even that long. A 1,000 page book is fine, but why would a 300-page book need more than one movie?

[stoneflowe96]

There are some good book adaptions that have the spirit of books. The general Problem is you can't fill the story and feelings of 300 pages of a book in a 90-150 minutes film. Even if you would bring every page of a book exactly on sreen, it will not the same like the book, because the pictures a book creates are your own one and the vision of a director or a producer will be very different. A good adaptation has the spirit of the book and the story of the book that push on the plot.

[Babiole]

I find that movies made from books are very inferior to the book because the book gives you way more detail than they do in the movie, plus they are always adding or taking away tings that never really happened in the book in the first place. For once I would like to see a movie made from the book the way it was written, not the way it was interpreted by the directors.

I agree.

I notice this. Books tend to have more depth than movies. Middle-earth according to Tolkien was a world with a long and complex history. But according to Peter Jackson, it's a generic fantasy world of simple good vs. evil. A movie couldn't explain the entirety of Middle-earth's history against Sauron like the books do. Also, sometimes the movie explanations are weirder. For example, in the books orcs reproduce normally (Tolkien acknowledged the existence of female orcs despite not showing any), whereas in the movie orcs are male-only monsters grown out of pods.

Sometimes movies do improve on books. I know with a lot of movies based on older books, they get rid of outdated attitudes such as racism and sexism. But sometimes it can backfire, like The Great Gatsby's casting of an Indian actor as Meyer Wolfsheim, who is a grotesquely stereotypical Jew. I thought they could have at least made him look like a normal white guy. The guy who Wolfsheim was supposedly based on wasn't even ugly. Then again, Hollywood loves their race lifts.

[Ammyneac]

I want to consider balanced adjusting to the book plot and making adaptation to it. Some of the movies are excellent and others... didn't.

[Starling City]

Honestly, I tend to appreciate stories in both forms, and I often really enjoy the movie adaptations. I try to separate them and not directly compare them, if I can.

[Daniella98]

There are always details in the books I was hoping to see in the movie and got disappointed cause it wasn't there.
That been said, I like movies based on books. My statement is of course only based on the movie where I've read the book...

[CrazyPerson101]

It really depends. I was reading ERAGON and I was excited when the movie came out and it was not anything like the book, I mean I know things in movies aren't going to be exactly the same but they like .... butchered that movie so bad. It really depends though, it is annoying when people expect it to be exactly like e book, then they go see it, bash it ( assuming the movie is close to the book ) when the movie was almost spot on, they don't have to say very single thing exactly the way it happens in the book.

[Elliott_hn]

most are good. some have been disappointing tho

[Babiole]

I hate when an adaptation has nothing in common with the book at all, or if they add ridiculous material that wasn't in the book (zeppelins in the 2011 version of The Three Musketeers, anyone?), or when they make it anvilicious when the book wasn't (the 1999 version of Mansfield Park is practically an anti-slavery tract. I also found a cheap knockoff Little Mermaid on YouTube that had an environmental message).

But sometimes faithfulness to the book can be a flaw. People want something different from the book, since it feels different watching a movie as opposed to reading a book. Some things in books just don't sit well with movies, such as long passages of non-dialogue or detailed descriptions of places and things (Tolkien's books are rife with these). Also, visuals need to be appealing in movies - especially fantasy movies. Take the Eye of Sauron, for example. The book version is rather plain. For the movie, we get an awesome giant flaming eyeball.

[ejpete]

They are ok. But not as accurate as I would like them to be.

[Emerald Dream]

Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Fantastic book series. HORRIBLE movies.

I couldn't agree with this any more.

The movies strayed so far from the original stories in the books that it was hardly recognizable, except for the name. The movies grossly omitted main characters, and changed others to adopt some traits of the missing ones. I had high hopes for the Percy Jackson series on the screen, but they are pretty embarrassing after reading the books.

[Babiole]

Horns was probably the most recent example I've seen. The book was decent, but the movie...God, it was so stupid!

[Remey]

I enjoy most of them, but few were disappointing

[VictoriaShadows]

I usually don't like them. The Hunger Games was the worst movie I ever seen