Anybody else think movie adaptations suck?

[naturalsciences101]

Yes, iluvgeddy05, movies do tend to drain the life out of characters. The medium of film will take those well-defined, three dimensional characters from on the page, and, in part, those which you have created in your mind, and they'll squash those characters down to fit into a two-dimensional space.

 

So much more detail can be given to a character in a novel through the voice of an omnipresent narrator, or by overhearing that character's interior dialogue. Film doesn't allow for that. Unless, of course, there is an actual narrator. But, that very rarely happens in movies. I recently thought about how much more storyline was conveyed to us in the film 'Casino' than your average movie. Not only was the thing like three hours long, but, all the narration given to us from the Deniro and Pesci perspective really gave a ton of backstory. Back when it was released, I didn't think it really measured up to Goodfellas. Now I think it's just as good, if not, better.

 

I posted again here because I just saw a poster for the novel, Twilight, featuring both of the lead actors. In the photo, they have the book open and they're reading it. I thought about what I said here about this novel being geared towards women and the specific 'sexual fantasy' aspect of it, and its appeal. This book was wildly popular with readers and I think it's because it actually goes a step further than the average book of this type. The male character isn't merely dangerous, but deadly here.

 

The female lead has to entrust her life to him every single time that they are together. He lets her know early on that he desires her blood above all others and that he has to constantly fight off the urge to kill her. So, knowing this, she has to place a trust in him that no other female needs to place in their man. Every time they are together, she has to put trust in the idea that he loves her more than he desires to drink of her. This notion is, of course, a tremendously romantic idea and ideal. And, that is why this book was so wildly popular with female audiences.

 

 

[naturalsciences101]

Ugh! I just knew when I got conned into reading 'Twilight' that what I was reading was some really fluffy, cheezy, pop-culture drivel. It had the scent of bubble-gum and lipgloss all over it. But, after reading this interview with the author of that ridiculously popular novel, I feel like a little girly-man moron for actually getting duped into reading anything this dame has written.

 

The woman has absolutely no knowledge of horror novels or horror movies in the least...not even a single vampire flick!. And, that's the genre she's in....Maybe that's why she gets just about everything wrong about the world of the undead. She says that she thinks these stories are Yucky! and Creepy! No duh! That's their appeal, ya shmuck! How the heck did she get this gig? What is going on? She's the most unlikely Horror novelist ever.

 

What really sealed my disdain for this woman was when she readily admits that she listens to Linkin Park. OMG! Shoot me. Then you learn that she's a Mormon who doesn't watch R-rated movies at all. There has to be something inconsistent and hypocritical about her writing vampire stories, right? But it seems that everyone with a little religion finds a way to skirt around the messy, inconvenient rules of their particular faith. Wouldn't want their God to get in the way of making money. I hate this woman. I want to punch her in the gut.

 

 

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20049578,00.html

Entertainment Weekly interview

 

[Rush Cocky]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 10 2009, 11:21 PM)

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a major standout for me of successful movie adaptations, especially considering they were for so long considered "unfilmable." Most of the times I've read a book and then seen the movie, though, I've been anywhere from slightly disappointed to extremely disappointed.

 

I agree.

[Mara]

I purposely did not see "My Sister's Keeper", because I learned that there were some major liberties taken with the plot. As in missing main characters, (spoiler below)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the ending was completely rewritten.

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (Mara @ Jul 20 2009, 12:40 PM)

I purposely did not see "My Sister's Keeper", because I learned that there were some major liberties taken with the plot. As in missing main characters, (spoiler below) the ending was completely rewritten.

In the case of very very popular books, they sometimes alter the ending... that way, everyone who's read it doesn't already know the ending, and will (supposedly) still pay for the movie to be surprised. That's the logic, anyway.

 

I'm quite surprised, actually, that they didn't change "Da Vinci Code." As many people as read that, and they kept the ending the same.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 20 2009, 01:30 PM)

QUOTE (Mara @ Jul 20 2009, 12:40 PM) I purposely did not see "My Sister's Keeper", because I learned that there were some major liberties taken with the plot.  As in missing main characters, (spoiler below) the ending was completely rewritten. In the case of very very popular books, they sometimes alter the ending... that way, everyone who's read it doesn't already know the ending, and will (supposedly) still pay for the movie to be surprised. That's the logic, anyway.   I'm quite surprised, actually, that they didn't change "Da Vinci Code." As many people as read that, and they kept the ending the same. QUOTE In the case of very very popular books, they sometimes alter the ending... that way, everyone who's read it doesn't already know the ending, and will (supposedly) still pay for the movie to be surprised.  That's the logic, anyway.   Yep, and I think it's a pretty good idea if they can write a better ending. While the adaptation didn't suck, I wish they'd have kept the original ending for 'Watchmen'. BTW, the DVD streets tomorrow, don't anyone forget to go get it!

[Prince Sphinc-Tor]

I agree about Watchmen, Jack...thanks for reminding me.

[Choose/the/light]

Lord of the Rings was the only Movie that did any justice to the books

[Prince Sphinc-Tor]

QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jul 28 2009, 01:18 PM)

Lord of the Rings was the only Movie that did any justice to the books

I disagree, although LOTR was fantastic, there are plenty of good movie adaptations of good books.

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jul 28 2009, 02:32 PM)

QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jul 28 2009, 01:18 PM) Lord of the Rings was the only Movie that did any justice to the books I disagree, although LOTR was fantastic, there are plenty of good movie adaptations of good books. I think so too, Prince. I probably already mentioned them in this thread, but I've seen some very good movies which closely follow some very good books - The Accidental Tourist, The Silence of the Lambs, The Da Vinci Code... even The Shawshank Redemption was very very close to its source material. (And I know I'm not the only one here who thinks that's one of the best movies ever made!)

[Prince Sphinc-Tor]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 28 2009, 03:37 PM)

QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jul 28 2009, 02:32 PM) QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jul 28 2009, 01:18 PM) Lord of the Rings was the only Movie that did any justice to the books I disagree, although LOTR was fantastic, there are plenty of good movie adaptations of good books. I think so too, Prince. I probably already mentioned them in this thread, but I've seen some very good movies which closely follow some very good books - The Accidental Tourist, The Silence of the Lambs, The Da Vinci Code... even The Shawshank Redemption was very very close to its source material. (And I know I'm not the only one here who thinks that's one of the best movies ever made!) I was actually going to list Shawshank, but I knew there was previous discussion with movies listed, so I just didn't ('cuz I'm lazy).   Shawshank was so good, it's one of those, "watch it every time it's on" movies.   And as far as LOTR goes, it's really not that true to the books. It was an amazing adaptation of the story. There were many, many liberties taken with the story, but in the grand scheme of the story, the liberties made it batter....IMO.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Prince Sphinc-Tor

[Mara]

QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jul 29 2009, 07:05 AM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 28 2009, 03:37 PM) QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jul 28 2009, 02:32 PM) QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jul 28 2009, 01:18 PM) Lord of the Rings was the only Movie that did any justice to the books I disagree, although LOTR was fantastic, there are plenty of good movie adaptations of good books. I think so too, Prince. I probably already mentioned them in this thread, but I've seen some very good movies which closely follow some very good books - The Accidental Tourist, The Silence of the Lambs, The Da Vinci Code... even The Shawshank Redemption was very very close to its source material. (And I know I'm not the only one here who thinks that's one of the best movies ever made!) I was actually going to list Shawshank, but I knew there was previous discussion with movies listed, so I just didn't ('cuz I'm lazy).   Shawshank was so good, it's one of those, "watch it every time it's on" movies.   And as far as LOTR goes, it really that true to the books. It was an amazing adaptation of the story. There were many, many liberties taken with the story, but in the grand scheme of the story, the liberties made it batter....IMO. Shawshank was indeed one of the best adaptations and, IMO, one of the best movies, period, in the last 25 years. Ditto for The Green Mile.

[Choose/the/light]

QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jul 29 2009, 04:05 AM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 28 2009, 03:37 PM) QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jul 28 2009, 02:32 PM) QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ Jul 28 2009, 01:18 PM) Lord of the Rings was the only Movie that did any justice to the books I disagree, although LOTR was fantastic, there are plenty of good movie adaptations of good books. I think so too, Prince. I probably already mentioned them in this thread, but I've seen some very good movies which closely follow some very good books - The Accidental Tourist, The Silence of the Lambs, The Da Vinci Code... even The Shawshank Redemption was very very close to its source material. (And I know I'm not the only one here who thinks that's one of the best movies ever made!) I was actually going to list Shawshank, but I knew there was previous discussion with movies listed, so I just didn't ('cuz I'm lazy).   Shawshank was so good, it's one of those, "watch it every time it's on" movies.   And as far as LOTR goes, it's really not that true to the books. It was an amazing adaptation of the story. There were many, many liberties taken with the story, but in the grand scheme of the story, the liberties made it batter....IMO. Well I didn't say that it was completely true to the Books, I just said it did justice. The whole production team, especially WETA workshop did an absolutely amazing job with the many cultures and history of Middle-Earth, just watch the Bonus DVDs on the extended editions.

[Rush Cocky]

QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jul 29 2009, 07:05 AM)

I was actually going to list Shawshank, but I knew there was previous discussion with movies listed, so I just didn't ('cuz I'm lazy). Shawshank was so good, it's one of those, "watch it every time it's on" movies.

 

Another thing we agree on.

[southernjim]

QUOTE (Jaye @ Jan 11 2009, 01:43 PM)

Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy!

How did I forget that one!?

Yeah.... I read all the books multiple times before the movie, and the only thing I could say was "What the hell is this?" Funny movie, but not Hitchhikers by a longshot

[southernjim]

Agh... I just rewatched the first two Spiderman movies...

When did Spiderman go emo in the comics? Where are all the cool villains?

[Sonatine]

QUOTE (southernjim @ Sep 8 2009, 06:43 PM)

QUOTE (Jaye @ Jan 11 2009, 01:43 PM) Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy!   How did I forget that one!? Yeah.... I read all the books multiple times before the movie, and the only thing I could say was "What the hell is this?" Funny movie, but not Hitchhikers by a longshot I watched HHGTTG, and was duly disappointed, even though I was willing to give it a chance.   Yes it had its moments, but it didn't even measure up well against the BBC TV series, never mind the radio adaption from years ago.     I'm also a big fan of Isaac Asimov, especially his Foundation, Empire & Robot books. But again, was totally hacked off with the movie adaptions of "I, Robot" and "Bicentennial Man"   I hear "Foundation" is to be turned into a film - God help us!

[Jaye]

QUOTE (Sonatine @ Sep 13 2009, 10:54 AM)

QUOTE (southernjim @ Sep 8 2009, 06:43 PM) QUOTE (Jaye @ Jan 11 2009, 01:43 PM) Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy!   How did I forget that one!? Yeah.... I read all the books multiple times before the movie, and the only thing I could say was "What the hell is this?" Funny movie, but not Hitchhikers by a longshot I watched HHGTTG, and was duly disappointed, even though I was willing to give it a chance.   Yes it had its moments, but it didn't even measure up well against the BBC TV series, never mind the radio adaption from years ago. Yeah, it wasn't a bad film if I'm honest. I just get a bit annoyed at some inacurracies and liberty-taking. My biggest gripe: Arthur and Trillian ending up together. No! Bad directors! Bad!

[JohnnyBlaze]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 12 2009, 01:02 AM)

The worst offender I can think of is DUNE. The book is really fantastic, and the David Lynch movie version was awful.

david lynch

he could have a leprachaun making out with a giant marmot in the back of a studebaker and many folks would think it's genius

[Sonatine]

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 14 2009, 11:33 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 12 2009, 01:02 AM) The worst offender I can think of is DUNE. The book is really fantastic, and the David Lynch movie version was awful.  david lynch he could have a leprachaun making out with a giant marmot in the back of a studebaker and many folks would think it's genius Dune: the "movie", sucked on so many levels.   What was Lynch thinking? Did he actually read the book?   Pretentious beyond redemption   In a way it's a pity original director Ridley Scott left the production quite early on, as I'm sure he couldn't have done a worse job. But then again had he not left he would not have given the world the majesty that is "Blade Runner" IMO

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Sonatine @ Sep 14 2009, 06:12 AM)

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 14 2009, 11:33 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 12 2009, 01:02 AM) The worst offender I can think of is DUNE. The book is really fantastic, and the David Lynch movie version was awful.  david lynch he could have a leprachaun making out with a giant marmot in the back of a studebaker and many folks would think it's genius Dune: the "movie", sucked on so many levels.   What was Lynch thinking? Did he actually read the book?   Pretentious beyond redemption   In a way it's a pity original director Ridley Scott left the production quite early on, as I'm sure he couldn't have done a worse job. But then again had he not left he would not have given the world the majesty that is "Blade Runner" IMO QUOTE the majesty that is "Blade Runner"

[southernjim]

QUOTE (Jaye @ Sep 13 2009, 08:10 AM)

QUOTE (Sonatine @ Sep 13 2009, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (southernjim @ Sep 8 2009, 06:43 PM) QUOTE (Jaye @ Jan 11 2009, 01:43 PM) Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy!   How did I forget that one!? Yeah.... I read all the books multiple times before the movie, and the only thing I could say was "What the hell is this?" Funny movie, but not Hitchhikers by a longshot I watched HHGTTG, and was duly disappointed, even though I was willing to give it a chance.   Yes it had its moments, but it didn't even measure up well against the BBC TV series, never mind the radio adaption from years ago. Yeah, it wasn't a bad film if I'm honest. I just get a bit annoyed at some inacurracies and liberty-taking. My biggest gripe: Arthur and Trillian ending up together. No! Bad directors! Bad! The reason it didn't match up to the BBC series is because Douglas Adams was involved in that. for instance, Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings, in the BBC show, was actually Douglas Adams in drag.       And Arthur and Trillian were supposed to end up together in a way... Not that way though

[LakesideMaiden]

QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jan 11 2009, 11:44 PM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 11 2009, 09:19 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jan 11 2009, 06:56 PM) QUOTE (Prince Sphinc-Tor @ Jan 11 2009, 06:01 PM) QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jan 11 2009, 05:30 PM) Does anyone read anything besides Horror and Sci-Fi/Fantasy?  I read posts on TRF.   I also read history, and non-fiction, A Bridge Too Far was a good movie although if they made an exact movie on that book, it would have been 150 hours long. Very true! Remember that Cornelius Ryan also wrote The Longest Day so if you liked Bridge you should read that one, too.   GR, I think that most members here do. It seems that Rush attracts the sci-fi/fantasy crowd. I've read some sci-fi and a couple of books that would qualify as modern-day fantasy but I'm by no means an aficianado. Yeah, I've read some, too... especially in my teens. I was a big Tolkien head, and I... I... I played D&D.   Me too...I still...have my...monstermanualplayershandbookanddungeonmastersguide. as do both DerTrom & myself (2nd Edition) D&D is awesome

[priest_of_syrinx]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jul 20 2009, 02:31 PM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Jul 20 2009, 01:30 PM) QUOTE (Mara @ Jul 20 2009, 12:40 PM) I purposely did not see "My Sister's Keeper", because I learned that there were some major liberties taken with the plot.  As in missing main characters, (spoiler below) the ending was completely rewritten. In the case of very very popular books, they sometimes alter the ending... that way, everyone who's read it doesn't already know the ending, and will (supposedly) still pay for the movie to be surprised. That's the logic, anyway.   I'm quite surprised, actually, that they didn't change "Da Vinci Code." As many people as read that, and they kept the ending the same. QUOTE In the case of very very popular books, they sometimes alter the ending... that way, everyone who's read it doesn't already know the ending, and will (supposedly) still pay for the movie to be surprised.  That's the logic, anyway.   Yep, and I think it's a pretty good idea if they can write a better ending. While the adaptation didn't suck, I wish they'd have kept the original ending for 'Watchmen'. BTW, the DVD streets tomorrow, don't anyone forget to go get it! I like the movie ending way better because:   (SPOILERS!!!)                                                             it's so much more difficult a moral dilemma (God-like figure who you once trusted instead of random aliens). Also, I thought the "rebirth" symbolism of the vagina eye thingy was kind of stupid.