Books made into movies sorta suck...

[Sigz]

I have to agree about LOTR. It's an amazing story, but Tolkein's writing style is boring as fuck.

[Dimitrius]

They leave out so much of the underlying stories.

In a movie setting, you only have ~90 minutes to tell a story, which is why this happen. Characters get cut from the movies, characters in the movie become amalgamations of different characters in the book, subplots are ignore. Different medias, different ways to tell a story.

I've always thought that if they were to make a movie of a book and they do the movie page for page as it is in the book, it'd be almost unbearable to watch.

A movie can be as long as they want it to be. LOtR movies were 210+ and then the extended versions even more.. and people still bought them even though they are so long. I'm not sure a 4hr HP movie would bother me if it did the story justice. Heck, turn it into a tv series like Game of Thrones! That would make it much better!

I completely agree about that last part.

But to your first point, yes they are that long, but none of those long cuts are the theatrical ones. They can make it the movie as long as they want sure, but they'll lose money in doing so. The longer it is, the less screenings it gets in a day. So they condense the story for movie theaters, probably at the studios behest.


EDIT: In fact, I'm rather happy I never got to see Tom Bombadil

[GuineaPig]

The LOTR movies are way better than the books.

This is so true, rumborak.  Really, Tolkein is NOT a good storyteller.

He's not.

[glaurung]

The LOTR movies are way better than the books.

This is so true, rumborak.  Really, Tolkein is NOT a good storyteller.

*snip*

He's not.

Considering The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion have been my favorite books since I was probably about 14, I have to disagree.

[GuineaPig]

Coming up with a story and being able to tell it well are two different things.

Also, 14 year olds aren't typically the most discerning literary critics 

[glaurung]

I like them enough I've kept reading them every other year or so since then and they've only gotten better to me.

[Ħ]

I like them enough I've kept reading them every other year or so since then and they've only gotten better to me.

Well, I guess that just means you're into sucky storytelling.

[Dimitrius]

14 year olds aren't the most discerning literary critics, and I guess this:

The Da Vinci Code was a terrible movie because it was a terrible book.  And the book itself was already pretty much a movie.

I've never seen The Da Vinci Code, though.

Is hard hitting movie criticism.

[GuineaPig]

14 year olds aren't the most discerning literary critics, and I guess this:

The Da Vinci Code was a terrible movie because it was a terrible book.  And the book itself was already pretty much a movie.

I've never seen The Da Vinci Code, though.

Is hard hitting movie criticism.

It is 


I've never seen The Da Vinci Code.  Most people seem to think it was bad.  I'm inclined to agree with them, because the book was bad.  And I don't see how it would've been altered much from page to screen based on how similar the book structurally was to a movie screenplay.

[LeeHarveyKennedy]

I thought the movie version of Thank You For Smoking was way better than the book, primarily because they made some changes to the story that I felt strengthened it overall and tied in better with the main character.

Otherwise, the principle problem with books being made into movies is that if you were to include everything in the book, most books would need nine hours to tell everything in the story. Characters and subplots will be invariably dropped, so in most cases, it will always feel incomplete. It just highlights the limits of what each medium can accomplish.

[Mr. Beale]

I find movies only infiltrate my visualization if they are superior to my imaginings. Example: Hagrid, Snape, Pippin and Merry-yep, Dumbledore, Gollum, and their settings- nope.

The LOTR movies are way better than the books.

This is so true, rumborak.  Really, Tolkein is NOT a good storyteller.

Harry Potter --> movie is better
LOTR --> movie is better
To Kill A Mockingbird --> movie is better

There's no doubt LOTR is a great story but it is arguable that Tolkien's prose isn't very good (even though he comes out ahead in creating a living, breathing world). The fact that the few misteps the movies take tend to come from deviations from the text and script revisions tended to come back to it tells you Tolkien knew what he was doing.

On those adaptation

HP- JESUSCHRIST NO

LOTR and Mockingbird- debatable

[Ħ]

I changed my mind with HP.  HP 1, 2, and 4 were better than the books, but the rest were pretty bad.

[Jamesman42]

The Da Vinci Code was an amazingly interesting book, one of the few times in my life I read a book at one go, 15 hours.

I thought it was alright. People raved about it back in the day. Angels and Demons was way better than TDC. Come to think of it, the movie and book version of A&D was better than the respective TDC versions.

[chknptpie]

Angels and Demons was awesome, haven't seen the movie though.

[Mr. Beale]

I changed my mind with HP.  HP 1, 2, and 4 were better than the books, but the rest were pretty bad.

Wow that's basically the exact opposite of my opinion. Goblet is my favorite book, while the later movies (5-7) have been the ones worth watching, especially 5, which is the only one that comes close to rivaling the book.

[Ħ]

I changed my mind with HP.  HP 1, 2, and 4 were better than the books, but the rest were pretty bad.

Wow that's basically the exact opposite of my opinion. Goblet is my favorite book, while the later movies (5-7) have been the ones worth watching, especially 5, which is the only one that comes close to rivaling the book.

The 5th book/movie are the worst of both.

[orcus116]

Oof I dunno. Umbridge as a character brought out more hatred in me than almost any character I've ever seen/read about. To me that says something.

[GuineaPig]

I thought the 5th book was the best.

Haven't seen the movie.  But I saw (and hated) the 6th one.

[Perpetual Change]

Tolkien is a great storyteller. The way he writes hasn't held up as strongly for the ADHD generation, but it's still really really good for anyone that gives it the time to really sink in. It does pick up and, by the end, you will feel exhausted but in a completely satisfied sort of way.

That said, I never had a problem with the film-adaptations. In fact, I like them alot. While they messed up the plot in a couple of areas and complicated it where it didn't need to be, I found it visually to be pretty much what I had in my mind. The exception to this was Legolas, who I always pictued with dark hair, and Faramir, who I just had imagined as completely different. Still, I was more than happy with much of the art-direction, especially the way they handled various locations and the towns/cities.

Harry Potter, idk. The books and movies have come-up side by side, so they do kinda seem to be woven together. I'm not particularly fond of HP, though, so I really didn't care if the movies screwed things about the books up.

David Lynch's Dune is a pretty good example of a book-film gone awry. The weird thing is, Lynch had the atmosphere down. And the changes to the story weren't horrible. But those damn shields... 

[lodeus]

I know its a short story, but I'm still angry about A Sound of Thunder. Complete crap.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Related to Harry Potter discussion:

In my opinion, Rowling lost her Mojo after number 4.  Six was decent, but 5 and 7 were pretty weak, and god fucking dammit, don't get me started with the epilogue to 7.  The fucking worst series ender I've ever read.   And, as for the movies, they generally ranged from mundane to fairly bad, with the exception of the third one which was really good.  The third one was also the best book, probably mostly because there was no Voldemort.  I'm a fan of all of the books just because I grew up with them (I was reading them in first grade through the rest of elementary school) and I still regard them fondly, but I don't care for any of the movies particularly except 3 nor any of the books after 4.

[orcus116]

Reading 6 and 7 felt more like an obligation since I had invested so much time and excitement into the others as a kid. Probably why I didn't think the last book was all that great.

[Jamesman42]

Angels and Demons was awesome, haven't seen the movie though.

It's a good watch, I'd say go for it. Miles and miles above TDC movie.

[5]

The 'Fight Club' movie was way better than Palahniuk's book. Especially the ending.

[ariich]

I've never found that my own imaginations are replaced when seeing a film. Movies and books are completely different forms of media and not at all comparable, so I treat them entirely separately. I find that adaptations cover the full spectrum, ranging from terrible to masterpiece.

[mizzl]

YyeA took. Me lIke ages Ro clicklk

[Super Dude]

I think the Wizard of Oz would like to have a word with you.

[Mr. Beale]

In my opinion, Rowling lost her Mojo after number 4.  Six was decent, but 5 and 7 were pretty weak, and god fucking dammit, don't get me started with the epilogue to 7.  The fucking worst series ender I've ever read.   And, as for the movies, they generally ranged from mundane to fairly bad, with the exception of the third one which was really good.  The third one was also the best book, probably mostly because there was no Voldemort.  I'm a fan of all of the books just because I grew up with them (I was reading them in first grade through the rest of elementary school) and I still regard them fondly, but I don't care for any of the movies particularly except 3 nor any of the books after 4.

I think it's a combination of her writing style changing and editors not being able to stand up to her to trim it up, with 5 being the worst offender. I still like 6 and thought 7 ended the series with a bang, minus the epilogue.

[Nekov]

I wanna mention Blade Runner. I read the book before seeing the movie and I was very skeptical about it. Then I watched the movie and even thought the story was changed and the book is way better, it's still a great movie.

[rumborak]

I don't understand the anger for HP 7 I have to say. The beginning is kinda sluggish, but the subtle WWII allusions in the book were excellent IMHO.

rumborak

[Zantera]

I prefer the LOTR-movies over the books, because I really think Tolkien's writing style is boring.

As for HP, I much prefer the books.
The movies are not bad, but like people have mentioned, they leave out so many important side-things, characters get's way too less time and such, and obviously it's something that happens due to the time restraint in a movie, but in the case with HP it just doesn't work.
I do think the books got slightly worse near the end, when I had finished the last I didn't really feel much.
The whole epilogue felt fairly rushed, and I don't really like the fact that Rowling decided to kill off a lot of characters, which didn't really feel like it was needed.

[Heaven Outcry Angel]

thread title is really generalizing.... example, blacks commit the most crime in america but do they do all of it?? of course not!! its the same with this.... like, the LOTR movies are def better than books.... for reasons others have stated already

[antigoon]

You are a real treat, huh?

[jonny108]

You are a real treat, huh?

 

[hefdaddy42]

example, blacks commit the most crime in america but do they do all of it?? of course not!! its the same with this

  What you said here could be construed by some as a possible violation of Rule 5.  I'm not giving you a Warning, but be more careful.