Books V.S. Movies

[Matchew]

What books are poorly represented on screen? there are plenty of films which don't do their source material justice, to start off, we'll discuss Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. all other films/books or whatever are welcome, regardless of language.

see ya soon 

[BMF-Inc]

I am not too experienced with reading Chrichton, but I do know this...That guy does his research. He is so scientifically specific in his books that it is very hard to fathom at times...this is the key in the translation from book to movie....the movie focused more of an action, fast paced thriller while the book had a bit of a slower pace (at least to me) Also put in that the plot was very different and the whole line of events, changed.

[Adamski]

Lord of the Rings?

[Matchew]

You're right, I read the book at christmas last year and I was shocked to find that the film had very little resemblence to the book at all, in fact, they could pass as different stories altogether as, first of all, most of the charachters were different, There were at least three T-rexes and a baby, there is at least a whole chapter on Alan Grant and the kids escaping the t-rex on a raft ride through a storm water aqueduct. The film, when compared to the book is tedious and would have been much better to follow the book more closely, but then again that's David Koepp's fault isn't it? :

[Captain Mostly]

It's very easy to whine about poorly represented books on screen, but it's important to remember that just because a film is crummy doesn't destroy the book it was based on. They're not going to stop publishing the origional book and only publish the screenplay from now on. Nothing gets LOST except the oppertunity to make THAT film differently.

I thought it was impressive that the writer of the origional "Queer as Folk" (which was a highly acclaimed british drama which suffered in many members of the publics eyes because of it's explicit gay content) said that he didn't mind the subsequent American version being totally different because it DIDN'T take away from his origional work.

If someone who's had massive liberties taken with his stories like that can be sanguine on the matter, what possible justification can audience members have for not being?

[Nacho]

Jurassic Park book was impossible to be taken to the screen in the period it was made... Some of the scenes can be seen in the second and third park (The girl bitten by the procompsongátidus, the attack of the beat by the Rex and the chapter with the pterodáctils) thanks to the improvements of the digital technology. Also, the bla-bla-bla chapters of the books are not commercial for cinemas, whereas they were the strong point to the book. The investigation of people bitten by dinosaurs in Islands before knowing there are dinosaurs in a park was also fanstastic, but it finally ends (if I remember well) concluding that the attacks haven't been made by procompsognátidus, but another nowadays lizard who is going out of the jungle by deforestation. That investigation had no place in the film. What I mean is that we're in front of a difficult book, and Spielberg made a nice work. Let's remember Chrichton used things of the film to write JP2 and revived Alan, who is a library rat is the book, writing a character with Jeff Goldbum (sp?) in mind.

Alse, let's remember that Chrichton worked originally for the screen version, but he gave up recognising he was not able to do it.

And... what's wrong with the Lord of the Rings? Tom Bombadil is not there, but I think 99% hated that tedious part (except some very particular member here, hehehe...). The elvish songs and all that stuff was not there, but, I remember I posted something like "It's just me or TLOTR has lots of tedious chapters?" and many people agreed. The film is so long that many people feel that some parts spare, so, imagine putting all the stuff that is not there... Imo, another nice work. Not for winning 11 oscars for the last part, but maybe 11 all the trilogy...

*EDIT FOR CAPTAIN MOSTLY'S POST* Yeah, whining about "crappy films" is very cool and easy!

[BMF-Inc]

well my only complaint is the fact that people go and watch a movie expecting it to be worse than the book...why waste your money?

I never really said jurassic park was bad, I simply said it differed greatly from the book.. I enjoyed it still the same. What I feel is needed if you wish to translate a book to movie is do it the chronicles of riddick way when they made escape from butcher bay. Make a movie that takes place in the world, seperate from the books, but still adds to it's mythology in a way that is enlightening and enjoyable. But that's just me.

[Fuzzpilz]

Farlander, omissions aren't the only problem with the LotR films. I like them a lot, but if I were to get into all the things large and small that bothered me, I'd still be typing tomorrow.

(Bombadil isn't one of them. I like that part of the book, but it's not crucial and there's no way it could have possibly worked in a movie.)

[Andail]

I think Dune is a good example of how they completely left the plot, the characters and the whole atmosphere behind on their way to the screen.
Then again, the movie turned out so incomprehensible, weird and obscure it was actually cool.
But it doesn't resemble the book one bit

[Blackthorne]

Dune rocks.  I don't care if it has Sting in a speedo.

Bt

[BOYD1981]

the only book i've read which is also a movie is The Silence of The Lambs, i read it before seeing the movie and i have to say, the book is much better.
i've read books which i thought would make good movies, such as The House That Jack Built and The Sleepless, both written by Graham Masterton, but the thing with a book is that it takes longer to read than it does to watch a movie (for me anyway, as i only usually read while taking a dump).
not many people would sit through a movie that long, so they have to miss out a lot of the story and just put key parts in, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[Nacho]

Fuzz, please do! I read the book like 4 years before... As for me, the only major mistake has been saving Eowin (I think she is killed in the book, correct), whereas in the movie, if I remember well, she finally falls in love with Eaomer (or Faramir?). It is like saying... well, let's save this girl and make her forget Aragorn, we can make a fouth part with that nice new couple!

And don't hesitate to correct me, my ideas of the book may be bad due to long time of not re-reading.

[Fuzzpilz]

Maybe later. But concerning Éowyn: in the book, as in the movie, she survives and ends up getting together with Faramir (definitely not Éomer, who is her brother).

[Nacho]

 

Incest!!!

So... Is there a queen/important woman warrior who is killed in the last book?  May I invented all that part in my mind?

[Fuzzpilz]

Nope. Théoden (King of Rohan and Éowyn's uncle) dies, though.

[Nacho]

Weird... 

[Adamski]

As Fuzzpilz said, it's not the big 'omissions' that are the problem with the films, it's mainly the unnecessary changes they made to things that don't impact the main story arc but completely mis-represents situations in Tolkien's works. It's like because it's a big, epic, grand story they had to go and take the subtle things and make them BIG and LOUD and IN YOUR FACE! Case in point, the skeleton and the well in Moria. Galadriel's ooga-booga scene in Lothlorien. The eye of Sauron being everywhere and acting like a damn spotlight. Saruman controlling the weather on Caradhras. Legolass doing a 'Fred Flintstone' silly action sequence. I do love the films, but there are so many annoyances that could have been avoided had Peter and the script writers discarded that annoying Hollywood mentality. 

Also additions of some bloody awful lines: If you want him come and claim him!

I'm sure the books didn't have that vile soundtrack either....

[Blackthorne]

Books make my eyes hurt.  Who wants to read all those sentences anyway?  I mean, like books are totally bogus.  My teacher made me, like, read those.

Ooooh...... Navy Seals.  Now there's a movie that was WAY better than the book!

Bt

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I've seen a cartoon version of Terry Pratchett's "Soul Music" Discworld novel. You'd think it'd be wonderful, wouldn't you? I mean, reading a Discworld novel is practially seeing a film inside your head - more so than when you read any other book. Terry Pratchett has the most visual and vivid prose I've ever seen. The books are practically screenplays all by themselves.

I have no idea what failed in the conversion, but the film is crap. C-R-A-P. Horrible to the point of pain. The Discworld games are much, much better conceived... and THEY aren't adaptations, they're originals. Go figure.

[Moox]

Band of brothers, although not a film, was much better then the book by ambrose. You can feel the mening until you see the grusome recreation.