Adaptation
Think back to a movie that you have seen that had a book counterpart. Did you see the movie or read the book first? How did they influence each other and specifically how did the first influence your viewing/reading of whichever you saw/read second.
If you can't recall an adaptation where you have both read the book and seen the movie, pick your favorite movie and do a little research to see if it has an original text other than the script.
If you can't recall an adaptation where you have both read the book and seen the movie, pick your favorite movie and do a little research to see if it has an original text other than the script.
posted by cmartin at 2/28/2006 08:40:00 PM
34 Comments:
I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy long before the movies came out. I absolutely loved the books, and I was so excited when the first movie came out. I thought it was pretty good. There were a lot of things that had been changed, but I understood the necessity for these changes in the movie, so I didn’t mind all that much. With the next two movies, I think they only got better (but that might just be because I liked the books in that order). I thought the casting was pretty good, too. The images of the characters and landscapes I had formulated in my head were a little different in some cases, but they were close. I’ve actually gone back and read them all again since the movies have come out. I can’t see the characters as I saw them before the movies. The actors have become the characters, and while in this case it isn’t too bad, it still sucks a little that that aspect of the imagination in reading books has been taken away. But all in all, I think Peter Jackson did a really good job.
john g-
The Hitchhiker’s Guide movie was terrible. I understand that people imagine characters differently when they read books, so I realize that movies can’t satisfy all of these different imaginations, but it really pisses me off when characters look nothing like I pictured them. I didn’t mind Mos Def as Ford Prefect, but I hated the rest (particularly Beeblebrox, Trillian, and the way Marvin and the aliens looked). It really is too bad, because the book is incredible, and they changed way too much. They nearly missed all of Adams’ wittiness in this adaptation.
IF ANYBODY DOING THEIR PRESENTATION ON THURSDAY WOULD LIKE TO SWITCH WITH ME (I’M GOING FRIDAY…ONE MORE DAY TO PROCRASTINATE), THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I’M RIDING IN A WAKEBOARDING COMPETITION FOR THE UNIVERSITY THAT WEEKEND, AND THE TEAM’S LEAVING FRIDAY BEFORE OUR CLASS. LET ME KNOW. THANKS.
NEVERMIND THE PREVIOUS REQUEST. IT WORKED OUT. THANKS ANYWAYS.
My brother gave me the book White Oleander one morning and by four that afternoon i had read it from cover to cover. A few months later it came out in theaters and i had to see it. I was a little disappointed because of what i thought were important parts of the novel were barely shown or not even mentioned at all in the film. Usually when movies are adaptations of books they dont turn out very well, but i thought overall that the movie was pretty good. I also watched Memoirs of a Geisha after i read the novel, and this movie was okay. One thing that really bothered me was how minute details that didnt have to be changed, were changed completely. For instance in the movie when Mother asks Chiyo when she was born she replies "year of the rat" when in the book it specifically says "year of the rabbit". Why change that? It only made the people who actually read the novel cringe and the people who hadnt read the novel...well they wouldnt know the difference.
i forgot something:
Ive never read a Harry Potter book but ive seen all the movies. I think the movies are pretty cool but there are definately some lines i find myself thinking "WTF does that have to do with anything?" I guess reading ahead on that series is a good thing because all the Harry Potter book fanatics seem to know what dumbledore means when he says "Difficult times lie ahead, Harry."
didnt harry beat all the bad guys? so what hard times are ahead?
So, I'm going to sound kind of cliche, but I've read all the Harry Potter's and seen the movies. I was a little dissapointed with the last most recent movie. The book was really long, so of course the movie had to leave some out. I think when you read the book before the movie, you go in with a preconceived notion of how you saw things in the book. When you don't see that on the screen, sometimes you may think the movie fell short. I think that the best strategy for directors is to try to capture the essence of the book, without recreating all the details. Then the audience won't have so much to pick at and compare. I think that the recent Harry Potter movie did do that well, because the movie focused on the internal changes in Harry and the characters, and not every single event that happened.
Sam,
I thought your post about harry potter was funny :) I've read all the books, so like i said in my original post, it is hard to get all the little hints like what lies ahead if you didn't read them. The last movie left out alot of details that forshadow what is going to happen. but there's to much for me to explain here!
Ok, so I don’t really read books anymore, but at one point I got into Anne Rice’s vampire chronicles… The series is like 6+ books long… I’ve read 4 of them… There have been two movies made from this series so far including Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Damned… I saw Interview with the Vampire before I read the book, but I don’t think that this mattered too much… The film, I think, did a fairly good job in tracing the events as they happen in the book without too much variation. So, when I read the book, more of the details were filled in, but the film covered the important stuff… As far as casting goes, I think Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst fit really well as Louis and Claudia, however I don’t really see Tom Cruise as Lestat. I don’t know why… And then with Queen of the Damned, the film was a compilation of the 2nd and 3rd books… I’d say that the movie was entertaining to watch, but it didn’t even come close to covering what was in the books…
As far as Harry Potter goes, I'm in the same boat as Sam... I've watched the movies, but I don't really find it necessary to read the books... For the most part, I'm not into children's books or movies, but one exception is A Series of Unfortunate Events. I love that movie...
It's incredibly difficult to properly adapt a film from a book. Just like in that article we read for class, films give us images for us to make assumptions and books give us assumptions to make images. Probably one of the best adaptations I've seen would be Lord of the Rings trilogy. Great books, great film. I loved the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy improperly named trilogy (of five books), but I found the movie lacking. Reading the book before watching the movie accomplished two major things: 1. it gave me a better understanding of what was going on in the film. 2. but it also gave me expectations of a quality it could never have hoped to achieve.
Another example of a great movie from a great book is Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk. I've got a new version of the book, and in the forward by the author, Chuck talks about the far reaching popularity of the movie while most people have no idea that it was a book first.
Some more movies I've seen where I've also read the book(s) are: Alice in Wonderland's Through the Looking Glass (adapted from Lewis Carrol), Lord of the Flies, Clockwork Orange (Anthony Burgess wrote, and Stanley Kubrick produced), 2001 Space Odyssey (another Kubrick film), Old Man and the Sea (Hemingway), to name a few.
So, are the Harry Potter movies/books any good? There really popular, but I never got a chance to get into them. Anyone else read Fight Club, or any other Palahniuk books? I heard they're going to make an adaptation from his Survivor, which is my favorite of his books. highly recommended.
I've read lot's of books and seen films that where related to these books. Usually, the book turns out to be way better than the film, because of the book's contents. However,I must say with the exeption of the film "To Kill a Mockingbird" directed by Robert Mulligan, there is no way a film can come up with the same approach as a the book. I'd read the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" and enjoyed it as much as the film. I think the film was done in 1962, the director did a great job with pointing out the characters in the way that it was recognized in the book. The issues are cut short to simplify the plot but the issues portrayed in the book weren't modified or ignored. The court cases are just as suspenceful and entertaining as they were in the book. I'm sure it must be challenging for a director to make a success of a film out of a book. I truly enjoyed the story in both versions.
I am really into fantasy stories so Im probably going to sound redundant with the movies I have selected to talk about. First off, if you havent read them yet, the Chronicles of Narnia are 7 great stories by C.S. Lewis. Each story has a little to do with the others so they all sort of tie in together. Last summer I saw the trailer for the movie and it looked so good that I had to read all of the books. Because the books are very short, the movie is basically word for word with the book. The movie didnt leave any details or part of the story out. Next, the Harry Potter series is another favorite of mine. Until recently I had only seen the movies. I liked this last movie so much that I couldnt wait a year to find out what happens. I also couldnt just start on the 5th story so I went back and read from the begining. The first book, again, is very short and the movie leaves nothing out. However, each book gets longer. (the 5th is about 3 times longer than the 1st) By about the 3rd book, the movies start to make up scenes, change dialogue, and basically adapt the book into a movie. You get history and know why things are the way they are with the books. Like most cases, the books have so much more detail and explain situations, which makes them way way better. The Lord of the Rings is another favorite of mine. I saw the movies first and then read. I like both but I think these movies were fantastic. A lot of story was cut but it didnt matter because the movies were so long that they couldnt add more. If you havent, read the Hobbit, it is the prequel to LOTR and it also is great. Hopefully they make a movie on it (not the animated version they already have, which is good though)All in all, 9 out of 10 times the book is better. This is mainly because of the detail left out in the movie. Maybe it is because I usually see the movie first but I like reading and creating images for myself.
ray- I had no idea that those two movies were in a series. I am definetly going to read them. Interview was fantastic. I thought that Queen of the Damned could have been way better but the books are probably awesome.
I'm going to use Harry Potter. The movie, all of the mfor that matter, do not in anyway compare to the books which are far superior in quality. The story just can not be compressed into a feature length film. There are too many things that were left out of the movies for them to be truly accurate portayals of the novels. If the books didn't exist then yes the movies would be pretty good, but the books do exist and therefore the movies suck, a lot. After having read every single book I expected so much more from the movies and was thus very dissapointed.
Sam - You're such a loser, who hasn't read all the books?!!! ;)
Jon S - I've read most of his books too and Survivor happens to be my favorite as well. I heard they were makign a movie out of it a few years back but I haven't ehard anything since.
I pretty much agree with the things everyone has been saying so far. It is really hard for movies to live up to books because it is impossible to fit everything that happens in books into a two hour movie. Over Christmas break I read the book Wicked, an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz that tells the story of the life of the wicked witch of the west. It was really cool to see the opposite side of the story that everyone knows. I really liked the book but I wish it would have spent more time on the part where Dorothy and the gang come to the castle to kill the witch. I definitely had expectations from the movie while reading the book but I really enjoyed it.
Sam-
I agree with you about Harry Potter. I tried to read the books because so many people I know have read them and loved them, but I never get motivated to get past the first few pages.
I read both Heart of Darkness and A Clockwork Orange. Heart of Darkness is the book that Apocalypse Now is adapted from. I'm pretty sure I watched both movies while I was reading the books. So in one sense, it kind of gave away the novels for me but it did make me more interested in the books and made me want to finish them. I remember minor differentiations between the books and the films but nothing too drastic. I read The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons and cannot wait for The Da Vinci Code to come out with Tom Hanks. I hope they follow the book very closely, as I am a big fan of those novels.
Jonathan- This is probably going to bring about a lot of controversy but... I have never read or seen any of the Harry Potter books or films. I know, I know, I hear it all the time. Let the harassment begin... wait for it... now...
I am going to talk about the very popular Harry Potter franchise. I am a big Potter fan, I guess the magical story lines brought out the 10 year old in me. I watched the first three movies before having read the books, but I also read the fourth book and then saw the latest movie The Goblet of Fire. Having seen/read both first and after the other I have to say the well-known statement, “the book was better”. There really isn’t any comparison. A book is obviously straight from the author and has the original story, plot and meaning. With a movie, a lot of times directors leave parts out to fit time constraints, thus weakening what the author wanted the audience to have. As good and entertaining as Goblet was, I was a little disappointed with it because it left out a lot of details and subplots from the book.
laura, I wrote my post before reading others' comments. It's funny that we agree. I say, make a 3.5 hour movie and get it all in, the fans will watch it!
As I was trying to think of movies that I have seen that I have also read the book to (which is very rare, I never read books unless someone makes me, thats a bad trait) I saw Jurasic Park on my DVD shelf thing. I realized I read that book a long time ago like in middle school. I did see the movie first before I read the book. Most people read the book first and see what the movie does wrong. I sorta enjoyed reading the book after seeing the movie becuase first, it gave me a much better description of scenes, secondly I sorta got to see the things left out, kind of like the deleted scenes in a movie.
I do not understand the Harry Potter phenomenon that is going. I went and saw the first movies and they were pretty cool. But I feel now that some production company has J K Rowling tied to a chair forcing her to write more and more books so they can make more movies (and $$$$$)
(i am aware that it is 1:23 AM, im in miami for a funeral and completely forgot up until right now, i am posting the blog anyway just incase it still counts for some credit)
i have seen plenty of movies that had a book counterpart or were spawned from a book. the most recent movie that ive seen that comes to mind is Memoirs of a Geisha. I read the book first and loved it. It was incredibly moving and i couldnt put it down until i finished it. The movie, on the other hand, was not as compelling as the book. The movie felt short compared to the book and it lacked passion. Also i think the girl playing the lead character was actually Chinese instead of Japanese and that sort of ruined the realism of the movie for me. To me, the movies that i have seen that were books first instead of original screenplays always lacked something, im a book person so perhaps i enjoy turning pages and imagining the story in my mind.
john g: hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy sucked. i completely agree. but i never read the book. and also to everyone talking about harry potter,the movies arent bad but they definitely dont do any justice to the books.
sorry this computers time is off and i havent slept in days. i guess it was 12:30 when i posted the blog.
Like most of the class, i also chose the Harry Potter series. I am a huge fan of the books and have read them all prior to watching the movies. I think all four movies differ in how well they were adapted from the books, which is likely due to the fact that they weren't all done by the same director. I think the first movie was the best as far as how closely it stuck to the original and that the third was the worst. I also really like the fourth one even though a lot from the book was cut out. Although I think the Potter movies are great, the books are definitely way better and I'm glad I read them first. With a few exceptions, for most movies that I've seen that are adaptations I did not read the book first but I wish I had for some because it is fun to compare the visual with how you pictured it when you were reading it. One adaptation that I'm really looking forward to is the Da Vinci Code because I really enjoyed the book.
Debbie-
I have to agree with you on To Kill A Mockingbird. It was one of my favorite books when I was younger and the film definitely does it justice.
In high school we read Hamlet while watching the movie. We would watch in class what our assignment was the previous night. This was interesting because the movie would bring to life what we had just read. One part that I found challenging was when I read, I mentally put a face on each character, and when you watch a film, the creator has put his or her own face on the characters. There are many times when the two don't match. This is also the case with the entier mise-en-scene. I had a much different picture in my mind of what the setting would look like than in the movie. I also had trouble with the way the movie portrayed the ghost.
I am a HUGE fan of O Brother Where Art Thou, and I have read the Odyssey as well and the way the adaptation was done with this movie is really great and a very different way of looking at a classic.
To respond to the Lord of the Rings comments. I have to admit (to the dissapointment of most of the class, I'm sure) that I saw the first LOTR movie and all it did was make me sure I wouldn't watch the other two, much less read the book. I was really dissapointed after all the hype I'd heard from all my friends. I watched the film in the presence of my friends who all tried to explain everything, but I just found it long and a drain on my attention span.
Dear Sam,
I haven't read any of the books on Harry Potter either, but really enjoyed the film. It made me feel excited about reading the books. I also went out and iewed "Freedomland" for my outside viewing report and founf out that it was based on a book. I think I might try and check it out.
42
Post a Comment
<< Home