Book-based movies

Post by **PixarVixen** » April 5th, 2006, 4:04 am

I've noticed lately that movies based on books usually do extremely well. I didn't really start to think about this until I learned that Meet The Robinsons is based on the children's book "A Day With Wilbur Robinson". The upcoming animated film The Ant Bully is also based on a children's book. These are both movies that I'm dying to see.

I mean think about it...Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, etc. Those have all been successful crossovers. Do you think book-based movies do better than those that aren't?

~~=oP

Post by **Wonderlicious** » April 5th, 2006, 5:38 am

I don't think that Star Wars was based on a book. Isn't it an original idea of sorts?

Needless to say, I think the general success of book to film adaptations stems from the fact that they're based on well-known things. I think that people like to hear a story that they already know told in a different way, thus making the adaptations hits.

Of course, some book to film adaptations have failed both artisticly and financially...

Post by **PixarVixen** » April 5th, 2006, 6:47 am

Wonderlicious wrote:I don't think that Star Wars was based on a book

Hmm...I thought it was. If I'm wrong, oh well. You can tell I'm not a hardcore Star Wars fan. ^^

Wonderlicious wrote:I think that people like to hear a story that they already know told in a different way

I agree with this. I think one reason this is especially true is the fact that movies help create an image of what the fans read about. I know when I read something, I tend to imagine what is going on in the story and what the characters look like. And when I see a movie based on that same piece, I can see how my visualizations compare.

~~=oP

Post by **Meg** » April 5th, 2006, 7:42 am

It annoys me when people hate a movie becuase it 'doesn't follow the book'...Just some food for thought.

Post by **PixarVixen** » April 5th, 2006, 7:57 am

There's this one girl in my illustration class that doesn't like how the Harry Potter movies cut so much of the storylines. She says there is so much detail in the books that gets left out. It doesn't bother me. Makes me wanna read the books though. Haha.

~~=oP

Post by **Ben** » April 5th, 2006, 8:13 am

Wonderlicious wrote:I don't think that Star Wars was based on a book. Isn't it an original idea of sorts?

Star Wars was not based on a book, but it wasn't "original" either!

Book-to-film adaptations often (but not always!) work because they have a decent STORY, which the filmmakers can draw from.

Because a film is "shorter" than a book, things obviously have to be left out, but this can make a film richer, as all the background has been devised by the original author.

Likewise, it is important to make a film its own thing. I had a problem with the first two Potters since I pretty much thought all they did was "film the book". The third one tried to have more depth, but was still a slave to the book overall, while Mike Newell, with the most recent one, discarded entirely what wasn't needed from the book and made a great FILM!!

Just as Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings. He switched moments around, combined characters and moved events all over the place to make FILMS that would stand up on their own merits.

It's important to realise that the two mediums are very different creatures, though if a film does its job properly, many people find themselves going back to the books and then absorbing all the additional material that a good author can conjure up using that extra breathing space.

Post by **Macaluso** » April 5th, 2006, 10:22 am

I'm going to just give my thoughts on some book -> movies.

Jurassic Park is generally thought to be BETTER than the book. I agree too. I couldn't even get through the horrid thing. I swear all the time, but if I'm reading a book, I'd like it to not be cussing SOOOO much. (I also loved Lost World. Screw you haters). And bro. Jeff Goldblum. I mean come on. He rocks.

On the other side of the coin, there are two shining movies (I think there might be a third, but I only know of two). The Jack Nicholson one, and the one made for TV. I read The Shining before I saw either movie. And I hate the Jack Nicholson version. They just butchered the book to hell in my opinion. The DTV movie, however, was more like the book. So I enjoyed it more. The book was still better either way.

Harry Potter... hmm. I'm a fan of both the movies and the books. The books are far better obviously, but the movies are terrific anyway. The third one both better and worse than the others. There was so much about the movie that was great, and they did an amazing job on the whole time travel thing. But I hated that they never wore their robes or anything, and they changed a few things. The fourth movie was just downright fantastic, and they did the final battle scene at the end EXACTLY how I pictured it. I don't think they could have gotten any more perfect. My only real gripe is that they didn't include ANY Quidditch. There seemed to be all this build up at the beginning that they were actually going to show some, and then BAM. SORRY. NO QUIDDITCH!

Also. Emma Watson <333 Is she legal enough yet ;P

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 5th, 2006, 7:33 pm

Also. Emma Watson <333 Is she legal enough yet ;P

Oh Mac, you dog you....

Jurassic Park is generally thought to be BETTER than the book. I agree too. I couldn't even get through the horrid thing.

Yeah...it wasn't that great. I read it shortly after watching the movie when it first came out, which I LOVED. The book is on a different level, kinda fun in a geek-science way. You're right tho, the charcters are VERY shallow, (and annoying!) Spielberg actually made them more interesting in the film--pretty ironic considering how much of the plot was cut.
SPHERE on the other hand was a GREAT book, absolutely amazing, and the movie was an atrocity. So there you go.

I saw the Shining 1980 film, then read the book years after. Both are good in a different way. I think the thing about King's books is that sometimes they're great in book form but if you want to film them, it's kinda hard. Kubrik followed his own vision and I respect that. And I DID see the ABC version, which King scripted I believe. Hated it no end. The acting was horrible, horrible, horrible, especially Jack Torrence, who was so badly miscast it hurt. Not even the least scary. And his book WAS, but in my opinion Kubrik was right to change it because it just wouldn't work in movie form.

Same with the movie IT. (the demon clown one) The book is a mishmash of sentimentality and horror, which works O.K. to an extent. You can forgive him for a lot of it when you read it. But they were right to cut it down to size for the movie, because how in the world can you possibly reflect the points of view of seven different characters in DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME, constantly shifting back and forth? The movie did a great job considering what a mess King's book was. They should be congratulated for it.

Also, if you ever read the original Godfather novel, it's actually a very good book, despite people saying that the film is much better. The film IS better but the book is very well-written too. Maybe not a classic, but fun all the same.

And bro. Jeff Goldblum. I mean come on. He rocks.

Oh yeah he's so cool. I love the Fly. I love The Tall Guy! He was also in the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers--he's really young there. I actually like The Lost World too, in a well-it's-something-to-look-at-kinda-way, except maybe for the last twenty minutes or so, which is Spielberg basically saying "thanks for the eight bucks but I'm on my break now. Ha ha, I finally won an Oscar so what are you gonna do about it?"

Post by **Ben** » April 6th, 2006, 7:29 am

ShyViolet wrote:The Lost World, in a well-it's-something-to-look-at-kinda-way, except maybe for the last twenty minutes or so, which is Spielberg basically saying "thanks for the eight bucks but I'm on my break now. Ha ha, I finally won an Oscar so what are you gonna do about it?"

Nice way of putting it. I actually think they had a bet to say "let's sucker the audience and make the worst A-list movie ever and see if we gat fool 'em".

Post by **Meg** » April 6th, 2006, 7:45 am

I read and loved both Jurassic Park and The Lost World...

Post by **Macaluso** » April 6th, 2006, 11:15 am

Why does everyone hate on the T-rex in the real world part of the movie? pffft. That part was awesome.

Post by **Ben** » April 6th, 2006, 1:38 pm

Yeah, was the best part. But HOW he get there??

Sure, they locked it up, doped, in the cargo hold. But you're telling me that it managed to operate the control and open up the door, roam around the ship, squeeze its head into the captain's cabin and bit everyone up, leaving the ship safely steered toward land (coincidentally the extact same place everyone was waiting, by the way), before he GOT BACK IN THE HOLD and CLOSED THE DOORS AGAIN???

That...is one very cleversaurus!

Post by **Macaluso** » April 6th, 2006, 2:53 pm

Oh... yeah well, that's easily explained as island witchcraft, much like magical disapearing floor in the T-rex pit in the first movie =P

Post by **Ben** » April 7th, 2006, 8:19 am

Magical disappearing floor? Missed that one.

Post by **Macaluso** » April 7th, 2006, 11:03 am

In the scene where the T-rex comes out of his holding area, the floor inside the cage is the same level as the road that the cars are on. But when the T-rex pushes the car over the side, suddenly there's a huge cliff.