# Books to Movies?



## Violanthe (Sep 21, 2005)

The process of changing books into movies has a dubious reputation. A successful film version of a beloved book is a rare occurrence, and even then, fans of the books have major criticisms. On the other hand, these films often turn out to be enjoyable for movie-goers who haven't read the book. What do you think? Should Hollywood transform beloved books into film? Or just comes up with their own ideas? Or should books lovers get some perspective? Realize the inherent differences in filmic form?


----------



## HLGStrider (Sep 22, 2005)

It has been done well before. . .and a few books out there are actually better as films than as books.

I am forever touting _Because of Winn-Dixie_ as a book/movie conversion done right, so it can be done.
I like _The Princess Bride _the movie better than the book. The book was interesting but disappointing. The movie is perfection.
On the other hand mention the Hobbit cartoon and die. 

Even if a movie fails in some places it may suceed in others and those sucesses may be worth the entire endevor. That's how I feel about the _Lord of the Rings_ movies, for instance, and probably how I will feel when _Narnia_ makes its big screen debuts. 

It isn't just book to movie that can be an awkward transition. History to movie really is a challenge to do right. Play to movie, which would seem to be the easiest, provokes all kinds of trouble.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Sep 22, 2005)

Like Elgee says, there are some books that simply won't make a good movie, while others cater to it perfectly.


----------



## HLGStrider (Sep 22, 2005)

I think it has a lot to do with how complex the plot is. There is probably a lot more to it, but I think simpler plots work better on film than big, mismatched, complex things with three hundred characters each with a million different motivations.


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 22, 2005)

I'll turn a particularly frightening page and bring up Narnia. I loved the BBC dramatisation, though that may be largely to do with growing up with it. I can look at it now and recognise the poor props or the nonexistent screenplay (the characters simply stand on sets and recite the book), but despite the dire special effects, it does work. It is magical, the characters are lovable and the four that were made are fantastic. I would put this example forward to suggest that it is the excellence of the original rather than the abilities (or resources) of the film makers that destines a book-to-film transition. Of course, it is always possible to mangle totally anything if you really try (Elgee's Hobbit cartoon example  ) but I think you really have to go to some effort to make a film of a book truly terrible.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 22, 2005)

Violanthe said:


> Should Hollywood transform beloved books into film?



Sure, why stop now? That's been going on as long as Hollywood's been making movies — a time-honored tradition. Just because some are bad doesn't mean they should stop, there are too many good one! And the good ones bring people to the books — PJ's LOTR f'rinstance! 

Barley


----------



## Violanthe (Sep 28, 2005)

What are some of the essentials, in your opinion, that a director needs to keep in mind when turning a book into a film?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 28, 2005)

Violanthe said:


> What are some of the essentials, in your opinion, that a director needs to keep in mind when turning a book into a film?



I'm not sure to whom you're addressing this question. However, I think before I invest time trying to answer this _very_ complex question, I'd like to hear what _you_ think is the answer, especially since you term the whole process "dubious." There have been many lousy adaptations, but that doesn't make the whole thing "dubious." Why do you say that?

Barley

PS: My correct post count is whatever is shown *PLUS 800.* For some reason, credit for 800(!!!) legitimate posts has been subtracted from my count with no explanation whatever.


----------



## Aulë (Sep 28, 2005)

I'm still waiting for the Wheel of Time to be made into a movie...
(well....at least the first 5 books  )


----------



## e.Blackstar (Sep 28, 2005)

And I'm right behind you waiting with A Song of Ice and Fire.


----------



## Fugitive1992 (Sep 28, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Sure, why stop now? That's been going on as long as Hollywood's been making movies — a time-honored tradition. Just because some are bad doesn't mean they should stop, there are too many good one! And the good ones bring people to the books — PJ's LOTR f'rinstance!


 
I'll agree with Barliman on this one. Sure they have a few crappy movies but i was never into Tolkien until i watched the LOTRs movies and then i wanted my opinion on the books. And now that I'm on the second book ( the two Towers) i'm really enjoying them. the books i mean. sure the movies are good but i prefure the books.


----------



## Aulë (Sep 29, 2005)

e.Blackstar said:


> And I'm right behind you waiting with A Song of Ice and Fire.


 
Hehe, that would probably be XXX rated


----------



## Violanthe (Sep 29, 2005)

_I'm not sure to whom you're addressing this question. However, I think before I invest time trying to answer this very complex question, I'd like to hear what you think is the answer, especially since you term the whole process "dubious." There have been many lousy adaptations, but that doesn't make the whole thing "dubious." Why do you say that?_



I wasn't saying that *I *found the process "dubious". I said that the process has a "dubious reputation" meaning that a lot of people criticize it. Do you disagree that film remakes have a less than enthusiastic following?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 29, 2005)

Violanthe said:


> _I'm not sure to whom you're addressing this question. However, I think before I invest time trying to answer this very complex question, I'd like to hear what you think is the answer, especially since you term the whole process "dubious." There have been many lousy adaptations, but that doesn't make the whole thing "dubious." Why do you say that?_
> 
> I wasn't saying that *I *found the process "dubious". I said that the process has a "dubious reputation" meaning that a lot of people criticize it. Do you disagree that film remakes have a less than enthusiastic following?



How strange. You say it isn't you that terms the process dubious, yet you say that it is. Just who _is_ supposed to be saying it then, and why, if you don't know the source of the assertion, do you accept the idea? You also say that "a lot of people" criticize it. Precisely _who_ makes the assertion? Why should we take "them" seriously? Why do you? And why do you keep asking these questions as if we are on trial? What's _your_ answer? What do _you_ think about it? Let's have _your_ opinion!

Barley


----------

