I have to admit remembering that the Tom Bombadil part of LotR felt tiresome to read, at the time so I tend to fall on @minstrel's side of the argument, it felt very counterproductive and unnecessary to me. However, I read LotR over a decade ago now, when I was 12, so perhaps I missed the value of it, I'm not sure. What's strange about that is not once since have I had the urge to go read it again. Perhaps I will one day and everything will be completely different, who knows?
In response to the original post, the Bourne movies are really good. They don't actually take the whole plot from the book. The only similarity is a CIA assassin suffering from extreme memory loss. The books were very different, because it had featured Carlos the Jackal, and by the time the movies were made, he had already been captured.
Alatar and Pallando. They were both sent to the distant east of Middle-earth, and therefore played no role in the events of the west of Middle-earth, as described in The Lord of the Rings. Consequently, little is known about them.
In the first Hobbit movie, Gandalf mentions the two blue wizards and says he can't remember what there names are. Apparently they aren't mentioned by name in The Hobbit or LOTR, but rather in the Silmarillion. Peter Jackson didn't have the rights to the Silmarillion, so he couldn't even use their names in the Hobbit movies.
Might be hearsay but there are rumors whispering in the far corners of the internet that Peter Jackson may try the Silmarillion. Fingers crossed but prob just rumors.
I have lost interest in most movies, for a couple of reasons. First, I am not in the target demographic. I am, simply put, too old. Beyond that, it's too passive an experience for my taste. But to get on topic, the most outstanding example of a book being less than the movie would be "Dr. Strangelove." Great film, mediocre book. And to disagree with some others, I found the LOTR movies visually great, but mostly an exercise in special effects. There was nothing wrong with the acting or directing, but my idea of hobbits and elves (from the book) were nothing like those in the book. I realize that finding actors who looked like the hobbits or elves in the book would be pretty much impossible, but taking a relatively short young actor and giving him funny ears just didn't cut it for me. Regarding the Wizard of Oz, I enjoyed the book even after seeing the movie several times (well, more than several). The book was/is a children's book. The movie was a musical comedy, basically, aimed at adults with enough magic to interest children. The movie was great, no doubt, but the book is great too, just not pointed in the same direction.
I liked both book and film versions of LOTR equally, the books for the language, nuance, and detail, the film for the sheer grandeur and spectacle. In most other cases, I find that if I liked the film, I didn't really enjoy the book and vice versa. I hate Philip K Dick's books, but the film adaptations were much better. There are some exceptions of course. A long time ago, when Alistair Maclean was hot, there were a number of films made from his books, and I remember "When Eight Bells Toll" and "Puppet On a Chain" being made into films that represented the books very well. Although most people hated it, I think the film version of Dune was a decent attempt at a very difficult book, spoiled by limited budget, and lack of CGI technology at the time. A three part film would have been much better. On the other hand, my favourite book hero Matt Helm was utterly spat upon by the films, and I still prefer Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe books to the TV series. The film version of Fanny Hill was much inferior to the book as well. I have to say though that the film version of War and Peace I saw ages ago was much more enjoyable than the book.
I just saw Ender's Game and as each passing frame went by I became more and more convinced that making this book into a movie was a terrible idea.
I agree. Movies are too young these days, as if the young are the only ones that exist. The script I'm writing has the protagonist as 40ish. That's as low as I'll go. They (whoever wants to produce it) aren't turning it into Star Trek, where so many run around in their underwear.
The problem is that producers have the power over the plot and finished product of a movie. They don't care as much for quality as they only want targets etc. To do this they see a demographic and foucus on it. Long gone are the days where a Director could show up with a script and say "I want to make this filem about Death etc."
Is it possible that people are more apt to enjoy the first experience more? I liked the movie because I saw it first then read the book.
Not necessarily. I watched the first Dune movie before reading the book and thought the movie was awesome. Then I read the book and thought the movie sucked because it missed so much.
You really have to know something about filmography to understand what makes an objectively good or a bad movie, and that this is not necessarily faithfulness to the source material. Movies follow a very strict writing structure with events and people at very specific points. Ender's Game didn't "miss many beats" but the events they chose as "beats" are so lackluster that the whole story just kind of flops from one sequence to another. Also the composer was apparently told, "This will be an epic movie." but wasn't told at what point the action was supposed to take place. So he just wrote general epicness into every scene. And Mazer Rackem has demon tattoos all over his face for why? Probably for some deep and mystic reason that will be revealed at the clim--no? You just gonna add a throwaway line and leave it. Okay.
@Jack Asher I'm sure movies it's like fine wines -- the more know, the better (or not) they taste. Being a bit of screw top aficionado myself, I quite liked the pass and feel of the movie. I thought that M. Rackem was Australian or something and that the facial tattoos were of Maori origin to represent his heritage.
That's actually interesting in a very annoying way. Rackem was New Zealander/Maori, it's true, but the tattoos are never mentioned in the book. Card is a little vague when it comes to describing characters, but, "He had a giant fucking face tattoo. Like, all over his fucking face," never appears in the print. Was this was a calculated decision on the part of the director to tell use something? Unless the director is an idiot he wouldn't take things outside the norm unless there was something he was trying to convey. But the only reason I can think of is to look scary to provide a plot point about Mazer being half Maori And these are both incredibly stupid reasons.
Tattoos are big in many movies right now. I can't think of many action films where some dude or dude-ess doesn't have half their body covered with them. I'd go with both 1 and 2. I don't recall the bad guys being called Formics in the book either, which is a better name than Bugger. Obviously he didn't spend much time in the S&M world.
Generally I either dislike film-adaptations, such as LoTR and Harry Potter, or consider them nonequivalent of the written work, such as in they're so vastly different that comparing them is pointless. Concerning the latter I can now only think of The Night Watch, where I liked both, but for different reasons. The only, really, book/film scenario where I enjoyed the movie more than the book that I can think if is probably The Great Gatsby, it's just one of those stories that really needs to be shown, more than described. Suffice to say, though, I did enjoy the book too.
The thing about books and movies is the experience. 1st there is the pacing. Books have more time to work with for development in all areas. When reading, a person has all the time they need to pour over pages and let whatever is written ruminate in their minds. 2nd, with a book, there comes a point where the reader's and the protagonist's thoughts and experiences blend, allowing for the reader to be actively engaged. Movies are passive. You are watching the action externally of people noticeable outside of yourself. In books, you are able to get into the very mind of the characters. This leads to the 3rd point, which is the interpretation. When watching a movie, you experience the director's interpretation and visualization, while you get the chance to personalize the book you read yourself. That is not to say that one medium is inherently better than the other at telling a certain story; however, there is no denying that film adaptations need to tell a slightly different story in order to fit spacial and visual limitations. Some people are more responsive to this than they would be to the book, so I can't say the book is always better or more enjoyable. I will say, that avid readers have plenty of justification in promoting the original book over the film. On top of all of this, one must remember that movies are vastly more expensive to produce, so studios must consider what will draw the widest audience. When it comes to movies, there is a similar problem with converting tv shows and video games. Many things don't get made because there would be complications at accurately portraying the source material and trying to draw a large audience. For example, my friends want a new Dragon Ball Z movie because we have the fx for the action. No studio will pick that up right now; the audience is too small and trying to widen it would force them to change the tone to be attractive to young adults and people who never fell in love with the anime as a kid. At that point, is it still DBZ? Maybe not the one fans were hoping for. But back to books, lol. My favorite book to film conversion has to be The Lord of The Rings because it effectively captured the grand scale of the book and made three good, enjoyable movies! I'll have to object to the claims of the Harry Potter movies. Each movie matched the tone of each book very well. The books didn't seem to form a continuous story until book 4, at which point the books lost a lot of charm and gained a darker edge. The movies captured that well in the pacing and shots. I will admit that they did focus a bit much on the young adult romance angle a bit more than necessary and had to undercut a few things; however, they did a splendid job of showing how bad things were in the wizarding community, showcasing the gravity, as the books didn't show how things were in the muggle world. They also did a good job of handling character growth and showing how these kids were facing off against this truly powerful evil. They showcased community and friendships and, in my opinion, were good adaptations of a book series with a lot more space and depth than could ever be potrayed on film. In the end, WB's goal was to put the major elements of each book on screen in a way that would appeal to the large book fanbase (mostly young adults, many of whom were also readers of Twilight). On that note, another movie I think was better than the book was Twilight. I didn't really like the movies and never paid to see them (watched with my sister when they came on tv). However, from the samples of the book that I read, I would have been clawing my eyes out at the boring melodrama. The movies were dry, but at least relatively enjoyable by comparison to what I saw in the writing. With that, I think I've dragged on long enough.
Mars Attacks-Books Vs. Movie Read two of the many in the series, and neither was trying to be cutesy or comical. The first one I read was about 5 Martians, not an invasion force. And they wind up going head to head with a mid sized group of humans in one of those giant house museums. The other took place in either feudal Japan or in China (don't remember) and they had an established base and were fighting the local inhabitants. The movie basically stole the concept of the Martians in the books, shrunk them down and made them lame cliché invaders. Disappointment with it over all.
The Book Thief: read the book then saw the film and, for once, was wholly satisfied with the film adaptation. Children of Men: watched the film, read the book and really enjoyed both. They were almost different stories though.
Requiem for a Dream is one of my favourite films but I couldn't read the book. The American Jewish slang and (deliberate) lack of punctuation was too alien for me. I actually indulged in my masochistic side by both reading and watching 50 Shades of Grey. I can confirm that, although I didn't think it would be possible, the film is worse than the book.
This is true. I walked right on out of the theater at the first close up of Christian's fidgeting hand. I wish there was an eyeroll emoticon.
