Movies made after famous books
- Thread starter U2girl
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Eliv8
Refugee
U2girl said:
You mean famous books like Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings or comic books like Batman & Spiderman
Tiger Edge
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U2girl said:
1. Because when you read the book you're creating your own images in your head. You make up the setting, what the characters look like, how they talk, their facial expressions, everything. Everything the text doesn't tell you, you fill it in with your own perceptions. When someone else makes a film about it, they are putting in their own view. Casting, location, how the characters act, everything right in their mind is applied to the screen.
Books are that much more powerful because you really kind of bond with them and make them your own. The plot and dialogue are there, but everything else is really up to you.
You can't ask two people to paint the same picture and expect it to be exactly the same.
2. I think it should do both. And they do balance. Sometimes there will be an extra tidbit in movies for people that have read the book. Overall movies are expected to explain the book for those who didn't read. Otherwise what's the point, really? You'll just have a film to cater to a select few.
Eliv8
Refugee
I don't understand 'rarely do well'
Seems they often do well.
Seems they often do well.
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U2girl said:
Do well as in financially or creatively? LOTR(all 3) as an example grossed a few billion dollars worldwide. I thought it was great to watch as well.
The Shining 
beegee
Neon Zebra
some are good, some suck.
it's the same as with anything.
it's the same as with anything.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
Sicy said:The Shining
That movie was on TV the other night
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Jurassic Park - good book and good movie. Although, the movie isn't all that faithful to the book.
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
Jaws was a book too, and the movie was infinitely better.
phanan
Blue Crack Addict
Even the original Star Wars was released as a book before the movie came out. We know which one did better there...
OK Jaws and Star wars are examples of movies being more famous than the books.
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
Gone with the Wind - The book was wildly popular when it first was published, and the movie was equally successful, if not more.
Gone with the wind was a book? Never knew that...
I enjoy Chrichton-based movies but I think I have only read one Chrichton book so far.
PlaTheGreat: yes, I guess it's a balance between pleasing the book fanatics and the non-readers.
I enjoy Chrichton-based movies but I think I have only read one Chrichton book so far.PlaTheGreat: yes, I guess it's a balance between pleasing the book fanatics and the non-readers.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Yep, Margaret Mitchell wrote Gone With the Wind.
Unfortunately, I don't think the movie-makers care one whit about pleasing the book fanatics.
Sometimes they end up with a movie that the book lovers are relatively happy with, but I don't think "but what will the readers think" enters into the conversation at all during the movie-making process.
Not that I've been a fly on the wall during any processes, but Hollywood is all about $$$.
Unfortunately, I don't think the movie-makers care one whit about pleasing the book fanatics.
Sometimes they end up with a movie that the book lovers are relatively happy with, but I don't think "but what will the readers think" enters into the conversation at all during the movie-making process.
Not that I've been a fly on the wall during any processes, but Hollywood is all about $$$.
Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
Many of my favorite movies were made after books:
Lord of the Rings (OK, so it would be impossible to really capture the essence of Tolkien, but who says in order for it to be good, it has to be the exact same?)
Harry Potter
Gettysburg (Killer Angels)
Fried Green Tomatoes
Much Ado About Nothing
To Kill a Mockingbird
About A Boy
Forrest Gump
High Fidelity
Requiem for a Dream
Pride and Prejudice (A&E version)
All of those are moderately to insanely popular and did very well, respective of their budgets and how they were actually promoted.
Lord of the Rings (OK, so it would be impossible to really capture the essence of Tolkien, but who says in order for it to be good, it has to be the exact same?)
Harry Potter
Gettysburg (Killer Angels)
Fried Green Tomatoes
Much Ado About Nothing
To Kill a Mockingbird
About A Boy
Forrest Gump
High Fidelity
Requiem for a Dream
Pride and Prejudice (A&E version)
All of those are moderately to insanely popular and did very well, respective of their budgets and how they were actually promoted.
BonoIsMyMuse
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I think movies based on books often don't do well because it's difficult to recreate exactly what's in a writer's head when he or she writes a book. Even though good books make us see a movie of sorts in our heads, the two mediums are drastically different. A writer's style greatly affects how we read a book, and that style is hard to translate into a visual medium sometimes.
Take, for instance, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The book and movie are both brilliant (among my favorites), but they're quite different. The movie couldn't follow the book exactly, because the voice of Chief as the narrator couldn't come across on screen. So McMurphy became the focal character in the movie, and Chief moved into the background. The endings of both are fairly similar, but the events are portrayed in a much different light in the book, and I think the end of the movie isn't as satisfying because of that different portrayal.
That said, The Hours was an excellent adaptation from the book. I loved the book, so I went into the movies with unrealistically high expectations. Surprisingly, the movie actually lived up to them.
Take, for instance, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The book and movie are both brilliant (among my favorites), but they're quite different. The movie couldn't follow the book exactly, because the voice of Chief as the narrator couldn't come across on screen. So McMurphy became the focal character in the movie, and Chief moved into the background. The endings of both are fairly similar, but the events are portrayed in a much different light in the book, and I think the end of the movie isn't as satisfying because of that different portrayal.
That said, The Hours was an excellent adaptation from the book. I loved the book, so I went into the movies with unrealistically high expectations. Surprisingly, the movie actually lived up to them.
WildHoneyAlways
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
The book The Shining was excellent. The movie was just meh for me. I believe King wasn't happy with the movie either. Or I could be making that up, I can't remember. 
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Oh, I loved The Hours. Loved the book more, though.
I think one of the best book-to-movie adaptations is To Kill a Mockingbird. Excellent book, excellent movie.
I think one of the best book-to-movie adaptations is To Kill a Mockingbird. Excellent book, excellent movie.
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
WildHoneyAlways said:The book The Shining was excellent. The movie was just meh for me. I believe King wasn't happy with the movie either. Or I could be making that up, I can't remember.
But Jack Nicholson is absolutely classic in that movie.
"Words of wisdom Jack, *eyebrows*, words...of...wisdom. *eyebrows*"
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Sometimes movies never capture the magic of a book. Consider the attempts to make "Dune" into a movie. All dreadful.
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
Movie much better than the book, IMO.
Speaking of Nick Hornsby, the movie adaptation of Fever Pitch was cute, but really lacked compared to the book.
As for High Fidelity - it's hard for me to say which I liked more. The book is awesome, but give me John Cusack, Jack Black and a cameo by Bruce and I might have to choose the film.
elevation2u
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
books I read before watching the movie and surprisingly actually really enjoyed the movie as well:
high fidelity, fear & loathing in las vegas, grapes of wrath, heart of darkness [apocalypse now], to kill a mockingbird,
I'm looking forward to Into the Wild which is being directed by Sean Penn.
high fidelity, fear & loathing in las vegas, grapes of wrath, heart of darkness [apocalypse now], to kill a mockingbird,
I'm looking forward to Into the Wild which is being directed by Sean Penn.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Some books are just impossible to make movies of, but then thats why theres television
starsgoblue
Blue Crack Addict
Fight Club
elevation2u
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
yea, I still think the ending in the book is waay better than the movie
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
When 'To Kill A Mockingbird' is on TV, I try and catch it. One time it was on, within the last year or so & I got my 11 year old daughter to watch it. I told her it was one of the best movies of all time (I think it's on the AFI list). Anyways, a couple of months ago she had to read a certain type of book for a book report, and she chose this one (I haven't read it ) And then she had to do a project on it. She took a box and cut a hole out to make it appear to be a tree trunk, and put some items in it, such as a straw hat, soap, and a few other things - all items apparently from the story. Gotta keep the classics alive (and maybe I will read it this summer 
)
-proud Mom
-
) And then she had to do a project on it. She took a box and cut a hole out to make it appear to be a tree trunk, and put some items in it, such as a straw hat, soap, and a few other things - all items apparently from the story. Gotta keep the classics alive (and maybe I will read it this summer ) -proud Mom
-
beegee
Neon Zebra
white oleander was good. it's always been one of my favorite books and when i saw a preview that it had been made into a film i just cringed. but, to my surprise, michelle pfeiffer played ingrid with just enough obsessive creepiness to keep her both beautiful and fascinating.
adrian lyne's version of lolita is another one. since this book has been my absolute favorite for many, many years, i tend to steer clear of any film versions. but this one, with jeremy iron as humbert and dominique swain as our little nymph, is pretty much perfection. the scene where she sees him in the window and runs upstairs in slow motion is one of the most heartbreaking scenes i have ever seen on film. when he lets go of her and clutches at his stomach. it's incredible.
memoirs of a geisha was a great book, but the film never should have been made. it was an ok film, everything was really pretty to look at and the costumes were awesome, but you just can't get into sayuri's head the way you can in the book. also, the ending of the book had me in tears, but it completely flopped on film.
brokeback mountain is another one that was almost as good as the story. we got all of that breathtaking scenery. annie proulx's writing is just so amazing, though. i mean, in my opinion, the written word can just never be outdone, even by the most amazing film.
adrian lyne's version of lolita is another one. since this book has been my absolute favorite for many, many years, i tend to steer clear of any film versions. but this one, with jeremy iron as humbert and dominique swain as our little nymph, is pretty much perfection. the scene where she sees him in the window and runs upstairs in slow motion is one of the most heartbreaking scenes i have ever seen on film. when he lets go of her and clutches at his stomach. it's incredible.
memoirs of a geisha was a great book, but the film never should have been made. it was an ok film, everything was really pretty to look at and the costumes were awesome, but you just can't get into sayuri's head the way you can in the book. also, the ending of the book had me in tears, but it completely flopped on film.
brokeback mountain is another one that was almost as good as the story. we got all of that breathtaking scenery. annie proulx's writing is just so amazing, though. i mean, in my opinion, the written word can just never be outdone, even by the most amazing film.
Carek1230
Blue Crack Overdose Get me off the internetz!
Movie vs book are completely different interpretations. You'll rarely find the author of a great novel that also directs and produces the motion picture of a screenplay from their book. I am an avid reader and I have always loved to read, so for me the books are much more entertaining. It's my escape into the story and using my imagination as I read that entertains me more than watching visuals of a story on a big screen. Also, some people are more stimulated and moved by visuals where some people, like myself, are more moved by words. Good authors and good directors/producers are equally talented in the quality work they produce, they are just different interpretations.
Similar threads
