37 replies to this topic

[kleong]

I don't like books being tranlated in movie. Movie tends to add in elements that is not from the original storylines. Most of the time, it is to make the movie more commercial variable. A classic example would be the Titanic. The movie diverted from main gist which is the tragedy and in place, we had the Jack and Rose "drama". Whatever people talk about the movie, it is on the love story between Jack and Rose or that song sung by Celine Dion and NOT the sinking of Titanic. This is kinda sad I would say.

[x CriiTiiCaL HiiT x]

I also don't like books being converted into movies. Most of the time the book is too long to be fit into screenplay and a lot of important parts in the plot are cut off. Also, a lot is being added in that has nothing to do with the book.

[conture]

I hate it, absolutely hate it when they turn books into movies, especially when you have already read the book. Expample: If you already read Harry Potter 5, you can see that they skiped a few stuff while making the movies. Which is very anoying, especially when it's a scene that you love. I also think this is just very unoriginal of the producer

[Albus Dumbledore]

Me myself, I'm not much of a book reader. So I usually need something to kick my interests in it for me to pick it up and read it.

when i say kick my interests, i don't mean the little synopsis on the back of the book, that never gives enough detail about what the story is about to spark my interests in it. I need something that shows me or tells me a full summary from front to rear, kind of like something an elementary school student would write as a book review, short, to the point, but descriptive. I have found with a couple of series that turning the books into movies spiked my intrests in the book. For example, I had picked up the book twilight back in 2006 a little bit after it came out, and read the synopsis but didn't like it so i put it down. The preview came out for the movie, and i thought, hmm that would make an interesting book. So i bought it and loved it, then proceed to read the rest of the books.

Similar things have happened to other books for me like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, the Inheritance trilogy (eragon, eldest, brisingr), and many other books/series.

Overall, i like it when they turn books into movies because it seems to have gotten more people into reading. They'll see the movie, then be like "holy cow!! that was an awesome movie, i HAVE TO read the book" and then through that book they'll pick up other books similar to it. Plus, with most movies, the movie producer has to get the authors agreement that a certain actor portrays the characters the way the author wants it to be done, so you can put a face to the names in the book when you're reading it. If you like the thrill of making your own faces for characters, witting your own book is a good idea. lol

Although i do hate it if when a scene you feel is important, is changed or completely cut out of the movie. And that there's allot of stuff cut out from the transition from book to movie.

Edited by Albus Dumbledore, 04 May 2009 - 12:59 AM.

[iGuest]

Some years ago I read a book called 'One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest';some years later the book was made into a movie starring the great JACK NICHOLSON.The disimilarities beteween the book and the movie were more than apparent,but turning a book into a movie is not that harmful in my view.Writing fiction is an art that is totally different from the art / the craft of making movies;if we remember this idea well, then we could enjoy each work in the same way!-reply by Moh Essafi

[iGuest]

TwilightBooks Into Movies

Yes, I'll admit that the series was good. Some parts... Like the end- iffy, but anyhow...The movies really upset me. You have more freedom when writing a book, though, so I wasn't expecting too too much, but enough. I didn't even get enough. I mean, come ON! She was bitten on the hand, not the wrist, jeez! And also, The guy that plays Edward is not even the right TYPE OF GUY- and he doesn't even mesh with the character. I mean, Edward is supposed to be an "outside time" kind of guy with a flowing walk, not a jaunt and more subtle features. Also, his body type in the movie was all wrong- he was just too big and bulked to fit in with the book Edward- his wording and facial features just not sitting right. Let's face it, major parts weren't even put into the movie, and on of the main characters just didn't fit. This was not even close to being as good a reproduction as Harry Potter, because at least they got the right person to PLAY THE PART. And it was amazing, the first Harry Potter Movie- The first Twilight movie? Let's just say, I had some female teachers and counsilors as well as friends that felt the same way, we would rant about this for HOURS.I think if they put more effort into finding people that match the people written in the book and really forming the diamonds of the story rather than using just "seasoned" actors and actresses and caring more for the story than the boxoffice- they'd get a real seller that people for decades and centuries can still look back on with wonderment. I'm talking about those movies that we no longer see anymore... And era swallowed by the once X-rated movies that are now PG-13 and the simple eloquence reduced to barbaric gutteral references.What has happened to the real stars of the sets? What's happened to the truly infamous movies holding their own rather than relying on an "already" popularity as a crutch for its debut? We've lost something- something irreplacable, and we need it back. DESPIRATELY.BTW, the Guy that played Edward also was Cedric in Harry Potter- you'd think he'd learn a thing or two.-reply by Bluevibes

[iGuest]

Replying to HyBriD54That's because they themselve have run out of ideas. They go back to the past where the good movies are and turn them into modern day feces-throwers.The absent Minded Professor etc.- was turned into the Nutty Professor and FlubberThen there's the reproduction reproduction reproduction of "War of the worlds"AND "When the Earth Stands still"Etc. Once they're done trying to recreate all the past great movies, since they can't find anything within their own heads- they're now moving onto great books. Face it, Cirque Du Freak really sucked- they took books 1-7 and literally squished them into one crappy movie with all the marrow sucked out.I mean, come on, who wants to listen to a guy in monotone talking when he's about to get a very close haircut with an ax? That's exactly how it is in that movie- he had not emotion or energy and it sucked. Also, they let the main point of the book elude them- His friend was supposed to be a secret- it was supposed to climax the whole movie, but it became a SLUG on SET. It was terrible, and they've thrown out all the good material. What was Darren Shan's Author THINKING handing over his books to be RAPED like that?!

[iAssistant]

I think it is really hard to make the thick book into a 2 hour movie, they will surely miss something. What I love about the books is that you can enjoy every details of it while in the movie, it was like done in a hurry because it suppose to be only 2 hours. Paolo Coelho didn't allow his book "The Alchemist" to turn into a movie because he knows that it will lost its sense.