What the title says. What is wrong with being different from the book? I get that people can be disappointed, but is it not "dull" to be basically seeing the exact same thing you just "saw" in your head?  

 

I mean, although MOST liked the first Narnia, I know quite a few people (and YES they DID read the book), that did NOt like it! As well, Prince Caspian did not do as well. I am aware that that was partly because of Iron Man 1 and Indiana Jones taking away audience, and PC being different from the book and too dark and violent, but still…. I don't get it?  

 

As well can u specifically tell me: 

 

What do you like/don't like the movies of 

 

Lemony snciket

 

Eragon

 

Both PErcy jackson movies

 

AND BE SPECIFIC, NO saying "they sucked" or anything like that or even that they were too unloyal to the book. Think outside of that as a stand alone movie(s) 

Since the thread is resurrected, I'm gonna say this: Usually yes and no. Some movies can't feature all of the details from the book. The movie would be too long. They got to get rid of some parts and keep the the details that makes the plot forward.

Since the thread is resurrected, I'm gonna say this: Usually yes and no. Some movies can't feature all of the details from the book. The movie would be too long. They got to get rid of some parts and keep the the details that makes the plot forward.

Exactly which is also why a TV series would almost be better to get all of those details in also hopefully making it its own thing which is what Shadowhunters is trying to do 

Since the thread is resurrected, I'm gonna say this: Usually yes and no. Some movies can't feature all of the details from the book. The movie would be too long. They got to get rid of some parts and keep the the details that makes the plot forward.

 

 

I agree. The main problem between books and movies is that movies have been given this unspoken 2-3 hour time limit nowadays whereas books have no time limit. 

I agree. The main problem between books and movies is that movies have been given this unspoken 2-3 hour time limit nowadays whereas books have no time limit. 

But sometimes you do not need all of that time. I find a lot of these so called "failed" adaptations like Eragon benefited from having a lot cut out because simply put it got REALLY boring after a while with too many characters and way too much description. While a lot of that can be fun, it can be too much of a good thing if you know what I mean. With movies its not so much the length but what they do with what they are given. Plus consider that the way something is written in a book would may look very weird in a film if executed the same way. They each tell a story in different ways and therefore have to be accustomed to both 

I just find that compared to the book, not all the changes are good or acceptable. The Hobbit movie trilogy was a huge wonderful, up until The Battle of the Five Armies. But from reading the book, you can see why the third movie was bad. The first two covered most of the story pretty well, leaving with little to cover in the last film. As for The Lord of the Rings, I can only judge the first film as out of the novel trilogy, I have only had the time to read the first, but the film was a job well done. Sure there were some changes, but they were good changes. Which leads me to the (at the time of posting this) only other novel trilogy I read that has movie adaptations: The Maze Runner. Now, the movie was good. The book was even better, but there was a crazy twist in the movie that contradicts the novels:

Gally's death. We know that in the movie Gally dies, but in the book he gets bashed and then in the third book, he makes a reappearance and is a more important character than he was in the first book.

Now, I have yet to watch the second movie, so I can't judge that just yet, but that change concerns me. Makes me wonder if writers even read the books before writing the film scripts. To make sure they don't do anything that they aren't supposed to.

In general i just think that when you read the book your imagination is the limit, so as you read you imagine the scenes as grand and as magnificent and epic as you think they can be whilst reading, so when the movie comes out we have high expectations and can get dissapointed.

 

Though the movie isn't as grand I don't see it being so bad. Sure details here and there can go missing and still make a great movie. They can't go exactly like the book otherwise the movie would never end.

Edited October 14, 201510 yr by Stardustblade358

Here the Shadowhunters show runners talk more about their adaptation process and making changes in order to present their own vision: 

Not to beat a dead horse here (this being a 2013 post), but a lot of movies streamline things, and ruin the novels feel. The Percy Jackson films cut out and rearranged things, as well as moving a subplot from book 3 into the first film to give the ending more sense. 

The Harry potter films severely neutered the narritive with time skips, and the 4th film is barely the cliffnotes of the book.

While some book to film adaption work, (Like Beastly, The Wizard of Oz, North and South) it's mostly because the edits keep the story going quick, and keep it entertaining. Other's fall flat on their face for the same reasons. 

Not to beat a dead horse here (this being a 2013 post), but a lot of movies streamline things, and ruin the novels feel. The Percy Jackson films cut out and rearranged things, as well as moving a subplot from book 3 into the first film to give the ending more sense.

The Harry potter films severely neutered the narritive with time skips, and the 4th film is barely the cliffnotes of the book.

While some book to film adaption work, (Like Beastly, The Wizard of Oz, North and South) it's mostly because the edits keep the story going quick, and keep it entertaining. Other's fall flat on their face for the same reasons. 

Exactly it improves on the book in some ways and after all what works in a book does not necessarily work in a movie. And Btw, GoF was a lot more loyal to the book than both ootp and HBP. They at least made little winks and references to the book but the sixth left out at least 1/3 of the entire book and seemed to tell a different story. Same with ootp glazing over most explanation. If you think about it, GoF only really left out the Dursleys and SPEW, in regards to major alterations; everything else was already pretty much there in some form 

Edited October 16, 201510 yr by Riku21Terr

Exactly it improves on the book in some ways and after all what works in a book does not necessarily work in a movie. And Btw, GoF was a lot more loyal to the book than both ootp and HBP. They at least made little winks and references to the book but the sixth left out at least 1/3 of the entire book and seemed to tell a different story. Same with ootp glazing over most explanation. If you think about it, GoF only really left out the Dursleys and SPEW, in regards to major alterations; everything else was already pretty much there in some form 

Yes and no, on GoF: The whole first 5 chapters were cut. But that's just my opinion. 

The only truely loathsome book to film adaption I can think of is The Haunting (1999). That one is just a mess of nothing.

Yes and no, on GoF: The whole first 5 chapters were cut. But that's just my opinion. 

The only truely loathsome book to film adaption I can think of is The Haunting (1999). That one is just a mess of nothing.

Not really:

1) Pretty much all of it was in the movie aside from the backstory of Frank's history with the Riddles

2) Was moved to a different location to be sure but elements of it were touched upon in later scenes sprinkled throughout the movie

3) Sure this chapter was cut but like I said The Dursleys were one of the only major things cut. 

4) It is touched upon by Harry that he arrived at the Burrow "just last night" but ya like I said above

5) The twins are at least shown later on in the movie collecting bids from the tournament which helped fund their shop

 

Nothing REALLY important happens in what was left out of these chapters anyways

I definitely agree with the fact that books contain large amounts of detail that movies can't possibly capture. Another point I could make is the fact that the mainstream film industry see these best selling books and say

 

"Hey, that book has sold a million copies, if we make a movie out of it I'm sure we can make even more money!"

 

The directors of these films don't usually care for the books and tend to look for opportunities to look for money. They milk popular franchises in various genres of entertainment.

Look at the DBZ film........

 

Although, some films defy this e.g LOTR, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games all stick to their roots very well.  That's why they are hailed as classics by so many, because they can capture the magic and detail of the books. It's extremely difficult to do that and if you pull it off, you've got yourself a fantastic adaptation.

 

 However, this is only an impression. I could be wrong.

Not really:

1) Pretty much all of it was in the movie aside from the backstory of Frank's history with the Riddles

2) Was moved to a different location to be sure but elements of it were touched upon in later scenes sprinkled throughout the movie

3) Sure this chapter was cut but like I said The Dursleys were one of the only major things cut. 

4) It is touched upon by Harry that he arrived at the Burrow "just last night" but ya like I said above

5) The twins are at least shown later on in the movie collecting bids from the tournament which helped fund their shop

 

Nothing REALLY important happens in what was left out of these chapters anyways

Touche, touche...

I guess I'm just a HP purist: Leave the damned Dursley's in, even if they're not important.

But you have a good point there

For anyone who cares here is a social media page for the Percy Jackson movies https://www.facebook.com/We-Want-a-New-Percy-Jackson-Movie-679787495489946/

It happens when movies have to cram a whole book into a short movie where they don't always can work with the same perspective as the book did. Take The Hunger Games for example, I adore the book series, not much of a fan when it comes to the movies and especially not the first movie. 

 

First of all, The Hunger Games is a very psychological book series from Katniss POV, a movie can only do a third person perspective. Which brought down the quality a lot in my opinion.

 

Then they tend to remove details and things that I thought was important and relevant, for example, why they can't leave the districts and what exactly happens if they do. They never included that.

 

When you love a book, you get pretty protective of it.

Imagine if you saw a KH adaption and they, I don't know, decided not to include Axel and Roxas friendship. 

This new Shadowhunters behind the scenes video further convinces me that they are on the right track with their new ideas for the series.If you love Harry Potter you may like this series 

Well, when it comes to film adaptions of novel series, one can't expect for every single detail of the novels to bleed into the silver screen, ya know?  We just have to accept the things they were able to implement, and the things they weren't!  If one were to add every single detail from a book series into a movie series, it'd take quite some time, don't you think?  At that point, wouldn't it be better if the movie series had instead been a TV show, so that way, every little detail of the books would be presented?  I'll leave that up to you to answer!

 

But honestly, I don't mind film adaptions of novel series straying a bit from their source material.  Let me take the Lord Of The Rings series as an example.  The movies were amazing, but they left lots of things out, like when the Hobbits met Tom Bombadil, the fact that Anduril, Flame Of The West had already been reforged in the first novel, The Fellowship Of The Ring, and I also remember Pippin having made a friend with a Gondorian Soldier prior to the battle at Pelennor Fields.  My point?  Even though some details like these were left out, I'm still grateful that we got to see The Lord Of The Rings on the big screen, and I thank Peter Jackson for taking it upon himself to craft these majestic films!

 

Another example is the Marvel Cinematic Universe!  Marvel Studios itself says that it changes things up, not always following the source material from their comics, and that's led to quite awesome results!  Sure, some changes have been a little iffy, but overall, the MCU is a great series of films that encompasses many different heroes in one shared film universe, which is amazing! Instead of complaining about what details were left out, we should think of the MCU as another timeline of "comics", just like Marvel does with their properties from time to time, rebooting certain aspects of their characters, ya know?

 

Instead of raging over some small stuff, we should treat these films as another way to enjoy something we already know of, ya know?

I was about to reply and realized I had already replied to this topic well either way I had another point. Would it not seem strange to go through an entire movie and hear a characters thoughts and everything be first person? Yet, that is how most books are written. So in order to get it word for word, many movies would virtually be first person with not much other character development, besides what the main character can actually see with their own eyes.

I was about to reply and realized I had already replied to this topic well either way I had another point. Would it not seem strange to go through an entire movie and hear a characters thoughts and everything be first person? Yet, that is how most books are written. So in order to get it word for word, many movies would virtually be first person with not much other character development, besides what the main character can actually see with their own eyes.

 

Well, when it comes to film adaptions of novel series, one can't expect for every single detail of the novels to bleed into the silver screen, ya know?  We just have to accept the things they were able to implement, and the things they weren't!  If one were to add every single detail from a book series into a movie series, it'd take quite some time, don't you think?  At that point, wouldn't it be better if the movie series had instead been a TV show, so that way, every little detail of the books would be presented?  I'll leave that up to you to answer!

 

But honestly, I don't mind film adaptions of novel series straying a bit from their source material.  Let me take the Lord Of The Rings series as an example.  The movies were amazing, but they left lots of things out, like when the Hobbits met Tom Bombadil, the fact that Anduril, Flame Of The West had already been reforged in the first novel, The Fellowship Of The Ring, and I also remember Pippin having made a friend with a Gondorian Soldier prior to the battle at Pelennor Fields.  My point?  Even though some details like these were left out, I'm still grateful that we got to see The Lord Of The Rings on the big screen, and I thank Peter Jackson for taking it upon himself to craft these majestic films!

 

Another example is the Marvel Cinematic Universe!  Marvel Studios itself says that it changes things up, not always following the source material from their comics, and that's led to quite awesome results!  Sure, some changes have been a little iffy, but overall, the MCU is a great series of films that encompasses many different heroes in one shared film universe, which is amazing! Instead of complaining about what details were left out, we should think of the MCU as another timeline of "comics", just like Marvel does with their properties from time to time, rebooting certain aspects of their characters, ya know?

 

Instead of raging over some small stuff, we should treat these films as another way to enjoy something we already know of, ya know?

Could not have said it any better myself. That is in essence what any adaptation and why it changes things should be viewed as. 

Edited November 28, 20159 yr by Riku21Terr

To me, when I saw the first Hunger Games movie, I never read the books. But after a while, I decided to read all three of them. And I did. To be honest, I loved both the movies and books. Just saying.

Could not have said it any better myself. That is in essence what any adaptation and why it changes things should be viewed as. 

Indeed!  But, there will always be people that have complaints, and that's just natural.  But hey, so long as one enjoys what's being given, then that's what counts, am I right?

the thing with the Eragon movie is they tried to condense the story so much they made it not the same, and they changed the way the characters looked from how they were described in the book. this wouldn`t have been such a bad thing, sometimes you need to change some things to make the story flow better, but they made the Urgal peoples (basically Orcs) look like barbarians, and made the Dwarves (like from Lord of the Rings) look like African royalty! I am not against the actors and actresses that played these people in the movie, I just feel disappointed that the director and his/her people didn`t stay true to the story`s roots.