Film Why do you think book adaptation movies suck because they are not like the book?

[Riku21Terr 214]

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) 

[Caity 3,946]

Books have to squeeze whole novels full of detail into a 1-2 hours slot, so they have to take stuff out, and people get pissed that stuff they liked was taken out.  It's understandable to be pissed if you liked the book and the movie isn't what you fell in love with when you first read the book, but it's also fair to take stuff out when you're trying to keep to a time.  That's why tv series tend to have more development, they can get a lot more out in 20 30-minute slots than a movie can in 2 hours.

 

 

I've only seen the Percy Jackson movie (first one) out of those and I liked it, but I didn't read the book.  The movie inspired me to read it but I already have unread books on my kindle to finish first.

 

EDIT: Note, I have now finished the Percy Jackson book series (and have seen all movies out to date from it) and I appreciate both.  I personally feel better watching the movie first, and then getting all that extra detail in the books after.  It's like adding icing to the cake instead of taking parts away when consumed in the other order.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Caity

[Kaweebo 3,617]

I dunno. Lord of the Rings was pretty good. 

[Riku21Terr 214]

I dunno. Lord of the Rings was pretty good. 

 

Ya true, but did u rEAD the books? I get it if its as a stand alone movie, but still u get what i mean right? Uoi have to look at it as its own thing 

[kingdomheartsfan1993 12]

There's only so much that a movie can put in and like Caity said tv series to some degree have more time for development because there's no time constraint they're not in a rush and have to squeeze a good portion of things out; but I do believe even though it's based on a form of media I consider a movie it's own thing

Edited November 21, 2013 by kingdomheartsfan1993

[Riku21Terr 214]

Thanks guys but could u please be more specific on the 3 series i mentioned? 

[Shard the Gentleman 2,891]

Didn't Like Eragon because of the plot holes. Especially the "If the Dragon Rider dies, so does the dragon" thing, seeing as the main villain acquired his dragon by murdering a Dragon Rider. I read the book, and yes.People don't like A Series of Unfortunate Events because the book series had many titles with loads of detail, and it was all cut down into a 1-2 hour thing for the movie.As of the last one, no idea.

[xxClouDxxmoon 900]

Pretty much what Caity said.

 

Honestly people should have learned by now books and their movies will never be replicas. And not everyone will be happy.

Though I dont really mind. Im a major fan of the books but I will love The Lord of the Rings movies until the day I die.

 

Cause thats the truth, with some cheese on it.

[Riku21Terr 214]

Didn't Like Eragon because of the plot holes. Especially the "If the Dragon Rider dies, so does the dragon" thing, seeing as the main villain acquired his dragon by murdering a Dragon Rider. I read the book, and yes.

 

People don't like A Series of Unfortunate Events because the book series had many titles with loads of detail, and it was all cut down into a 1-2 hour thing for the movie.

 

As of the last one, no idea.

The lemony sciket thing  u said does not make sense. The movie DID have details, (actually MORE details if any than in the books, actually had things that appeared in later books like The Last chance general store), and again LOOK at it as its own separate thing. The movie was fairly loyal, aside from the lack of Klaus' glasses which actually did not bother me, and the mixing around of the timeline, but what did u expect, the books  are WAY too short to be an individual movie and too long to be a tv series, so therefore combine them. 

 

As for Eragon, again look at it as its own thing, pretend that the books do not exist. Its like the adaptation of the sueprhero films, they changed a lot (The MANDARIN, yes i know SOME people were pissed, but look at IM3 - 5th highest grossing movie of all time). here are some ways to solve the plot holes that I have come up with:

 

The "plot hole" you mentioned, well Gal (in the films at least) just simply stole the egg of shurikan, I mean seriously, I find it really sad that people cannot think of their own explanations and if you watch the Hp movies and the second percy jackson, you'll find those plot holes logically filled in

 

d: 

- Katrina was on the deleted sceens and could be reintroduced as havign met up with Roran during his travels 

- There are tons of Ra'zac, just because Brom killed them does not mean that they are "extinct" 

- Arya may look more human, but still could be implied to be an elf and could be easily explained

- All missing characters could be easily reintroduced, as they did so with the Harry Potter films (esp. Deathly Hallows: Part 1 with Bill and Mundungus) 

- The details could be reintroduced too, as in other adpations, such as the Harry Potter series, details about the Horcruxes were left out  of Half Blood Prince, and being reintroduced in Deathly Hallows Part 2 

- The repairing is not essential and could be relocated to the ambush at the beginning of Eldest. 

- Shruikan's size should not matter 

- The Ra'zac being "magical beings could be brought back by more sorcerors 

As well ,here is a quote i found concerning superhero films  from https://forums.station.sony.com/dcuo/index.php?threads/comic-book-fans-what-irks-you-the-most-about-superhero-films.172655/page-2 

 

"The overall reaction to the ending of Man of Steel just made me laugh. This is not your father's Superman or your grandfather's Superman. This is a re-imaged one" 

 

Book to movie adaptations are like that. An artists different interpretation of the character. So why are people ok with them changing things from comic BOOKS, but not normal BOOKS? Hm…… 

"The over-reaction to the end of Man of Steel just made me laugh. This isn't your father's or grandfather's Superman. This is a re-imaged one." 

Edited November 21, 2013 by Riku21Terr

[wyatt 9]

The Mortal Instruments City of Bones was actually really close to the book, just a few details were off.

[Riku21Terr 214]

The Mortal Instruments City of Bones was actually really close to the book, just a few details were off.

 

if want another movie, which they ARE making but it still could get cancelled, then make sure u buy or at least rent City of bones/give it as a gift when it comes out on Dec. 3 (its available online now) and tell others to do the same 

also i wonder: Why if The Host (which was VERY loyal to the book, even more so than ANY of the Twilights), and better received by general movie goers, and yet it bombed? 

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

Didn't Like Eragon because of the plot holes. Especially the "If the Dragon Rider dies, so does the dragon" thing, seeing as the main villain acquired his dragon by murdering a Dragon Rider. I read the book, and yes.People don't like A Series of Unfortunate Events because the book series had many titles with loads of detail, and it was all cut down into a 1-2 hour thing for the movie.As of the last one, no idea.

Well, they said the same thing in the book. Sure, if the Dragon dies, the rider may only become crippled, in one way or another, but if the Rider dies, the Dragon still does, yet the king still got his dragon by murdering it's rider. So the plot hole still exists in the original book

 

i didn't hate any of these movies themselves (though I didn't see Lemony Snicket) but I was disappointed with certain changes. Eragon, for example, I didn't like that they cut out his cousin's fiance then gave her hair color to Aria.

I can't hate the Percy Jackson movies because without them I would have never learned about the books.

[Riku21Terr 214]

Well, they said the same thing in the book. Sure, if the Dragon dies, the rider may only become crippled, in one way or another, but if the Rider dies, the Dragon still does, yet the king still got his dragon by murdering it's rider. So the plot hole still exists in the original book

 

i didn't hate any of these movies themselves (though I didn't see Lemony Snicket) but I was disappointed with certain changes. Eragon, for example, I didn't like that they cut out his cousin's fiance then gave her hair color to Aria.

I can't hate the Percy Jackson movies because without them I would have never learned about the books.

 

Bingo! Thank you Kuno, Btw Katrina was on the deleted scenes and like i said they could easily reintroduce her as having met Roran while he was on the run! And as for the hair colour - 

 

Fyi in the books, in the way she's described, Arya has black hair which sounds AWFLY like another elf we know and love…. Now, even though there r some people who may not have seen/like LOTR, BUT: 

 

black just seems like a weird colour for an elf in general. lighter hair goes with else much better in mythology as per their "light energy" and the fact that ALL OTHER elves in the books have light hair 

[Think Pink 1,967]

Book adaptations suck because they can't go into the same amount of detail. A book takes you slowly through the story and you really have a chance to resonate with the characters. In the movie adaptation, they're usually trying to at least sort of stick to the book. But that means they don't have time to take things slow and explore the characters, so things end up seeming bad in comparison to the books. The first Percy Jackson movie was just a bad movie. If you read the book you hated it, and you hated it even if you hadn't. It just sucked. The second was actually a pretty good movie. If you read the books you were kinda upset, but I assume if you didn't it at least made some sense and it looked spectacular. 

[twilight_roxas 326]

Not all book adaptions suck look at the Harry Potter films tell me which film in the franchise based off the books is the worse?

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

Bingo! Thank you Kuno, Btw Katrina was on the deleted scenes and like i said they could easily reintroduce her as having met Roran while he was on the run! And as for the hair colour - 

 

Fyi in the books, in the way she's described, Arya has black hair which sounds AWFLY like another elf we know and love…. Now, even though there r some people who may not have seen/like LOTR, BUT: 

 

black just seems like a weird colour for an elf in general. lighter hair goes with else much better in mythology as per their "light energy" and the fact that ALL OTHER elves in the books have light hair 

I know, Katrina was a red head in the books and Aria had black hair, that's where I got the idea that they gave the latter the former's color. IIRC there are two tribes of of Elves in The inheritance Cycle, those in Du Welden Varden with black hair and those in another settlement with blonde, ore as Paolini said, sable and silver. I believe that Aria's mother also had black hair.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Isamu_Kuno

[ReikuSSR 1,071]

Is this for a school paper or something? Just asking.

I cannot give my opinion unless it is manga vs anime.

[KHUndertaleFan25 2,858]

I read two of the Hunger Games books (i had finished Catching Fire today ). I saw that the first book was different from the movie, so while i was reading it, i kept imagining a little movie of what was happening inside the book that never happened in the movie. And as for Catching Fire, let's just say that i did the same thing, since i don't want to spoil anything for what might happen in the movie. Also, i'm reading the Twilight book series as well (still trying to finish reading the first chapter). Don't judge me for liking it :x. There is nothing wrong with Twilight. And don't say everything is wrong with it. I don't like it when people do that -_-.

Edited November 22, 2013 by KingdomHearts25

[Britipinojeff 95]

I really didnt like the movie adaptations of Eragon and Percy Jackson mostly because of the 1-2 hour slot time that sorta ruined some of the things in the plot that i actually liked.

 

Eragon didnt really flesh out characters that i liked, and in some cases i dont think the characters appeared at all and if they did i didnt know who they were. Also the movie just seemed kinda like Avatar the Last Airbender where i didnt really care for how they tried to smush everything together, cuz the movie just made it feel like events were just happening one after the other with not a lot of sentiment.

 

In the Percy Jackson movies they sorta get rid of details and add other ones in that dont need to be there. Like in the first one Percy meets Aries and helps out other gods, but in the movie he is looking for beads that in the book was given to him by an ocean nymph

[Dave 5,715]

All I'm saying is, without Tom Bombadil, Lord of the Rings just completely falls apart. But, to also leave out Fatty Bolger? There's just nothing left whatsoever.

 

 

In the odd chance anyone takes this seriously, please don't. I love the movies to tiny bits.

[Riku21Terr 214]

Book adaptations suck because they can't go into the same amount of detail. A book takes you slowly through the story and you really have a chance to resonate with the characters. In the movie adaptation, they're usually trying to at least sort of stick to the book. But that means they don't have time to take things slow and explore the characters, so things end up seeming bad in comparison to the books. The first Percy Jackson movie was just a bad movie. If you read the book you hated it, and you hated it even if you hadn't. It just sucked. The second was actually a pretty good movie. If you read the books you were kinda upset, but I assume if you didn't it at least made some sense and it looked spectacular. 

 

Fyi, EVERYONE i know(even MANY people who did read the books )  who did NOT read the book LOVED the first percy and i even heard some people (critics even) that said that they loved the first BETTER than the second (again even some that did read the books) Please EXPLAIN how it was bad? 

 

Yes, some parts were weak, but overall i liked the movies BETTER than the books and yes i read all 5 including some of the supplemental books. The books were just too kiddish for me and too "out there". Don't get em wrong, I LOVE The story and characters and concept of PErcy, but just the movie felt more satisfying to me, even though i agree some parts coulda been better. I mean, i just can't see 12 year olds going cross country and off to war, and like chris Columbus said in an interview, "its a lot easier to emotionally invest in a teenager than a youngster". I mean, take a look at Inkheart's movie. Why did it bomb? the book received AWSOME reviews and it has a uniquee concept. Marketing for the movie may be ones thing, but maybe is it that the movie looked too "kiddish" to people? Don't get me wrong, Harry Potter worked well, Charlie and the Chocolate factory worked well, but its just for Percy, it seemed like the books kept jumping from one part to the next with no flow and the characters seemed a little too kiddish for me. In the movie because they were older they felt more relatable, and its structure (despite the pearls which was weak, but again it kinda connected the quest together, though they coulda done a better job with it) 

[Think Pink 1,967]

Fyi, EVERYONE i know(even MANY people who did read the books )  who did NOT read the book LOVED the first percy and i even heard some people (critics even) that said that they loved the first BETTER than the second (again even some that did read the books) Please EXPLAIN how it was bad? 

 

Yes, some parts were weak, but overall i liked the movies BETTER than the books and yes i read all 5 including some of the supplemental books. The books were just too kiddish for me and too "out there". Don't get em wrong, I LOVE The story and characters and concept of PErcy, but just the movie felt more satisfying to me, even though i agree some parts coulda been better. I mean, i just can't see 12 year olds going cross country and off to war, and like chris Columbus said in an interview, "its a lot easier to emotionally invest in a teenager than a youngster". I mean, take a look at Inkheart's movie. Why did it bomb? the book received AWSOME reviews and it has a uniquee concept. Marketing for the movie may be ones thing, but maybe is it that the movie looked too "kiddish" to people? Don't get me wrong, Harry Potter worked well, Charlie and the Chocolate factory worked well, but its just for Percy, it seemed like the books kept jumping from one part to the next with no flow and the characters seemed a little too kiddish for me. In the movie because they were older they felt more relatable, and its structure (despite the pearls which was weak, but again it kinda connected the quest together, though they coulda done a better job with it) 

Really? I don't read critic websites but myself, family, and friends disliked the movie when we went to see it. My family hasn't read the books and my friends have, and when we all hated it, I figured it was a rather universal opinion. 

 

It probably looked/sounded kiddish because it IS for kids. It's targeted at an elementary school/middle school age range. I actually really disliked the actors. The entire thing about him being 12 and 16 being the big deal was just thrown out the window. The pearl thing drove me nuts. I hated that whole entire part, and the actor for Annabeth was just so off. 

 

I still think it's a terrible movie, but if you like it that's cool. 

[Riku21Terr 214]

 

Really? I don't read critic websites but myself, family, and friends disliked the movie when we went to see it. My family hasn't read the books and my friends have, and when we all hated it, I figured it was a rather universal opinion.

 

It probably looked/sounded kiddish because it IS for kids. It's targeted at an elementary school/middle school age range. I actually really disliked the actors. The entire thing about him being 12 and 16 being the big deal was just thrown out the window. The pearl thing drove me nuts. I hated that whole entire part, and the actor for Annabeth was just so off.

 

I still think it's a terrible movie, but if you like it that's cool.

Ya and i can respect that, but the thing is, like i LOVE kids' stuff, don;t get me wrong, but its just i found the characters more better portrayed being older as they were just too like i dunno i just didn't like them in the books, they just didn't have that edge that Harry Potter, Pendragon, and Lemony snicker brought. Maybe not so much that they are kiddish, but like the Star wars prequels, to me, the books felt like they did TOO much of a good thing, like do u get what i mean?

 

I read two of the Hunger Games books (i had finished Catching Fire today ). I saw that the first book was different from the movie, so while i was reading it, i kept imagining a little movie of what was happening inside the book that never happened in the movie. And as for Catching Fire, let's just say that i did the same thing, since i don't want to spoil anything for what might happen in the movie. Also, i'm reading the Twilight book series as well (still trying to finish reading the first chapter). Don't judge me for liking it :x. There is nothing wrong with Twilight. And don't say everything is wrong with it. I don't like it when people do that -_-.

Oh no, i actually like Twiligt BETTER than hunger games (ya i did just say that), way more interesting in my opinion and guess what? I AM A GUY! The books not so much for me, but i enjoyed the movies for its interesting concept

 

 

Not all book adaptions suck look at the Harry Potter films tell me which film in the franchise based off the books is the worse?

Half Blood prince. Still liked most parts of the movie, (defiantly the funniest and best "character moment" film) but:

 

WHY spend 1/4 of the WHOLE movie showing Malfoy fixing up the Room of Requiremnt. Yes, that is at least 1/4 of the ENTIRE movie; malfoy lurking in the room of requirement

 

The attack on the burrow feels VERY weakly executed, i mean they are literally just blasting sparks, wheres the combat from the previous film? (DIRECTED BY THE SAME DIRECTOR, and WRITTEN BY THE SAME WRITER who wrote the Duleing Club scene and the various spells used in Prisoner of Azkaban)

 

It makes sense why they left out the battle, but it feels awkward and weird to just have the death eaters show up and nobody does ANYTHING about it!

 

And even in the other films

 

Why in the first does harry say "is that bad"? that Malfoy knows about Norbert (when they are walking back to hogwarts after seeing norbert)

 

Listen to how off key bellatrix sounds in the Department of Mysteirous scene when she says "You filthy half blood!" she sounds out of synch there

 

I am not "btiching" about the movies i love them but i feel like they coulda been MUCH better. To be perfectly honest, i was way more satisfied with the Percy jackson and Eragon movies away more than the Hps. As a matter of fact i know MANY people that say that they liked the FIRST percy BETTER than the LAST 3 Harry Potters!

 

Is this for a school paper or something? Just asking.

I cannot give my opinion unless it is manga vs anime.

Ya kinda and for other projects i am doing. I'd REALLY love ur input

 

I really didnt like the movie adaptations of Eragon and Percy Jackson mostly because of the 1-2 hour slot time that sorta ruined some of the things in the plot that i actually liked.

 

Eragon didnt really flesh out characters that i liked, and in some cases i dont think the characters appeared at all and if they did i didnt know who they were. Also the movie just seemed kinda like Avatar the Last Airbender where i didnt really care for how they tried to smush everything together, cuz the movie just made it feel like events were just happening one after the other with not a lot of sentiment.

 

In the Percy Jackson movies they sorta get rid of details and add other ones in that dont need to be there. Like in the first one Percy meets Aries and helps out other gods, but in the movie he is looking for beads that in the book was given to him by an ocean nymph

Ares' scene was actually filmed (go watch the trailer here at the 2:08 mark):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BGjZCedDqg

 

Coulda been a kool scene to include as a deleted scene even, but still. and Ares does appear in the background at the end of the movie

 

The pearls plot was weak, bu hey at least it connected the overall plot together. Ares being put i there just adds more confusion

 

I really didnt like the movie adaptations of Eragon and Percy Jackson mostly because of the 1-2 hour slot time that sorta ruined some of the things in the plot that i actually liked.

 

Eragon didnt really flesh out characters that i liked, and in some cases i dont think the characters appeared at all and if they did i didnt know who they were. Also the movie just seemed kinda like Avatar the Last Airbender where i didnt really care for how they tried to smush everything together, cuz the movie just made it feel like events were just happening one after the other with not a lot of sentiment.

 

In the Percy Jackson movies they sorta get rid of details and add other ones in that dont need to be there. Like in the first one Percy meets Aries and helps out other gods, but in the movie he is looking for beads that in the book was given to him by an ocean nymph

I kinda agree with u about ERagon ,but to me the book was just WAY too long and TOO MANY details i mean

 

Why does EVERY chapter pretty much have to end with them sparing?

 

TOO many characters with funny names i cannot even pronouce

 

TOO much description, paolini is ACTUALLY trying to be LOTR; even borrowing characters DIRECTLY to use (Arya, Brom and The urgals basically are Arwen, Gandalf, and the orcs, they are described and act the same)

 

The movie just felt more enjoyable to me (even though i agree some parts were weak )

Edited November 23, 2013 by DragonMaster

[ReikuSSR 1,071]

Ya kinda and for other projects i am doing. I'd REALLY love ur input 

I hardly read books and I hardly watch movies, unless they are documentary based/non-fiction or horror which even that it would have to be based on a true story horror or historic horror. 

If you want my opinion on manga vs anime I can say I hardly ever like how anime adaptions are done. Usually they either change major aspects that hurt the series rather than help it; however, I like them where they are more set up like OVA's giving more of a promo for the series and not just a animated form of the manga.

[Samantha Dominis 25]

It is when they take out very important little details and add/change things that change the story line for rest of the series.