Do you typically enjoy films that are based off of books or do you avoid them? I depends on what it is. It really has to do with the subject matter first and then, if the book is already out, if it's worth my time. I've read first two HP in the series read before I saw the first movie. For The Maze Runner the subject matter wasn't THAT interesting to me and I heard that the series went downhill as it went on so I stuck with watching the movie instead. It's really hit or miss with me. I don't have a lot of time/attention to put into reading a book so if I can watch the movie I'll probably do that instead, as sorry as it is to say. My enjoyment of the film often has little to do with the book itself because, odds are, I'm not going to know the difference. Would you rather read the book or watch the movie first? If I'm going to put the effort in I'd rather read the book first but there are too many factors and I feel like a lot of the time I'm just setting myself up for heartbreak and two hours of, "That's NOT how it happened!" What are some example(s) of films or movies based on books that got it right? Harry Potter is the biggest one that comes to mind for me. I haven't read too many books that were adapted to movies or I've avoided them altogether, I don't know which. OH. And probably Brokeback Mountain, which wasn't even a book. If anything the movie did even better with what the storyline provided. I think The Hunger Games has and will continue to benefit from the movie treatment over the books. I feel that, because Suzanne Collins was a scriptwriter, the books were written with the idea in mind that they'd be put on screen anyway, at least for the third in the series. What are some example(s) of films or movies based on books that got it wrong? Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause. The book was AMAZING and I read it growing up. I gave it away when I moved across the country but then the movie was going to come out or was released on dvd, I don't remember, and it made me nostalgic for it so I bought it again and still have it. I was SO disappointed in the movie version it STILL bothers me to this day, and it's been at least a decade. They took a book about a coming-of-age werewolf girl and turned it into a bullshit story about her fighting the evil pack leader which was SO NOT what the book was about. I don't know if I'll ever try the movie again to see if my initial reactions were too harsh because even thinking about it vaguely right now makes my blood boil. Clearly I have ~feelings~ about this, or at least about things I read growing up and still have an attachment to.
And I know they're not movies but I've also read Under the Dome and am almost finished with Zoo, which I started reading before the tv series began. Wow, neither of those did their books justice. I mean, Zoo isn't a literary masterpiece by any stretch, but it's SO different from the show. I understand because the book doesn't lend itself to a multi-season tv series but the only thing the two have in common are that animals start killing people and there's a dude named Oz. That's basically it.
Under the Dome has SO veered off course. Again, not a book that would extend well over many seasons, but the book was over 1000 pages, I'm sure the writers could have salvaged something from those for a couple seasons, at least.
I probably shouldn't even mention my feelings about The Vampire Diaries or The Secret Circle... But OH GOD how overjoyed I'd be if The Forbidden Game or Dark Visions trilogies were made into movies! If you see a film based on a book does it make you want to go and read the book? I'm pretty sure I've never done it this way, except for, like, Romeo & Juliet or some other Shakespeare play because I HAD to read them in high school. Once I've seen the movie I have that image in my head and have a hard time going back if the details are changed.
I couldn't even make it through the movie for Blood and Chocolate. That book was SO GOOD! I should give it a reread soon because it's been a really long time.
Definitely disappointed!!!
I was told to not read the other two Maze Runner books. I'll see the movies, because Dylan, but yeah. What Dylan DID manage to do, was make me not hate Thomas as much, though. I hated him in the books. Always the problem when a book is in first person.
Always the problem when a book is in first person.
God yes. Like, I get the benefits but when you've got something like Twilight (which I didn't bring up at all because that's just a whole other kettle of fish, let's face it) and Bella Swan as your narrator you're lucky you don't pitch yourself over the side of a bridge by the time you're done listening to her complain and whine and second guess everything.
I've never read or seen any of the Twilight books/movies soooo yeah, no idea besides sparkling, pissing contests, and gross birthing practices. Staying far away.
Mocking Jay was really hard for me to get through because the first half of the book was Katniss being a teenager. Total LACK of information there.
Once I've seen the movie I have that image in my head and have a hard time going back if the details are changed.
Exactly this! It's almost impossible to "delete" the image of characters, places, props, etc. from your mind and start fresh with the book. If the main character is played by a tall blond, that image of him in my mind won't change even if he's described as short and dark-haired in the book.
That's exactly what happened with me when The Vampire Diaries started. Elena was supposed to be a tall, gorgeous white-blonde. And Nina Dobrev was really, really not. Plus she was supposed to have a very young sister and her aunt was supposed to be quite a bit older. I don't necessarily think any of these changes were bad in the long run but GOD it was super hard to get past those when it first aired.
I agree about Blood and Chocolate. I loved the book when I was younger, and I was so disappointed seeing the movie. They changed things in major ways that resulted in the entire ending of the story to change. I know other people though, who saw the movie, and didn't like the book for the same reason. I think the book story was much better and more interesting for that genre. The film seemed like the predictable hollywood version of the book.
I'm not a fan of using books for tv series unless you're going to follow the books. I was so excited about Bones because I love Kathy Reichs but it just started to veer off course and it ruined it for me. Plus other than Temperance, none of the characters matched the book characters.
Same goes for Rizzoli and Isles, though I like that show. They veered from the books pretty early on in the series but not anymore and it frustrates me. But at least the characters on the show are more like those in the books
You have hit on so many topics that I have strong feelings about I must number them.
1. I had completely forgotten about that Blood and Chocolate movie. I remember when it first came out so many people I knew that had read the book and disliked the ending were satisfied with the movie. They were the only ones. I, on the other hand, loved everything about that book. It used to be one of my comfort reads. So the movie was a huge let down because it largely wasn't even the same story.
2. I tried watching Under the Dome but wasn't getting into it so I ended up listening to the book. First off the show took out all the best characters and those who were still there were drastically altered. If I'm remembering correctly, the show wasn't originally intended to be more than a season. I think if they had stuck to that the story would have worked just fine. But American television networks just refuse to embrace the miniseries.
3. I feel the exact opposite about LJ Smith's series. Forbidden Game is my absolute favorite. Love it. And I do not want anyone, particularly the CW, getting their hands on it. Dark Visions I am less protective of but still would rather not see it go the way of Vampire Diaries.
3. I feel the exact opposite about LJ Smith's series. Forbidden Game is my absolute favorite. Love it. And I do not want anyone, particularly the CW, getting their hands on it. Dark Visions I am less protective of but still would rather not see it go the way of Vampire Diaries.
That's why I'd rather see them get movie treatments, rather than TV. Then they can stick to the storyline and not veer off into total bullshit.
See, I trust no one. But if someone wanted to do Dark Visions as a trail run and do that series justice I may be more open to a Forbidden Game adaptation. But I want a miniseries. Which isn't going to happen on American television any time soon.
I'm actually curious is LJ Smith still retains the rights to those two series. Because she's really been screwed over and at this point I doubt she would sign away the rights to anything else.
I don't have a lot of time/attention to put into reading a book so if I can watch the movie I'll probably do that instead, as sorry as it is to say.
I'm there with you these days. Ever since I started grad school, if I can't listen to it on audiobook during my work shift, chances are I'm not going to be able to get to it, timewise. Also, for me, I'd rather watch the movie versions of the young adult novels than read the books, just because I like the ideas and I don't always like inclusion of angsty teenage stuff which the books always spend more time on than the movies.
I can't say for sure because I've never tried them but I don't think audiobooks would work for me because I tend to zone out when I'm listening to things because I use anything through my headphones as a distraction to help me focus on something else. I'd miss half the book. :(
That's really too bad about Blood and Chocolate and Under the Dome. I've heard such good things about the books though I've never read them myself, so it's really disappointing to hear that they were adapted poorly to the screen. I was debating trying to get my hands on Blood and Chocolate at some point, but I'm always so skeptical about werewolf and vampire novels because of the fad. I love them, but some of them aren't as good as people make them out to be. Sounds like that one might be worth trying to get my hands on, though.
I totally agree with you about the Hunger Games. The books are actually pretty decent, but they definitely benefit from the movie treatment quite a lot.
I depends on what it is. It really has to do with the subject matter first and then, if the book is already out, if it's worth my time. I've read first two HP in the series read before I saw the first movie. For The Maze Runner the subject matter wasn't THAT interesting to me and I heard that the series went downhill as it went on so I stuck with watching the movie instead. It's really hit or miss with me. I don't have a lot of time/attention to put into reading a book so if I can watch the movie I'll probably do that instead, as sorry as it is to say. My enjoyment of the film often has little to do with the book itself because, odds are, I'm not going to know the difference.
Would you rather read the book or watch the movie first?
If I'm going to put the effort in I'd rather read the book first but there are too many factors and I feel like a lot of the time I'm just setting myself up for heartbreak and two hours of, "That's NOT how it happened!"
What are some example(s) of films or movies based on books that got it right?
Harry Potter is the biggest one that comes to mind for me. I haven't read too many books that were adapted to movies or I've avoided them altogether, I don't know which. OH. And probably Brokeback Mountain, which wasn't even a book. If anything the movie did even better with what the storyline provided. I think The Hunger Games has and will continue to benefit from the movie treatment over the books. I feel that, because Suzanne Collins was a scriptwriter, the books were written with the idea in mind that they'd be put on screen anyway, at least for the third in the series.
What are some example(s) of films or movies based on books that got it wrong?
Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause. The book was AMAZING and I read it growing up. I gave it away when I moved across the country but then the movie was going to come out or was released on dvd, I don't remember, and it made me nostalgic for it so I bought it again and still have it. I was SO disappointed in the movie version it STILL bothers me to this day, and it's been at least a decade. They took a book about a coming-of-age werewolf girl and turned it into a bullshit story about her fighting the evil pack leader which was SO NOT what the book was about. I don't know if I'll ever try the movie again to see if my initial reactions were too harsh because even thinking about it vaguely right now makes my blood boil. Clearly I have ~feelings~ about this, or at least about things I read growing up and still have an attachment to.
And I know they're not movies but I've also read Under the Dome and am almost finished with Zoo, which I started reading before the tv series began. Wow, neither of those did their books justice. I mean, Zoo isn't a literary masterpiece by any stretch, but it's SO different from the show. I understand because the book doesn't lend itself to a multi-season tv series but the only thing the two have in common are that animals start killing people and there's a dude named Oz. That's basically it.
Under the Dome has SO veered off course. Again, not a book that would extend well over many seasons, but the book was over 1000 pages, I'm sure the writers could have salvaged something from those for a couple seasons, at least.
I probably shouldn't even mention my feelings about The Vampire Diaries or The Secret Circle... But OH GOD how overjoyed I'd be if The Forbidden Game or Dark Visions trilogies were made into movies!
If you see a film based on a book does it make you want to go and read the book?
I'm pretty sure I've never done it this way, except for, like, Romeo & Juliet or some other Shakespeare play because I HAD to read them in high school. Once I've seen the movie I have that image in my head and have a hard time going back if the details are changed.
Reply
Definitely disappointed!!!
I was told to not read the other two Maze Runner books. I'll see the movies, because Dylan, but yeah. What Dylan DID manage to do, was make me not hate Thomas as much, though. I hated him in the books. Always the problem when a book is in first person.
Reply
God yes. Like, I get the benefits but when you've got something like Twilight (which I didn't bring up at all because that's just a whole other kettle of fish, let's face it) and Bella Swan as your narrator you're lucky you don't pitch yourself over the side of a bridge by the time you're done listening to her complain and whine and second guess everything.
Reply
Mocking Jay was really hard for me to get through because the first half of the book was Katniss being a teenager. Total LACK of information there.
Reply
Exactly this! It's almost impossible to "delete" the image of characters, places, props, etc. from your mind and start fresh with the book. If the main character is played by a tall blond, that image of him in my mind won't change even if he's described as short and dark-haired in the book.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Same goes for Rizzoli and Isles, though I like that show. They veered from the books pretty early on in the series but not anymore and it frustrates me. But at least the characters on the show are more like those in the books
Reply
1. I had completely forgotten about that Blood and Chocolate movie. I remember when it first came out so many people I knew that had read the book and disliked the ending were satisfied with the movie. They were the only ones. I, on the other hand, loved everything about that book. It used to be one of my comfort reads. So the movie was a huge let down because it largely wasn't even the same story.
2. I tried watching Under the Dome but wasn't getting into it so I ended up listening to the book. First off the show took out all the best characters and those who were still there were drastically altered. If I'm remembering correctly, the show wasn't originally intended to be more than a season. I think if they had stuck to that the story would have worked just fine. But American television networks just refuse to embrace the miniseries.
3. I feel the exact opposite about LJ Smith's series. Forbidden Game is my absolute favorite. Love it. And I do not want anyone, particularly the CW, getting their hands on it. Dark Visions I am less protective of but still would rather not see it go the way of Vampire Diaries.
Reply
That's why I'd rather see them get movie treatments, rather than TV. Then they can stick to the storyline and not veer off into total bullshit.
Reply
I'm actually curious is LJ Smith still retains the rights to those two series. Because she's really been screwed over and at this point I doubt she would sign away the rights to anything else.
Reply
I'm there with you these days. Ever since I started grad school, if I can't listen to it on audiobook during my work shift, chances are I'm not going to be able to get to it, timewise. Also, for me, I'd rather watch the movie versions of the young adult novels than read the books, just because I like the ideas and I don't always like inclusion of angsty teenage stuff which the books always spend more time on than the movies.
Reply
Reply
I totally agree with you about the Hunger Games. The books are actually pretty decent, but they definitely benefit from the movie treatment quite a lot.
Reply
Leave a comment