"the movie version"

[newsboyhat]

Disclaimer: I really can't stand purists; the following opinions contain biases against them.

I've concluded that the people who rage and rage about this-or-that not being in the books, that this is inaccurate, that this is trash, and that no movie version will ever live up to the novel... are, well, full of crap.

The people who say this don't know

Comments

[lookslikelove]

I definitely understand that. In a lot of ways I'll sometimes go out and read the book after seeing the movie. I am always a little wary of movies made out of books I love, but I have learned to get over it. They're different modes of interpretation and nothing is every going to fully live up to my head so why let it bother me? However in the instances of The Princess Bride and Whip It I will definitely agree that the movies are better than the book. Though I would also include Fight Club on this list, because even Chuck Palahniuk said that he liked the movie over his book.

[newsboyhat]

I forgot about Fight Club! I've read the book and seen the movie, and yes, wow, the movie is better.

[eva_kasumi]

I completely agree with all of this! Except that I hate the 2005 P&P because I don't think Keira Knightly can act at all and she irritates the hell out of me. But other than that. What I do dislike are adaptations that are disrespectful of the source material... like Airbender. It completely fails to capture any of the charm, wit, or themes of the series, utterly mutilates the characters beyond recognition, and basically acts like the show doesn't exist at all.

Surprised you didn't mention any incarnations of Sherlock Holmes, particularly the BBC version or last year's movie? I get very testy when old people complain about these new versions as being "untrue" to the books--especially since their memory of the books seems to consist entirely of the Jeremy Brett series.

I saw Where the Wild Things Are and, as you say, I thought it was a lovely reimagining that keeps the essence but doesn't try to reenact the book verbatim. Of course, it's very art film, which isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the aesthetic is beautiful.

[newsboyhat]

Okay, yes, Keira Knightley really isn't for everyone. I found her surprisingly stomachable in P&P because I was too distracted by the scenery and soundtrack :D

I forgot about Sherlock because... it was 2 am. But exactly. I haven't seen the Jeremy Brett, but I also haven't read most of the books--however, I imagine Sherlock purists view the Jeremy Brett series as definitive as Austen purists view the BBC miniseries of P&P.

I lump The Last Airbender into the crap pile with Ella Enchanted. There wasn't really anything good about it, was there?

[lnbw]

I often complain about movie adaptations because I think it's rare for an adaptation to capture the spirit of the book. It's certainly not required that they do so, even for it to be a good film, but if I like a book and the movie doesn't have the same spirit, why would I like it? And, there's a certain degree of understandable selfishness: I don't care if these are two different art forms, all I care about is that someone made something I love into something that doesn't move me. I get it.

Whether, of course, an adaptation preserves the spirit of the book depends on what you think the spirit is. To me, the Lord of the Rings movies are (mostly) successful at this, and so are the Harry Potter movies, though in the latter case I don't think they stand alone very well. (I'm not really qualified to say, though, since I don't need them to!) But I hated Stardust, which a lot of people loved, because to me it was a completely different beast from the book, with a bunch of similarities on the surface. I think it's that "similar-but-not-the-

[lnbw]

Oh, and Howl's Moving Castle is another good example: I don't think it preserves (what I think of as) the spirit of the book, but I do think it's probably a perfectly good movie. I just can't separate it from the ghost of the book in my mind, so I don't watch it.

[hjordis]

I agree with what you're saying, 100%. I remember reading that John Irving (who wrote The Cider House Rules and adapted the screenplay) chose to cut a big chunk of the storyline from the book for the film because he understood what makes a good movie /=/ what makes a good book. And he ended up winning an Oscar, so I guess he knows what he's talking about! :)

[sartorias]

For me, I get this serious disconnect if I have a vivid image of a much-read scene, and the cinematic version falls short, or omits, or veers into cliche, leaving out what made the scene memorable.

That's only if the film purports to be a filmic version of the book. Something like Clueless I can love because I can see the Emma landscape, but the map is not the same from the first image.