Question..The Good, The Bad, The Ugly of Books-to-Movies...

[tracy_d74]

 Monday night I watched Sunday's at Tiffany on Lifetime. It was supposed to be based on James Patterson's novel with the same title.  I sooooo adored that book. I smiled the entire time I read it. The story of a child's imaginary friend returning when the child is an adult...FUN. I had high hopes for the movie. Why I bother having hopes for books

Comments

[bogwitch64]

Well, if you want a screenplay done RIGHT, you get the author of the book to do it, like William Goldman did for The Princess Bride. I saw the movie LONG before I read the book, so when I read Wesley's lines, I heard Carey Elwes. It was pretty dead on. The stuff that got cut for the movie--yeah, totally right.

I didn't see Time Traveler's Wife because I LOVED the book, and knew the movie could not possibly be good. It was too--BOOK! It depended too much upon the reader to work. I totally agree with you where OotP is concerned. Chris' girlfriend said what I felt the other day, when she watched it for the first time and having never read the books, "It seems like there were things missing. I didn't get it at all."

You know what was a good transition, book to movie?? Tuck Everlasting. Another one was The Virgin Suicides.

There are too many bad ones to list. Let's leave it at "most of them." Sometimes, diverting from the book makes it a better movie. Sometimes, it just makes a bad movie.

[tracy_d74]

Believe it or not, I have never read Virgin Suicides or Tuck Everlasting. I know. I know!!! They are on my list. Virgin for sure because I sooo loved Middlesex.

Princess Bride! Totally agree. I LOVE LOVE LOVE that movie. And the book..LOVE IT!

I do agree that sometimes the changes do make for a better movie, story. BUT many times it just makes a BAD movie.

[bogwitch64]

Virgin suicides is FABULOUS. Tuck Everlasting is a teensy book. I actually thought that the movie took the gist of it, and just made it a better piece of work.

[misha_mcg]

Good: Lord of the Rings. I would even argue for "best." They did an awesome job.

Bad: How about Bram Stoker's "Dracula"? The one with Keanu Reeves. Oh god.

[tracy_d74]

I HATED Bram Stoker's Dracula. Keanu Reeves cannot act. Correction, he can only "act" in movies like Bill and Ted (his finest performance to date) and Speed/Matrix. Note those movies do not require him to speak much. But the movie was poorly done.

[paulwoodlin]

I think Keanu Reeves does well in movies where he is supposed to have one emotion, whether it is bafflement, seriousness, the world is a weird joke on me... but I feel that way about almost all male actors anyway. Very, very few seem able to hit more than one or two emotional notes in the same movie. Perhaps it's a limitation of the script writing.

[tracy_d74]

You nailed it...Keanu Reeves is a one emotion person. AND there probably are some script limitations. I think movies (media in general) likes to feed stereotypes. So we have the neurotic woman and the no-emotion male. But some show good range...I think you have to get away from the superhero/spy and the romantic comedy prototype to see it.

[anabelgonzalez]

I usually never like the books converted into movies, seriously I hate that they change the story, the motivations of the characters and you end with a big deception. I am not asking to put the full book on a movie because they can't but you can't left out important things or change the sense of a story to make it commercial.
The worst movie of a book I have ever seen was Flowers int he attic, believe me I wanted to crash the Tv, but I didn't I love my tv... Anyway other ones are the movies from twilight I often go out thinking Bella is a bitch and Edward is really stupid. And Jacob is the more generous and lovely boy ( which in the book he isn't) although in eclipse they showed us more of the real Jacob.
Lord of the rings was a great adaptation. Also the first Harry Potter movies.

[tracy_d74]

OMG! I SOOOO had Flowers in the Attic, but then thought it was such an old film. But I left the movie theater seething. I still get mad when I think about that film. I've only seen it once. Great, now I'm mad. :0) LotR is a popular adaptation.

[anabelgonzalez]

I until a few years ago thought that there was no movie for flowers in the attic until I saw it in TV. I also get mad everytime I think of it, what a way to ruin a book!!

[karen_w_newton]

For a good adaptation, I've always thought STARDUST worked better as a movie than as a book. I love Neil Gaiman, but I just thought the movie worked better, possibly because the book was intended to be illustrated but I read it as straight text. I also thought Jurassic Park was pretty good, although I thought the book's ending was a little better.

Bad adaptions? Hmm. I'm really tempted to say THE WIZARD OF OZ because they so wimped out on the ending (it was a dream?), but it was such a cool movie otherwise that I can't. How about THE CAT IN THE HAT, which I never actually watched all of, but a few minutes was enough to say that.

[tracy_d74]

Directors LOVE changing the ending of books. I get it...they want to give the readers something different...and they want to leave their print. BUT sometimes the book ending is really the BEST ending.

[jongibbs]

The best adaption by a clear mile is the LoTR trilogy :)

[tracy_d74]

LotR seems to be the one people like most. I have not read the books in soooo long, I can't recall how close they are. One day I will reread them.