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

[shoebrera]

Is it any wonder King is on site during a filming of one of his books? I love watching those, just to find him in one of the scenes. I can't think of ANY movie that was as good as the book. Go novel writers!

[tracy_d74]

I do think there are some movies that are done well. But books...they just have more room to develop characters and plots. Moview are more for the visual appeal.

[tracy_d74]

I think they did well with To Kill A Mockingbird. I've never seen the movies for Holes or Clockwork.

[glynisj]

Worst: The Exorcist - They missed the whole point of the book.
Best: The Notebook - They nailed the story. Maybe it was because of the actors in it.

[tracy_d74]

I've have yet to read The Notebook. I love the movie.

[paulwoodlin]

I think it is interesting that in the movie "Jaws" they cut out all the reasons for disliking the main characters (the sherriff, his wife, and the scientist) and the mob subplot that showed by the mayor was so willing to risk lives: if he didn't make money, the mob was going after him. I personally suspect the reason the shark was hanging around was because the mob was dumping bodies, but it's never explicitly said in the book.

I also think it is typical of Hollywood that in the novel "Sex and the City," Carrie didn't get Mr. Big, but I believe in the movie she did. I didn't see the movie, but when I read the book it was advertised as a comedy but I thought it was just depressing.

I also think the movies based upon Phillip K. Dick stories often make more sense than the original material.

[tracy_d74]

Well, Sex n the City... I never read the book. But the tv show was based on the book (I suspect loosely...given the length of the show compared to the number of books) and the movie was based on the show...not the book. Or at least that is my understanding. It seems a lot of books turned to TV shows have a lot of creative license...in some ways it makes sense because you can produce multiple episodes in a short period of time, but books take FOREVER (being facitious) to produce, so directors have to/get to fill in the character development gaps.

Hollywood does like to change endings. In My Sister's Keeper they changed the movie ending to a more predictable ending, I think the book has a better, "Well dang after all that...this happens?!" I think it hammered home the moral and ethical dilemma of having a child for spare parts for another child.