Books and Movies

[Laurel]

I was deeply disappointed by Kubrick's "The Shining" because the characters were nothing like I'd constructed them in my head while reading the book. The kid Danny came across as some sort of feeble-minded idiot savant, and Jack Nicholson as the father was too angry and evil. That's not the first time I've been disappointed by a movie version of a book. In fact, I can't think of a movie version of a book I enjoyed that I liked at all.

"The Fellowship of the Rings" is due out next week. It's been years since I read Tolkien, so I think I'll dig the movie. But in the wake of the Harry Potter movie, I wonder how you folks feel about your favorite books becoming movies. Do you go see the movie? Are you usually pleasantly surprised or disappointed? Why?

 

[Calamity Jane]

The 13th Warrior was an excellent portrayal of Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton... but in general, I agree that books don't translate well. Harry Potter was pretty close...

If The Shining irritated you, don't watch Pet Semetary...

 

[JazzManJim]

I'm inevitably disappointed when a book is made into a movie. Because the normal movie has to be around 2 or 2 1/2 hours long in the theaters, they lose a lot of detail which was in the book. Some of my favorite books are rather detail-deep and just can't translate well to the big screen.

Having said that, I have huge hopes for FotR, mostly because its Director took such pains to make it as close to the book as he could.

But, there's hope. Some of the best adaptations of books were made, miniseries-style. ABCs miniseries verions of "The Stand" and "The Shining" were two great pieces of work - faithful to the book, and well done, in all. Also, the adaptation that Ted Turner's people did of "The Killer Angels" became "Gettysburg", which ended up being a 6-hour movie on television. But, it was faithful to the book in nearly every word.

So maybe Jackson has it right. Don't scrunch if you don't have to. Make a separate movie for each book. Else, just spend the time and make a miniseries.

And as a side note, the three miniseries I mentioned have done boffo for their respective stations.

 

[Marxist]

What about "Being There"? Book and movie were consistent and equally good.

 

[nasty]

*Shaking head*

You didn't like "THe Shining?" I'm disappointed in you, Laurel. That was AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh well. You're stil the...um, bomb.

 

[LadyDarkFire]

While it was a fairly good movie, Interveiw With The Vampire was not up to the book. I personally feel disappointed by alot of movies I see made out of books. Yes, I will go see the LOTR movies, but I don't think they will hold the same magic for me as the books did. The Hobbit was a good animated movie, but I will still reply, when asked that my favorite rendition of Gandalf was my father when I was 6 years old. I don't think that a movie, even if it was perfectly accurate to the book, could Ever replace that memory.

 

[JazzManJim]

The 13th Warrior was an excellent portrayal of Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton... but in general, I agree that books don't translate well. Harry Potter was pretty close...

If The Shining irritated you, don't watch Pet Semetary...

I definitely agree with you there. Cool stuff about "EAters of the Dead". The narrator's character was based on a real person, and his real portrayals of the Norsemen. Add to that some Beowulf coolness and it was a damned good book. Now that's in direct opposition to the hack jobs they did on "Jurassic Park" and "Rising Sun".

And as for Pet Sematary...damn. They just butchered was is perhaps the most disturbing and eerie work of fiction I've ever read...

 

[ranajja]

"The Fellowship of the Rings" is due out next week. It's been years since I read Tolkien, so I think I'll dig the movie.

Same here--it's been so long, I'm 'bout ashamed to admit, I don't really remember a whole lot about it--must be getting senile--so I am sure I will enjoy the movie.

I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books--I know, I heard the collective gasp--and I don't want to until I've seen the move--I know, another gasp--but I've always been disappointed when I've read the book first, some more so than others.

"13th Warrior" was very close, as was "The Stand", and "Planet of the Apes"--the first movie, though I really enjoyed the remake--

 

[Calamity Jane]

Now that's in direct opposition to the hack jobs they did on "Jurassic Park" and "Rising Sun".

And as for Pet Sematary...damn. They just butchered was is perhaps the most disturbing and eerie work of fiction I've ever read...

I actually like Jurassic park until i read the book. the second one was even worse, because the second novel was better than the first one was...

pet semetary just plain pissed me off... and the pelican brief... and along came a spider... and too many others to list.

 

[Weevil]

Aww shucks, it all depends on what you look for.

My case in point: Trainspotting. I loved the book, liked the flick. My friend who I saw it loved the book, hated the movie.

Why? Because it was "nothing like the book". That's true, it focuses on one of the plots in the book(Renton's heroin addiction) mixes characters(Tommy and Matty), drops characters(All the girls but Diane) and contains neither of the side stories.

So my friend, who has articulated this on numerous occasions, doesn't like the movie for all of these reasons, which is really just one reason; that it isn't all that similar to the book.

But he agrees with me that the movie is unflinching in how it portrays the parts that are true to the book, the acting is great and it has a rockin soundtrack.

So, some people just won't be happy unless it's a literal adaption(impossible in 90% of books) and as such shouldn't go see movies based on their fave books.

blah, blah, fucking blah.

 

[Calamity Jane]

I'm not looking for literal adaptation... i'm well aware that there are nuances that can be conveyed in print, that simply can't on film. which is why i prefer books.

but most of the movies we're speaking of CLAIM to be based on a book, and share little to nothing with the actual characters, scene, or plotline.

anyone else think Crichton's Timeline would make an excellent movie?

 

[Weevil]

Sure but "based on" a book means just that. They used the book only as a starting point and then went off on their little tangents. What-ev.

 

[Calamity Jane]

uh huh... like Lawnmower Man

 

[Weevil]

Well, sure.

Say, for instance while reading, Good Omens or something I thought "Man, I'd like to make a movie about the 4 horsemen throughout the ages."

Now, it'd have nothing to do with the book(not really, anyway) but it is based on the book.

 

[cymbidia]

Dune by Frank Herbert.
Now THAT was a great book butchered by the big-screen movie. Oddly, not too long ago i saw a version done for the SciFi channel that was markedly better than the big screen monstrosity.

OTOH, we have Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. The movie version with Gene Wilder *perfectly* encapsulated the book.

Mostly, i feel somewhat cheated by the movie versions of books i've loved. I've read The Hobbit and the LOR books many times (even read the Silmarillion a couple times) and have a feeling of dread concerning the movie, no matter the hype. I can't see how they could possibly get even a small part of the incredible and almost tactile richness and depth the book offers on every page.

But i'll go see it.
Oh, for sure.

 

[Calamity Jane]

[BOTOH, we have Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. The movie version with Gene Wilder *perfectly* encapsulated the book.
[/B]

Mine and my daughter's fave movie...

James and the Giant Peach wasn't done too badly either... but then, Roald Dahl is a genius.

 

[Laurel]

Hi EBW!

A movie doesn't have to be a literal adaptation of the book to be enjoyable. Like you said, with 90% of books (and 99.99999% of books worth reading) you simply can't film them verbatim. Oftentimes, as in Cronenberg's Naked Lunch, you have to change the structure significantly in order to stay true to the tone & purpose of the book. However, if the movie isn't in the same SPIRIT as the book, then it fails.

In the movie version of The Shining, Jack comes off as a raging psycho from the very first minute onscreen - instead of a troubled man on a downward slide. In the book, the son Danny is precocious and sensitive; in the movie, he's a moron kid who talks to his fingers. What scared me as a kid in The Shining was watching an adult slowly slide off the deep end. The movie retains none of this. THAT'S why it bites ass. IMHO.

 

[Weevil]

Hi EBW!

A movie doesn't have to be a literal adaptation of the book to be enjoyable. Like you said, with 90% of books (and 99.99999% of books worth reading) you simply can't film them verbatim. Oftentimes, as in Cronenberg's Naked Lunch, you have to change the structure significantly in order to stay true to the tone & purpose of the book. However, if the movie isn't in the same SPIRIT as the book, then it fails.

Yes and no. They're two seperate pieces of art. One of them is "based on" an earlier work but that's where it begins and ends.

 

[nasty]

In the movie version of The Shining, Jack comes off as a raging psycho from the very first minute onscreen - instead of a troubled man on a downward slide.

I beg to differ, hun. I think Kubrick portrayal of Jack's downfall,(albeit simplictic)was well done. My favorite scene, that still gives me the creeps, is where he stands in front of the window, watching his family having a snowball fight. To me, the scene where he and his wife are in his Study, is when he became a raging psycho. But, that's my opinion. Did you ever see the miniseries? That follows the book MUCH better.

 

[Laurel]

Yes and no. They're two seperate pieces of art. One of them is "based on" an earlier work but that's where it begins and ends.

They're two separate formats, but they're based on the same ideas. Why "base" a movie on a book if the movie retains nothing of the original?

 

[Weevil]

They're two separate formats, but they're based on the same ideas. Why "base" a movie on a book if the movie retains nothing of the original?

Nothing? The two Shinings stray on the same basic plot don't they?

 

[Laurel]

I beg to differ, hun. I think Kubrick portrayal of Jack's downfall,(albeit simplictic)was well done. My favorite scene, that still gives me the creeps, is where he stands in front of the window, watching his family having a snowball fight. To me, the scene where he and his wife are in his Study, is when he became a raging psycho. But, that's my opinion. Did you ever see the miniseries? That follows the book MUCH better.

But you never, ever see Jack as a loving father and doting husband...from the job interview on, he's edgy, angry, and eventually volatile. In the book, there was love between the father and son, between the husband and wife. In the movie, none of this is retained. Thus, it's not as scary as the book.

If I had seen the Kubrick movie without reading the book, I probably would have liked it. However, there were parts of the book that were very effective IMHO that did not carry over. The interaction between the characters didn't work for me. Since the book is about the dissolution not only of a man but of a family, it's vital that there be a family to dissolve. In the movie, there was none.

Plus, having Danny talk to his finger was the stupidest idea ever.

 

[Laurel]

Nothing? The two Shinings stray on the same basic plot don't they?

Plot schnot. The characters didn't work for me. He changed the wrong things, so much of what made the book interesting does not come through at all in the movie. For the reasons above.

Are you married yet?

 

[nasty]

The original didn't have much to do with the book, but, EBW's right. It was "Based" on King's idea.

 

[Weevil]

Plot schnot. The characters didn't work for me. He changed the wrong things, so much of what made the book interesting does not come through at all in the movie. For the reasons above.

Are you married yet?

Couple days, babes. Couple days.

Still though, I think that it's very, very good that the auteur(Guess who just found his first-year film textbook) looks at the material and then puts his own spin on it.