Books vs. Movies

I think some are wildly outrageous and wouldn't carry over into film very well. One I can think of off the top of my head it Confederacy of Dunces. This has been an on again off again movie project. Wonderful book...but really out there. I think it would lose tremendous amounts in the translation. A lot of quirk stuff would fall flat on screen, I think.

good example, Ray. It was because of the books that I couldn't even bring myself to see the movie. I knew it would get butchered. I'll just trust that it did.

maestrowork said:

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was one that suddenly popped in my mind. I think the movie was awful. But apparently the book is a wonderful read...

Click to expand...

That's a good example. The appeal of that book for me was the dry, wry humor in the narrative (especially his analogies). I didn't see the movie 'cause I figured there was no way for it to translate.

maestrowork said:

I still wonder why is it difficult? Is it because of the language? What makes something so wonderful in print so difficult to pull off on screen? You mentioned the quirks and "outrageousness" would fall flat -- why, exactly? And why do they work on the pages?

Click to expand...

I think it's because our imaginations are just more wonderful than film limitations...but I think that's changing. I think of Big Fish. I love quirk. It's my favourite. Big Fish was close to pulling it off. But our imaginations are powerful.

Memoirs of a Geisha.
That movie filled me in anger. They destroyed that book on screen. Of course I've often wondered why they re-write scripts and add in things that never happened in the first place.

maestrowork said:

Another one I thought of was Alice in Wonderland. Even the Disney cartoon came across as ridiculous.

Click to expand...

That I disagree with. I think it's one of the better Disney adaptations.

There's a way to capture the spirit of a book but deviate from the plot. To Kill a Mockingbird doesn't stick strictly to the plot, but it captures the spirit in ways that a lot of movies could only dream of.

No Country for Old Men is a good adaptation. Not only did the Coens stick to the plot and dialogue (sometimes to degrees that infuriate casual moviegoers - the ending and certain deaths, for example), the hopeless and perhaps godless feel of the book comes through strong.

I have no idea how they're going to do The Road and Blood Meridian. Not only are those books violent and depressing, they also have no real plot.

maestrowork said:

I still wonder why is it difficult? Is it because of the language? What makes something so wonderful in print so difficult to pull off on screen?

Click to expand...

I think, as KTC mentioned, that part of this is that some books are so lyrically written, and communicate with us so well, that our imaginations are better than any film could ever be.

Another problem is the levels of sheer interference that most books pass through on their way to being shot. It's a rare instance when the original author is also the screenwriter. Some books pass through the hands and imaginations of multiple scriptwriters, sometimes those adaptations are done by writing teams. Then you've got the director, the art director, the set designer, the lighting people, costumer, film editors, casting director and cast ALL adding layers and layers of their own vision and imagination in there. omg, when you think about it . . .

Then there's motivation. Are they going in with the utmost respect for the original story? Is it only about box office? Is it about both?

Some books fall into very, very wrong hands. If anyone has ever read the old, original Dr. Dolittle books, which were minor masterpieces written with enormous love, what they did with them in those films is feckin' criminal. Cold Mountain, a book not everyone loved but which some feel is a masterpiece, was turned into an insipid piece of prettypuke onscreen, in part because it was horrendously miscast in a wrongheaded bid for big box office. Additionally, Charles Frazier's manner of writing either did not translate well or no one bothered to honor it, one or the other.

There are books which are so fine, so complete on the page, that nothing else is needed or indeed warranted. Some books are so great they should be left alone.

On the other hand, occasionally a film does get it right. Once in awhile the films are better. (The Bourne series comes to mind.)

Ultimately most of the injury to great books in their transition to film is caused by too many cooks in the kitchen, whose motivations are not necessarily in the best interests of the original story.

maestrowork said:

I still wonder why is it difficult? Is it because of the language? What makes something so wonderful in print so difficult to pull off on screen? You mentioned the quirks and "outrageousness" would fall flat -- why, exactly? And why do they work on the pages?

Click to expand...

Language, perspective and the mind's eye, I think.

I just started reading Barbara Kingsolvers' The Poisonwood Bible and in the opening pages she describes a scene that I know would have none of the beauty on screen, it would just be a mother and her children walking through a forest. In a novel, you can get so deeply within the persona of a character, how do you do that in film? I don't think you can. In a movie, the audience will always be voyeurs, they'll never be able to get as intimate with the story as a reader can with a book.

Maybe "Avenger" or "Icon" could have. The movies did not contain the same stories.

Ray mentioned quirky, also, Lemony Snicket, pretty quirky, and I actually loved what they did with that. It isn't always impossible. I was able to love both the books and the film in their own rights.

Narnia, there's an instance where my own imaginative pictures from the books are intact, and the film enhanced them. To me that was one of the most beautifully-realized adaptations ever, and it didn't interfere with my own mind's eye movies. That's a rare thing, though.

Slightly OT: I loved HHGTG the movie. I just watched it today. It makes me feel good. (Sam Rockwell is brilliant, BTW). I also loved the book as well the book's sequels. Important to note that Adams wrote the book and oversaw 75 percent of the movie contirbuting most of its script and oversight -- and then died about three months before the film's completion. There was a lot of care to ensure the film was something Adams would say was acceptible -- and apparently he was fickle. So are the fans of the book. The OT graf done ...

I'd add that a book and a film are two separate and distinct mediums. The work should be judged separately. If you hold the book up to the film and expect to see resemblance, what you'll see is your mother's nose and your father's ears. What you won't see is an identical twin.

Now go vote in my contest. ;-)

maestrowork said:

Or more precisely:

Are there any books that just can't be adapted into movies?

Click to expand...

I think turning books into movies depends on the director’s focus. I loved David Baldacci’s first book Absolute Power, but the movie was bad. The main character in the book wasn’t in the movie because Clint Eastwood focused and played the father, a character that dies about 3/4 into the book. I met David Baldacci at a book signing and an audience member asked him what he thought of the movie. He said Clint focused on a character and moved the movie in that direction. He feels it’s difficult for a good book to play out on the big screen in its entirety.

Another favorite of mine is The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon. I have such a vivid picture of the characters, place and time that no amount of focus or acting can achieve the same height. There was talk of a possible movie for this book, which I would probably go see out of curiosity although I would walk into the theatre anticipating disappointment.

TrainofThought, I agree about Absolute Power.

I thought King's Dark Half fell flat as a movie while it was a better book. I've heard the same about Secret Garden, Secret Window although I haven't seen it.

I think part of the problem as well is that you can't always keep all the elements of the character within the time frame allowed for a movie. I can't imagine Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath as a movie; I think you'd lose the perspective and the impact which he goes into in the narrative.

"A Clockwork Orange" is something I wouldn't have imagined would work as a film. Kubrick's vision was amazing.

Between the Bridge and the River by Craig Ferguson is a great book, and he said in an interview that he wrote it in such a way that it would never be filmed. As for HHGTTG, I think one reason that the film didn't measure up was that for so long, it bounced around in our heads. Even if you listened to the BBC recordings, it was magnificent, because all the special effects were created in the mind. Decades of that is hard to compete with, and I'm glad that the movie disappointed me a little because it didn't wipe out all those scenes I had imagined. (Even though I did buy the DVD.) I read the Hobbit and the LOTR books when I was young, and re-read them nearly every year. When the movies came out, I lost all those images because of the overwhelming special effects; now that I've seen the movies, it's hard to go back. Re-reading it just doesn't seem the same to me now.

Storyteller5 said:

I thought King's Dark Half fell flat as a movie while it was a better book. I've heard the same about Secret Garden, Secret Window although I haven't seen it.

I think part of the problem as well is that you can't always keep all the elements of the character within the time frame allowed for a movie. I can't imagine Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath as a movie; I think you'd lose the perspective and the impact which he goes into in the narrative.

Click to expand...

Secret Garden, Secret Window is terrible. Really bad.

But you haven't seen the movie of The Grapes of Wrath? That was one where they tried their hardest to capture the spirit of the book thing I was talking about. I haven't seen it in a while, but I recall it was very affecting.

I do agree that the dual chapter handoff of describing the Joads and then describing the migrant workers as a whole can't be done on screen. But you can still get the emotion across without figuring a way to do a scene with stream of consciousness car salesman gypping out migrants.

maestrowork said:

So I guess maybe the question isn't whether there is a book just can't be adapted -- but it rests on the ability of the screenwriter/director to bring the essence to life. Kubrick, for example, was able to adapt both A Clockwork Orange and 2001 successfully.

Click to expand...

I think you have it there: the essence. One will never perfectly capture the other, but when done well, each can be wonderful in their own right.

Sometimes a book has too much going on in the mc's head that can't be easily dramatized.

Lehane's Mystic River was quite internal, and I was surprised that enough was brought out on the screen to cover those parts adequately for anyone who hadn't read the book. It felt different on screen; and I thought there were too many long shots on anguished facial expressions here and there.

For me, it's been an interesting mix. I've picked up books because I've seen the movie. On the other hand, I've avoided movies because I've read the books. Bridge to Terabithia comes to mind. That is one of my favorite childhood memories/books. Even just looking at the previews for the movie makes be balk at going to see it. I still haven't managed to watch it.

I think that sometimes, especially when we've read the book first, these characters and settings take on such a life of their own in our imaginations that it's often disappointing when we see it on the big screen, because it simply wasn't what we were expecting.