When the movie/tv series is nothing like the book

It depends. Usually it can be pretty jarring to see events rearranged or new storylines that weren't in the original introduced.

Yes. So much. Which is really not news after my Walking Dead rant.

Nope. I've come to expect it. Rather, when a film is close to the book, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Even my kids are jaded. They recently watched The Outsiders after reading, and loving, the book. They were floored that it was scene for scene, sometime word for work, exactly like the book.

I voted yes, though it depends. Mostly, I think it is annoying, because too much is changed/deleted and it doesn't work. I understand how some things from a really large book have to be cut, but if it makes the story worse, I hate that.

Every once in awhile though, the movie or show is better. Dexter, for example. I only read the first book, but I liked the changes they made in the first season from the book. I think it worked better.

If the movie or series can stand on its own, and is a good series, then it's fine.
Otherwise, no.

Since what I usually read (medieval/urban fantasies) generally doesn't get made into movies, I'm rarely disappointed. Then again, I tend to pick up a book after watching a movie (although usually not tv shows) that interests me so I usually end up pleasantly surprised by the original source material. Sometimes I like the movies better than the book (Twilight was one such) but I;m generally not bothered with the changes if the Powers That Be keep to the spirit of the story. For example, I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, despite knowing they made several changes to the story. But since they made it clear there were going to be changes from the get-go, I rolled with them. (The only problem I had was the mess they made with Aragorn's backstory. What was with the heritage guilt?? Totally against character!! Elrond was also totally out of character.)

It depends on how I felt about the book. I must say that I rather resented the fact that the Nightwatch movies (which I didn't care for at all) deviated so drastically from the Nightwatch books (which I really loved). I was also a bit peeved by all the omissions in the recent Harry Potter film... of course, I realize that they couldn't include all the subplots from the book, but still, I was annoyed... because I'm such a giant nerd.

Satori1977 said:

I voted yes, though it depends. Mostly, I think it is annoying, because too much is changed/deleted and it doesn't work. I understand how some things from a really large book have to be cut, but if it makes the story worse, I hate that.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. It's also a bit of false advertising, don't you think? I mean, I expect a movie that's based on a book, not on a loose interpretation of what the book might have been, maybe, probably.

I went for "meh"

Sometimes it bugs the crap out of me, and sometimes it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

No, it usually doesn't bother me. The studio bought the rights to adapt the work in whatever way they see fit to bring it to the screen. Unless a director comes out and says "I promise to be as faithful as possible," I won't hold him to it. I'll judge the book as a book and the film as a film.

brainstorm77 said:

I thought it would make an interesting thread.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree. I smiled when I saw it and said "Hey - I know where that came from!"

Adam said:

I went for "meh"

Sometimes it bugs the crap out of me, and sometimes it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Click to expand...

Me too. The only tv show that I watch and found a dramatic difference in between books and tv is the series 'Bones'. The only thing the book and show series have in common is the MC is named Dr. Temprance Brennan and that she's an anthropoligist. Doesn't bother me all that much, tbh, because I think the show does well on its own merits.

Usually I like them to be as close as possible while still working well for the screen, however one notable exception stands out in my mind. The Vampire Diaries tv show is extremely different from the books and 100x better in my opinion.

My response is a firm 'Maybe.' Most of the James Bond films have about as much in common with the book of the same title as radial tires have with eggplants. That's bothered me with some, with others I'm indifferent. It was a problem with Moonraker, but Quantum of Solace would only have been about ten minutes long had it adhered to the short story of that name.

Some differences make it better, some don't. To stick with James Bond, I liked many of the movies, but reading some of the novels afterward was just disappointing. The books felt dated, the movies were more with the times.
They can be both good in different ways, or one version can be a disaster. For disastrous movies, one can always wait another 20 years for the remake.

I voted for eggplant, but seriously it annoys the crap out of me.

Like there was one scene in (eek, she's mentioning the T word!) Twilight, where I was like, WHY did they change that detail? There was no reason to do so other than for the hell of it. I can't remember what it was now. But it annoyed me.

And that HP movie where they used the time turner was so far divorced from the book that it didn't actually make any sense whatsoever.

I've come to expect it but seriously. It makes me want to fall to my knees and cry 'wwwwhhhhyyyyyyy'

lol

Really depends. Honestly I love both True Blood and Dexter yet both veer quite a bit from the books. Most versions of Moby Dick drive me mad because they don't even try to follow the novel (especially the John Barrymore version--Ahab gets the girl, 'nuff said). Methinks it comes down to whether the film/series is faithful to what I love in the book or books.

David, you're right. True Blood is a good example. It's not much like the books at all.

Gossip girl is quite different too.

I voted Meh, but I'm more with the people saying 'it depends'. I agree that a film that deviates wildly from the book, but still makes a good story is fine.
It also depends on how attached I am to the source material. My friend loved the Dune film, but he saw it before reading the book. The book is up there in my top three favourites of all time, so I hated the film.
And then there are those that work better if changed. About the only thing I liked about the HHGTTG film was the fact that it deviated from the books. It's sort of a Hitchhiker tradition that every new version changes the story a bit.

Sometimes the film can be a huge improvement over the book.

Compare 'The curious case of Benjamin Button'. If they'd kept the original 'feel' of the story it would have been a terrible film.

Films and books are different beasts - they need to be different in most cases.

Mac

If there is a specific scene that I enjoyed reading and it was omitted in the movie, yea it tweaks me.
In that regard, I voted 'Meh' bc it doesn't mean the whole movie or series is a total wash out.

Mac H. said:

Films and books are different beasts - they need to be different in most cases.
Mac

Click to expand...

Agreed

Think there was a some turmoil w/the movie Doom, game to movie.
Another example of two different beasts, like Mac said.
What!? Dwayne Johnson! giggity giggity giggity