PDA

View Full Version : When the movie/tv series is nothing like the book



brainstorm77
11-10-2010, 07:47 PM
When the movie or TV series is nothing like the book it's based on, does it bother you? Does it piss you off?

BenPanced
11-10-2010, 08:07 PM
It depends. Usually it can be pretty jarring to see events rearranged or new storylines that weren't in the original introduced.

Grrarrgh
11-10-2010, 08:09 PM
Yes. So much. Which is really not news after my Walking Dead rant. :)

CaroGirl
11-10-2010, 08:09 PM
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.

brainstorm77
11-10-2010, 08:13 PM
Yes. So much. Which is really not news after my Walking Dead rant. :)

I thought it would make an interesting thread. :)

Satori1977
11-10-2010, 08:31 PM
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.

LOG
11-10-2010, 10:28 PM
If the movie or series can stand on its own, and is a good series, then it's fine.
Otherwise, no.

dirtsider
11-10-2010, 10:30 PM
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.)

MsGneiss
11-10-2010, 10:59 PM
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.

MsGneiss
11-10-2010, 11:02 PM
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.


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.

Adam
11-10-2010, 11:48 PM
I went for "meh" :)

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

ChaosTitan
11-11-2010, 12:18 AM
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.

Grrarrgh
11-11-2010, 12:54 AM
I thought it would make an interesting thread. :)

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

ChronicSelfEditor
11-11-2010, 01:24 AM
I went for "meh" :)

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

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.

fredXgeorge
11-11-2010, 04:40 AM
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.

SirOtter
11-11-2010, 05:58 AM
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.

Enzo
11-11-2010, 09:58 AM
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.

MissMacchiato
11-11-2010, 12:22 PM
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

DavidZahir
11-12-2010, 05:31 AM
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.

MissMacchiato
11-12-2010, 05:39 AM
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.

Eudoxia
11-12-2010, 09:07 AM
TV series that derive from books don't bother me that much. They're usually really good and the changes they made into the show are very interesting and people tend to enjoy the show more than the book. Movies are another story, how ever. Sometimes the changes they make in the movies are a little disappointing. I mostly hate it when they take out key characters that were in the books. Like Harry Potter for instance. Dobby, a house-elf, was in the Chamber of Secrets, but he was also supposed to be in the Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince, and the Deathly Hallows. He's never seen in either of those other movies except I believe he's going to be in the Deathly Hallows.

JimmyB27
11-12-2010, 03:02 PM
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. :D

Mac H.
11-12-2010, 03:06 PM
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

Debbie
11-12-2010, 05:12 PM
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.


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

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

brainstorm77
11-12-2010, 05:25 PM
It doesn't bother me. Sometimes it works straying from the book and other times it doesn't.

Lyra Jean
11-12-2010, 05:57 PM
The only time it ever really bothered me, and for some reason it still does is "Little House on the Prairie" The show would have been perfectly without Mary getting married and becoming a teacher and the Ingalls family never adopted anyone.

I have a friend who watches this show and I mentioned how neither of those things were true and he was so disappointed. Because he figured that since they were real people the big events like the adoption or Mary getting married actually happened.

I grew up reading the books and had them practically memorized for awhile. So that could be why. It doesn't really bother me now.