| Posted by Heather Wale on 29 December, 2007 - 06:35 |
In some cases, this is done remarkably well and encourages those who may not otherwise have read the book to give it a go. In other cases, the film does not do justice to the book and spoils the enjoyment of the book for the reader as they are continually comparing it to what they saw/read.
I have listed below some of the titles that I think have worked well and those that I don't think have worked quite as well. Please feel free to discuss my opinions with your own.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: I think this worked well as a series on the BBC but don't think it worked quite as well on the big screen mainly because I think it was made more glamorous and didn't allow the audience to connect with the characters as much. The beauty of the book was in the description although if your imagination isn't up to much then I suppose the film will make up for it.
The Lord of the Rings: I thought this was done superbly on film. I couldn't believe it when I heard that originally they wanted to do it as two films rather than the 3 it eventually came out as. Some parts of the book have already been missed out so to condense it even further would have been ridiculous. However, seeing the first film encouraged me to read the books and I devoured all three and also The Hobbit before the second film came out.
The Harry Potter series: I don't think these have been done terribly well at all. I think part of this is down to the audience of the films. They are aimed at a young audience and whereas a child reading the books might not understand certain words or lack the imagination for the horrors of torture and murder, they can pick it up perfectly well visually. I believe that this and the gaps in the storyline will not be enough for the sole visual audience to understand the whys and wherefores of the eventual storyline.
The Golden Compass: Anticipated greatly but felt let down by the film. My biggest misgiving was the ending, in that the film missed out at least a chapter at the end of the book and hence the reason for the second book/film. I didn't mind too much about the altering of the order of the book although I could see no reason why it needed to be altered. Again, because it was condensed to fit 1 and a half hours, the feeling fo being parted from your daemon was never really portrayed to the audience.
I will keep adding to this list as time goes on, but as I mentioned, please feel free to add your own comments.
By: KittyK at 25 February, 2008 - 15:50
Has anyone read No Country for Old Men? I haven't read the book but saw the film last night. It was incredible and has definitely inspired me to read the book. I would imagine the book would go into more detail than the film and you'll get an even bigger impact from the book but I'm not sure as haven't picked it up as yet.
Show All 6 Comments
By: salonee at 2 February, 2008 - 22:39
I couldnt agree with u more on this topic..i realise that even though transforming a book into a film takes a lot of hard work, films like harry potter havent done enough justice to the magnificently well written books.but on other hand films like lord of the rings trilogy have been directed beyond perfection..the book is no doubt excellent but very slow paced whereas the movies compensate for the books slow pace..similarly narnia movie was much better than the book in terms of visual effects
Hide Comments
By: SNorton at 23 January, 2008 - 00:24
I agree that most books do not transfer well to the silver screen. I felt it was an important lesson for me to teach my children when they were preschoolers. I read the book Stuart Little to them knowing the Michael J. Fox movie was going to be released in hopes of demonstrating the liberties taken by Hollywood to tell a story.
Well, if that were the lesson I wanted my children to learn, I couldn't have made a better choice. Unfortunately, much to my chagrin, the audience for the book was quite different than the one for the movie. Apparently I had been quite a bit older when my mother read the text to me because I remember being more interested in it. My children were quick to point out to me how the movie was "better than the book."
I'm pleased to say that my children have developed into good readers in spite of the lesson learned there, and I have had plenty of other good examples to show books can make for better entertainment than their movie counterparts. (Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events pops quickly to mind.)
Hide Comments
By: toxo at 2 February, 2008 - 09:03
I think we tend to compare apples with oranges here. Film by its very nature has to be an adaptation and it depends on the direction and scriptwriters' concepts. Stating the obvious, reading relies on our solitary interpretation and imagination; I guess astute readers while acknowledging the differences will always feel somewhat let down or annoyed by the film version. One good example, The Kite Runner,
although an excellent movie, the political significances and relationships are better explored and developed in the novel.
Children's imaginations need to be nurtured through the written word but the visual world also plays a role and if they are aware as they grow older of the differences between the genres they can enjoy pleasure in both.
But of course, reading to me is one of the purest forms of delight!
Hide Comments
By: lildarien at 2 January, 2008 - 15:27
In response to The Golden Compass, I would reiterate what others are saying in that it would be an entirely enjoyable experience if you haven't yet read the books.
The thing that bothered me the most was small changes to various things, which are unnoticed if you didn't already know them e.g. the witches seem to fly of their own accord in the movie, where in the books it is their tree branches that give them flight.
I could go on but i'll stop there so as not to derail the OP.
Hide Comments
By: LeBard at 29 December, 2007 - 08:04
Welcome to Booktagger Heather. I created a new forum for this discussion. Thanks for starting it :)
Hide Comments