Adaptations of books

[Warhammer]

Do you judge a film based on how faithful it is to the book it is adapted from?

I am one who will judge the film for on it's own ground. For example, if a film is solid, but completely bastardizes the book that is was adapted from, I will disregard the book, and solely judge the film. That's how I feel it should be. Sometimes, changes are necessary. Sometimes, changes aren't necessary. I try to eliminate bias from equation when judging these kinds of films, and judge the film on it's own merit. Take Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban, for example. The film changes alot of things from the book, but it was still a wonderfully made film, despite the changes (necessary or not). Alfonso Cuarón made a great film, and it is my favorite Harry Potter film.

 

[K.B.]

You should add a third option of "depends" or "sometimes"

 

[Warhammer]

You should add a third option of "depends" or "sometimes"

If somebody judges, then they judge. If somebody doesn't, then they don't. It's just an opinion. There are no wrong answers. If you do, then you do. If you don't, then you don't.

 

[tzarinna]

No, some things just don't translate well to screen.
I'm not that picky or judgmental.

 

[K.B.]

If somebody judges, then they judge. If somebody doesn't, then they don't. It's just an opinion. There are no wrong answers. If you do, then you do. If you don't, then you don't.

Ok and your already wrong. Sometimes people wont judge a film adapted from a favorite book yet turn around a judge another film from a fav book.

Case in point: A prayer for owen meany is my favorite book, yet I never once judged the movie and it took A LOT out/changed. Yet take another book I love, like It by Stephan King, and I judge the hell out of it.

See? sometimes people do and sometimes they don't.

 

[Cito]

Yeah it all just depends on the movie. Look at the Bourne films for example. NOTHING like the books, yet still manage to slap you in the face with amazingness. Solid, well written trilogy.

 

[Galactus]

I used to when I was younger. I remember when I saw The Shining for the first time. I was very disappointed because it wasn't exactly like the book. I like the movie more today (even though there are still some things with it that annoys me a little)

 

[xwolverine2]

its called adaptation for a reason...... we are seeing the idea of the book through the directors eyes, through his eyes i judge, not through the pages.

 

[Brick]

I don't know why but i do

 

[JTStarkiller]

I actually rarely read books before I see a film. The Golden Compass is the first in a while for me. Gonna be interesting.

 

[Dodger]

I AM LEGEND was a wonderful book, the movie however....ehhhhhh. It might blow chunks.

 

[Rac]

Depends on have I read the book before seeing the film. If I have, then yes.

 

[November Rain]

Do you judge a film based on how faithful it is to the book it is adapted from?

I am one who will judge the film for on it's own ground. For example, if a film is solid, but completely bastardizes the book that is was adapted from, I will disregard the book, and solely judge the film. That's how I feel it should be. Sometimes, changes are necessary. Sometimes, changes aren't necessary. I try to eliminate bias from equation when judging these kinds of films, and judge the film on it's own merit. Take Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban, for example. The film changes alot of things from the book, but it was still a wonderfully made film, despite the changes (necessary or not). Alfonso Cuarón made a great film, and it is my favorite Harry Potter film.

I judge a film based on how well 2d characters are adapted to a 3d real world.

the mediums are different so i don't expect things that apply to a book to work on film. However at the end of a film i want to feel the same way about the characters as i did within the book.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Book and film are different mediums and must be dealt with on their own terms. It's just like nerds who scream foul with things are changed from a comic to a movie, different medium, going for a larger more general audience, the thing's gotta sell and changes have to be made to do that. Studios are in the business of makng money not appeasing snobs.

Though I will say I am critical at times, in cases where it's a books I love and having a degree in English Literature means by nature I've read most of the books being adapted.

Also, what ever happened to the mini-series? To me I so prefer a mini-series to a movie. More time for character development, storytelling, world building. It's a bigger, more detailed telling that movies (by their nature) can't duplicate. I get excited about a new mini-series on TV or on DVD. I don't know, to me the mini needs to be looked at more closely, I would love to see more movies adapted from novels and superheros in this form.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

It depends on the movie, some movies I can accept changes and omissions like in the Lord of the Rings because the films kept the major sutff intact. Harry Potter on the other hand, always annoys me about the stuff they leave out, particularly the end explanations that are always ommitted and shortened, these are often the main points of the story that we need to know, but it's always barely acknowledged.

 

[Warhammer]

Bumptacular! More people need to post in here.

 

[Spider-Fan]

To a certain extent. If it is different from the book, I judge the change based on its own merit, but if the change sucks, then I will say they should have done it the other way. Perfect example is just about the entire Lost World movie...book was just SO much better.

 

[Max J Power]

For the most part, I want the feel of the book to be reflected in the movie, but I don't expect the movie's plot to be exactly the same as the book's.

 

[Matt]

I picked yes, but there should've been a "sometimes" option.

Take Jurassic Park for example. Its not the most faithful adaptation by a long shot, but the changes were done to create a more cinematic friendly experience.

Harry Potter on the other hand, the changes are really grinding my gears. Why? Because they are changes simply for the sake of change. They are changes at the expense of plot which leave gaping plot holes and both in the current movies (not explaining the Maurauder's Map or the Priori Incantem) and they are doing it at the expense of the series (they have left out so much that is important down the road). Ontop of that, I feel it especially wrong as 1) The movies are not that long and could have an extra 30 minutes on them. 2) They are cutting important plot points to add in original scenes like dance lessons with McGonagal, a weird little member of DA who gets more lines then the primary characters, and kids sitting around making animal noises. Put in scenes that are pernient to the plot instead of wastes of the audience's time.

So yeah...sometimes.

 

[K.B.]

Hmmm....looks like my idea of a "sometimes" option was right.

Imagine that.........

 

[hammy]

It depends on the book. To me, the original creator had a vision and if someone intends to use his or her work, should make an effort to stay close to that vision. Sometimes things don't translate well between the mediums and for the sake of a film, large portions of the story must be left out of a movie. That sort of thing is okay with me, as long as the basic premise is still there.

But to completely change it, I don't think that's acceptable. Just make your own. The movie might be great and be able to stand on it's own, but the shouldn't completely change the original creators work.

 

[DorkyFresh]

yes, but to an extent. i like when material is faithful to the source materials, but if the source material has flaws, inconsistencies, or ridiculous parts or ideas then i don't mind change for the better.

for instance...Peter Jackson switched some events around between the end of Two Towers and the beginning of Return of the King because it made more sense, movie-wise, to do so.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

It depends for me. While I understand some changes are made in order to help the film be taken seriously and not come off as silly or cliche, there are other times when a particular concept or character needs to be kept intact as it's key to the overall aspect of that ideal.

For example, Beowulf was a great film and made wonderful use of the beautiful visuals that Zemeckis and his team utilized. However, the deviations they did make took away the power of the story and left me wondering why they changed so much.

I Am Legend is a wonderful book, yet the changes that they made really make me apprehensive of wanting to see the film too. So on one hand it affects my decision on how a film could be, yet on the other hand changes can be understood at times.

So it's a 50/50 deal for me.

 

[Rez]

I picked yes, but there should've been a "sometimes" option.

Take Jurassic Park for example. Its not the most faithful adaptation by a long shot, but the changes were done to create a more cinematic friendly experience.

I disagree.

Jurassic Park is actually the first that came to mind when I opened this thread. The movie came out when I was 4, so I saw it several years before I read the book. But once I read the book, I was extremely dissapointed in the film. It's still a great film, but one of the few times where I've read a book AFTER seeing the film and still felt the book was far better. Usually it's more of a toss up, if I really love the film.

And then of course, there's books like Relic. Where the movie DIDN'T HAPPEN. Okay? Okay.

 

[SuperJAK]

Depends. If the changes are for the better, I don't mind. But if the changes make a movie worse or are simply useless, then it annoys me.