Is this the same story????confusedsurrender
Now I realize very few movies faithfully follow a book/novel--the only exceptions I can think of were the movies, The Hours and The Green Mile. Heck, even Interview With A Vampire didn't follow the book and the script was written by none other than the author itself, Anne Rice
One movie I love is The Seeker based or SUPPOSED to be based on The Dark Is Rising series by Susan Cooper (five volume set). In itself the movie is good, like I said love it. Then I read the book and I'm going HUH? The ONLY similarities were some of the names of the characters like the boy Will Stanton who in the movie is 14 years old while in the book eleven and is "the seeker" who needs to find six signs--oh, and in the movie, even the "signs" aren't exactly the same either. Another movie that is good on it's own merit is Eragon..same thing ---read the book and like HUH?
Are you ever disappointed when a movie goes SO OFF from the original book version to make it almost ridiculous? Yes, I can see some changes, but it's like two completely different stories, and yes, the book version is definitely the better of the two
Which movies disappointed you for not following the book?
[question posted by pyewacket]
responses and comments:
I thought Interview followed the book pretty well, up until the very end that is. I so disliked the movie Eragon that I didn't bother with the book. And it happens a lot a script is loosely based on a story but it is nothing like it. The Reader the movie follows the book rather well, I thought. Can't make a comparison on Angels and Demons yet, still waiting for the book to show up--I traded for it. One that was way, way off was Exit to Eden by Anne Rice under her nome de plume. The movie a whole different story. I think the Haunting was fairly close (at least the original one), I actually read a lot of books that movies are based on--Inkheart is laying around here somewhere--haven't seen the movie yet either. We all know they took some advantages with LOTR. But I don't know that I have ever seen a movie then read the book and wondered how they got from here to there. [Aurone]
Yes Peter Jackson did make a LOT of his own interpretation of LOTR---yet if the movies had faithfully followed the books though I think each movie would be about 10 hours long...LOL a lot of loyal LOTR fans were disappointed that Tom Bombadil had been omitted and many of the lines he said in the book were given to Treebeard instead and of course he emphasized the Aragon/Arwen link even though their story together is only in the Appendices Goodness I have Angels and Demons--haven't read it yet though--I love Inkheart the book but haven't seen the movie The Haunting--are you talking about the original with Claire Bloom and Julie Harris? Loved that one---thought the newer version while good in one way, was a bit campy in another--what books would you like? Have you read the Artemis Fowl ones? I have them if you want to read [pyewacket]
Hi Pyewacket, I remember readin Bridget Jones Diary and laughing out loud at it but then seeing the film and not finding it that funny. I have read Angels and Demons and am waiting to see the film they have just released of it to see how different it is going to be. I tend to read the books before seeing the film. I haven't read the Green Mile but that film has me in tears every time I watch it. huggles. Ellie :D [ellie333]
I cry buckets with The Green Mile toocry That was a story by Stephen King--not his usual type of story...I'm starting to read Angels and Demons myself----I did read The DaVinci Code but didn't see the movie--critics said it sucked...LOL That it had too many missing pieces in it and one would only understand it if they had read the book first [pyewacket]
bladerunner. It didnt go into the relationship between the CEO and the guy he was playing chess with. [General_Spacey]
the book that the movie "Bladferunner" is made from; is called; "Do Andriods dream of electronic sheep??" by Philip K. D. My lot will not let me write his last name because it is slang for a male body part. It is also a knickname for Richard. Mylot, someone's real name is not obscene. google the title of the book and find the WHOLE last name. That is IF you can not guess it by now. The movie's visual effects made good on the book. It honestly caught most of the book's style. It only lacked in showing the relationship between the chess players. [General_Spacey]
really cant name one right now but I do know the books are alot better than the movies on alot of them. [Lakota12]
Yes i beleive so too Pye, I would really like to see the authors of people of the Moon and people of the river I will call the people books by a husband and wife team last name Gearor Geer not walking in to the other room to look. They are argeologist (sp) by trade and write book as a story of anceint people on most of the digs they have gone on and alot of research they do to make the story go mostly what they have learned from the digs. On the people that used to live there so longgggggggg ago [Lakota12]
The book version is always better than the film version. For one thing the book goes deeper into character building and you will have a much better understanding of each character, and then there is the "Hollywood" factor in the films that seem to demand sensationalism and shock value. Ratings and crowd pleasers are dominant because it is all about the money in the end. I always read the book first and then may see the film based on my feelings about the story. Sometimes (rarely) the movie is actually better because the book sort of fell flat, but this is a very rare and subjective occurrence. The one movie I can think of that was nearly identical to the book was The Stand by Stephan King. Although to keep it that way they had to make it a mini-series that lasted about 4 episodes. [nova1945]
I can think of another movie that was better than the book--the first Chronicles of Narnia movie--in the book the battle scene is only casually mentioned while in the movie it was made out to a spectacular event via Hollywood style---or in this case---New Zealand/Australia style since it was filmed there...LOL [pyewacket]
I don't read much anymore because I don't see so good. I need new glasses.. when I can get them I might start reading again. Yes, I've seen some movies that were a bit disappointing because they didn't stay with the script.. but I have seen some that were just like the book.. example for me... Amityville Horror... and The Exorcist were right on the money for me. Those two books scared the socks off me.. and the movies didn't disappoint either. [OreoCookie3]
I LOVE bee pukew00t [pyewacket]
Hi pye When I read a book I prefer not to watch the movie as I know I would be disappointed with it so I have watched the Green Mile but have not read the book although I have the book which my husband is reading at the moment and he has seen the movie as it was only shown again a few days ago on TV. Bright Blessings. Tamara [tamarafireheart]
I highly recommend reading The Green Mile--the movie version really is pretty faithful to the book--one of the rare few [pyewacket]
I have read a few books, thought that's really good I want to see the movie and was disappointed in the movie. I finally realized my Dad was right. You read a book, you visualize all the details, then you see the movie and it's different and disappointing. The problem with most movies based on books (as you pointed out) is that it's not just the details you visualized that are different and disappointing, the story line rarely follows the original. I don't remember any books I read and then saw the movie because it's been so long ago. I just remember if I see a movie and read a book I might as well be prepared for two different stories. blink Oh, yes I do remember one. . .Dune. Terrific book. Not a bad movie, but just not the same. [thebeaddoodler]
It's funny--I read Lord of the Rings in high school....then of course MANY years later the movies came out and re-read the books---now I find it hard not to visualize Elijah Wood as Frodo and same with the rest of the cast members--while their were a lot of differences in the movie versions I still love them [pyewacket]
It is very nearly cliche to say the movie is never as good as the book. The only exception is the Stand, and that's because Stephen King made sure they stayed as faithful as possible to his vision. He was furious with the liberties Kubric took with The Shining, though Kubric's vision was absolutely perfect and that remains one of the eeriest horror movies ever made. The Firm was a great read and to this day I will never understand why the movie veered so drastically from the book when it clearly wasn't necessary. Sometimes you can see why they had to change the story, but in that case I saw no need for it and it pissed me off. But they were fairly faithful with A Time To Kill...and that is still one of my favorite movies. I was more than a little relieved to see how faithful they were to LOTR and the Chronicles of Narnia. I don't think it's wise to take too many liberties with literature, especially literature about which they teach college courses...lol Oh, I almost forgot to mention the Postman. Kevin Costner should be shot for what he did to that book. That was an excellent book and that moron butchered the movie and for no good reason. I very nearly asked for my money back after seeing it and I will never again pay to see another Costner movie. [sndcain36]
I have read "The Stand" numerous times, im not entirely sure because i read the extended version, but i stil think that that the movie storyline and Gary Sinise as Stu is perfection and Ray Walston as Glen....but the rest of the casting is horrible and it just made it like a cliche of a t.v mini series...i agree with you about "The Shining" the book was wonderful and horribly scary but the movie was far from either, i was 11 when i saw the movie and was never scared or interested, i was 14 when i read the book and had to sleep with the lights on when i was done with some chapters [spicysweetie21]
Hi Pye darlin; I rarely get to buy books anymore and I think they did a really awesome job with the movies on Harry Potter, that's the only movie/books I've read that come to mind, and I Loved Lord of the Rings, I had only ever read the one book on it and that was long before the movies was released; so for me, they've done a pretty good job on those I think! [dreamweaverjan]
Heehee---you just KNOW I'm a fan of the Harry Potter movieslol Want to re-read the book that is too be the next movie which I think is going to be made into two parts [pyewacket]
With the exceptions of GONE WITH THE WIND and THE SECRET LIFE OF BEES, I'd have to say almost all of them. I think that these are the exceptions that prove the rule because I've come to the conclusion that good movies start with good original screen plays and not screenplays based on books. For the most part books and movies are different media and don't translate back and forth all that well. [irisheyes]
Probably one of the reasons they change the story so much from a book version is lack of time---if Lord of the Rings movies faithfully followed the books each movie might have been ten hours long...LOL [pyewacket]
well here the situation is a bit different first i read a book which i did found a bit intresting in the beginning but the end wasnt good at all..i saw the movie of it which was just thrash from the beginning till the end as far i liked the book a bit which now i hate the most after seeing the movie on it. [Archie0]
Probably one of the worse movie versions going based on a book was Anne Rice's Queen of The Damned--that was so tacky [pyewacket]
well with sin city they stayed so true to the graphic novels to the point where even the actors looked like frank miller's creations. most of the stephen king book based movies have attempted to stay true to the story. with hellboy there are bits and pieces here and there that match, but that does not matter because the stories can be stand alone too so that you are not left with that wtf feeling when you watch them. honestly a lot of the people who watch these movies do not even realize that they are based on books. [mama_bear]
yes i agree, reading is a lost art. i don't know where i would be without books, or if i could not read. my life would be so barren. ican read up to 4 or 5 books at a time. awesomeness! [mama_bear]
Recently I have been utterly disappointed by Inkheart....like so much to the point where I had to be held down by my daughter or I would have walked out of the theater. Twilight was bbbbaaaaaaddddd. But I won't elaborate. I dont subscribe to that cult. And I know I am going to be spitting nails after I go see the Half Blood Prince this summer. [cynicalandoutspoken]
Oh--left a few minutes--I just saw the trailer for Half Blood Prince--doesn't look TOO bad..LOL [pyewacket]
It's called creative license. When average people do it online, vie youtube or fanfiction, few people complain...but when movie producers do it, or comic books writers do it, there's always gonna be some griping. Me? I'll either like it or I won't. Oftentimes, I like the books better than the movies. The Seeker and the series it was based off of...I didn't like either of them, but I disliked the books more than the movie. Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Da**ed...well, like most classic and popular works, I couldn't get through them, so it's OK that I like the movies more, xD Harry Potter series (movie-wise) annoys me, for the most part, because they began cutting out and tweeking parts after sticking close to the series for the first couple. Holes was good both in book form and in movie form, but then they were more or less the same. xD I usually have read the books before it ever meets the big screen or the little screen...because I read alot, but every once and awhile it's stuff I haven't read yet. Dinotopia was one of those, xD The Stand was another, and so was Tenth Kingdom...and I love all of them. Creative license worked out in all those cases and those books were already pretty awesome to begin with. [xParanoiax]
Yes the first few of the Potter movies did stick to the books better but then they had the same director as well---think it was the third movie that got a new director wasn't it??? Seems every time a new director comes into the scene of a series of movies, there's a different feel to it---I understand for instance Andrew Adamson isn't directing the third Narnia movie so wonder how much it will change in "style" [pyewacket]
I agree, there are very few movies that follow the books the were based off of. I prefer reading the books over seeing the movies becuase there is so much more detail. I guess I also like to imagine what the characters look like too. I read all of the Twilight series books, and when the movie came out in DVD I saw it. I didn't like the movie. However, I think if i hadn't read the book than the movie would have been just fine. There were so many things in the book that should have been included in the movie. And yes, I did wonder if it was the same story! [roseyroser]
I hate it when movies cut a lot of a story out from the original book--they did that a lot with the last Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix movie [pyewacket]
Oh, the worst one for me was "The Shining" by Stephen King. I LOVED that book!!! I still have a hard time with closed shower curtains because of it. When the movie was coming out I was so excited! I wanted to go see it and my father was really excited about it too. So me, my father and my step-mother went to see it. And the whole way through the movie I'm like "Hey, are we in the right theater???" There were like 3 things that matched the book and about 200,000,000 that didn't. I was so disappointed that I wrote a letter to Stephen King to tell him. I got a post card back stating he was sorry I didn't like it but his screen play was rejected and since he'd sold the rights to the movie he had no decisions in what was done. I think I still have that postcard. Since then I have been very leery about seeing a movie - especially if I'm paying for it at the theaters - if I've read the book. They're usually not the same. Now I can remember one movie - another Stephen King - that I was watching before I realized it was Stephen King. "Stand By Me". I was watching it and it was just so familiar... I kept thinking "I've read this book" but the title really threw me. It was from a short story of his (and may have been written under Richard Bachman, I can't recall right now) called "The Body". I did "feel" the Stephen King-ness of the movie and started looking through my collection. I found the short story before the movie was over with. [reinydawn]
I know he does write a lot of different things, and yes, Shawshank was great. Strange how he can step out of his genre and still be good about it! I have actually "lost" the postcard I got - it's somewhere in a box, but I have no clue where... My dad thought that it was really cool and would always tell people about it whenever he could. [reinydawn]
I did watch and read Interview with a Vampire. It is one of the best movies I watched but reading the book is much better. It was already summarized in the movie since maybe they don't want to make it that long. Same with the Queen of the Damned. I loved the book rather than the movie. I love all of Anne Rice Novels but I guess it is really much better to read them than watch them because the movies are incomplete. [p3halliwel2005]
I'm not really too fond of Rice's later novels unless she got tired of doing vampire or witch themed stories...LOL [pyewacket]
I was actually disappointed with the movie versions of classics like The Count of Monte Cristo and Les Miserables... they like removed the best part of the book... and turned the story upside down... I know they need to fit the story in a 2 hour movie... but to change a lot of the story is so uncalled for... they should also changed the title... so that people will not be misled... [aseretdd]
Well, they could have just removed some of the parts or turned it into two movies... but instead... the altered so many aspects that the real essence of the story disappeared... [aseretdd]
So many movies that are based on a book are like that and even movies that I loved. I actually find that in most cases the book is by far a better story. It is deeper and goes into more details. If I've read the book, I almost never bother with the movie as I know I'll be disappointed. If the movie is good, I may be inspired to read the book. Twilight...I read the book and found it to be pretty good, really.Everyone I've spoken with who has read the book says that the movie is very over-rated. [sid556]
There are two books that i can remember that i first watched the movie and then saw the movie, the first was "Interview with a Vampire", i saw the movie when i was 8 but read the novel when i was 12 and i liked the book a lot more because it was so much thorough and interesting in the plot, the movie got kid of ruined by brad pitt and tom cruise's acting..i also say "The Devils Advocate" movie before reading the book and I liked the movie way more than the book, the movie leaves some stuff out but the acting just pulls it all together despite it all........i could get into th Harry Potter films but i read all of the books before i saw the movies so my views don't fit the topic [spicysweetie21]
Well I thought Schindler's List and many James Bond movies do not follow their original books to the line. [davidabraham]
I was disappointed when I seen Twilight. I had read the book before watching the film, first of all I don't like the face of Jacob, I was imaginin a hunk like Edward because they are fighting over the heart of Bella, isn't it he have to have gorgeous werewolf face. Second, it is like it was being cut, maybe because of the size of the film have to be shorter than the book. What book is the same as the movie is Narnia. I enjoy the book and even enjoy the film. [grecychunny26]
I never saw a movie that I loved and then read the book afterward. It's because I already experienced the audio visual interpretation of the book. There's no need for me to find and read the book again. And from my experience, most of the time the movie fails to interpret the book. By the way, love The Hours and The Green Mile!! Cheers! [ingridrepi]
many times.it's usually the reverse though-read the book first,then saw the movie and said "wha?" i agree about the vampire series. it was..ok,but didn't come really that close to following the book. [scarlet_woman]
Yes, Somewhere In Time was like this for me. In the movie he gets sick and it is so sad but in the book he leaves and it is so totally different from the movie. I loved the movie, it is on my favorites list for sure. The book on the other hand is not. It was too weird and like a totally different story completely. So sad too because the author was supposed to be really good and the story was stupid. [celticeagle]
This is why I read the book first. Movies are great and they entertain, but a book can take you further. I prefere reading over watching tv anyway and seen a few movies based on Stephan King books that I was disappointed in. I know it's hard to convert a book to a movie because of characters and effects, but to change the facts about the story line. That just makes it something it's not. [kprofgames]
I have had this problem too! This is why now if I read a book and it is made into a movie I won't watch the movie! So I won't watch the movie Seabiscut! I read the book and I'm sure the movie doesn't follow the book! I had this problem with Message in a Bottle! I read the book and saw the movie! I liked the movie better! I first experienced this problem years ago when the turned The Black Stallion book into a movie! The movie was totally different from the book! I hated the movie but loved the book! I just hate when this happens! It is stupid! [blue65packer]
Yea, that would be The Green Mile. I read the book first and then saw the movie, and was very disappointed in the extra stuff that was in the movie. But on the other hand, I thought the Princess Diaries movies were much better than the books, so I guess you just have to take the good with the bad. [carpenter5]
The worst case I've ever come across was Clan of the cave bear by jean auel. The book was so in depth and her research was incredible, but the movie was a really cheaply made disaster. Of course having Darryl Hannah as the lead may have had something to do with it...the woman is not a good actress. [madasp]
"The Mist", it was based on a short story by Stephen King. I loved the story and I loved the ending, it was left open to your imagination. The movie, however, had an absolutely terrible ending. Instead of leaving it open it just let me down, it was gross and just plain awful. Stephen King has actually said that he prefers the movie ending to his own but I thought it was horrible, but then again I hate sad endings. [jesssp]
I usually read the book first and then wonder when I see the movie what they were thinking. The Pelican Brief was one that really was way off course from the original book. [kellys3ps]
hi pyewacket, actually i see the movie first and then i read the book.the best movie that is close to the book i think is the HARRY POTTER SERIES.i really like it a lot,but in that movie to they didn't follow the script exactly as it was,but the movie and the book too was really nice.but i enjoyed reading the book rather than watching the movie,because reading the book,gives you the exact words and expressions the author wanted to give.but its not that easy to turn a 700 pages book into a 2 hours movie,so they have to make a lot of alterations to the story and the script,but they should also see to that they don't get too away from the storyline. [vnrsudhan]
I always like to read the book first, pyewacket, because they inevitably lose quite a bit in the translation. That is the reason why some writers have been known to refuse to agree to having their book made into a movie. Notably, Stephen King's books usually get the short end of the stick once they are made into movies. I just bought a movie adaptation of a book that I read by James Lee Burke and I'm wondering if it will stay true to the story. I'm thinking that since he had a lot of input into the making of it maybe it won't be so bad. [worldwise1]
Yeap, the Jason Bourne Series. The books were like out of this world but when I saw the movies I was like huh? I didnt feel anything watching the movies, they were like jokes compared to the books. The tension, trills, superb storyline in the books were all gone [Aragon5000]
I have been lucky , either I have seen the movie and didn't read the book , like The Hours. Or I have read the book and didn't see the movie.and when I saw the movie And read the book , they were real close . like Tales Of the City and Tess D'Orberviles, the 1980's version.What I hate is when the movie veers off and doesn't display the historical truth. The movie The Other Boleyn Girl for example. It is pure fiction.If a story is to be based on an historical event, they should get their facts straight. [sarahruthbeth22]
Hi Pye, I actually do the reverse. I've read a ton of books and loved them only to turn around watch the movie and be like, "Hey! They missed a scene!" LOL You have to love the director for trying though. I agree that the books are definitely better because authors have the ability to add intricate details to the simplest things that a movie can't do. [libby2009]
There have been a lot of movies where I read the book first and was like huh when I watched the movie. Most of them have been Stephen King books, I like watching the movies anyway. He was known to be in many of the movies that was based on his books. I have read the Thorn Birds in a couple of days, because it was coming on tv that following Sunday. I wanted to compare the book with the film. I don't know why a movie that's based on a book can't follow the story line. I don't think I will ever get the answer to that one. I do like to watch them, just I can put faces to characters. Now if I see the movie first, it does ruin my chances of reading the book. Mainly I already know the storyline and the outcome. I do wished that I read Marley and Me before the movie came out, along with The Notebook. Two great movies, which I believe the book would have been just as great. I'm currently reading Lisey's Story by Stephen King, at the moment I don't see that one becoming a movie. It's hard to tell these days, which ones becomes a movie or not. [chertsy]
Yes, I think books are always better than the movies. I try to read the books before I go see the movies but that doesnt always happen. For example, I saw twilight the movie before I read the books and I liked the books so much better and I was sort of dissapointed in the movie. [csrobins]
Pye- I sort of put movies into their own category if that makese sense. I love books for their ability to shed light on things, and I love movies for the ability to bring a character I admire to life, even if the story is told in a quick amont of time due to our inability to sit still as an audience. I loved The Green Mile, Interview with a Vampire, and Eragon. I agree that sometimes things change for time sake, but they somehow are good in their own merit. I remember when LoTR came out and how everyone was angry apparently over the lack of battle scenes. I still consider them one of the most well done movies of our time. My thoughts were, if Peter Jackson had filmed every battle scene in those bloody long books we'd end up with 20 hours of film. (Ok, over exaggeration but you get the point). The remarkable talent about movie making is to take a very long story and condense it. In a book the author has the ability to paint the pictures with words in some detail. A director has to capture that moment in a few seconds. An author friend of mine who is working on his first screen play was telling me the rule of thumb is one page per minute. That's a very short space to write action and dialogue. One of the things I enjoy about Del Toro movies is that he has this ability to put so much symbolism in the set design that you get much more of the story that way. I was very impressed with his presentation of Hellboy. Just as much as I was impressed with Batman Returns and The Dark Knight. I suppose if I am disappointed in movies it's not because of their translation from story, game, or what not to film but in the film itself. I truly hated Silent Hill because the acting sucked big time. I hated Pet Semetary for the same reason, not the story line but because the acting was atrocious. I disliked Queen of the Damned because Tom Cruise was not in it, and the girl playing the Queen couldn't act to save her life. Oh, and I hated all the Grudge movies. Namaste-Anora [Anora_Eldorath]