Why cannot a movie be made exactly like the book.

There is always a producer who interprets the book and sees how its best to produce the movie from text to the screen. It depends on the talent and the experience of the producer. I agree with you when you failed to understand why certain producers fail to remain faithful to the original script. I have enjoyed watching Harry Potter movies. I was curious how the producers were going to interpret the book and produce it as faithful as possible. I was not that disappointed with the movies but I can say that I have enjoyed reading the books most.

I would say that if you want the movie to be exactly like a book, you have to make it into a mini-series. So they have to make it shorter. Also nowadays, certain people become offended if you make the movie as it was written. For instance, if you made a movie of a civil war novel, you cannot use the n wood, the c*oon word or all the African Americans will get mad at you. Usually aside from time, the alterations are made not to offend a certain group, they either add a character to sympathize with/ I remember watching the remake of the Little Princess. In the original with Shirley Temple, the little girl who had to scrub the floors was white like the heroine, but in the American version, they made her a black girl so we would equate poverty and scrubbing floors with the race rather than with social class.

There obviously isn't enough time in a movie to make it exactly like a book but what they can do is make it closer to the story as told in the book. Too many movies take a lag on a story and just do what they want.

I personally like to watch the movies based on the books, since I can understand the contents and the plot more visually. I think some of the original contents from the book are kind of "innapropriate" or "unnecessary", or maybe the movie producers and the executive producers think that way, like they probably think some stuff like, "let's take out this part" or "let's modify this part a little" and they alter the story from the book and put the altered plot in the movie. Also some people are used to the 90min ~ 2 hour movies... so I'm not sure. happy mylotting :)

The only book I've read and was made into a movie is the count of monte cristo. I've read two version's of it actually. Don't know why it's published in two books with some difference with another though. Anyways comparing the book with the movie there sure are lot of things altered. But reading and watching is not the same thing. So I think they change things to better suit the movie and sometimes they come up with better ideas or its just that the book is a best seller and so they make it into a movie regardless if the contents are the same.

i think in movies they add more stuff than in books.We read books without thinking the actions going in movies they create some fights and all other stuff which makes some wat different from the book thats all..

I think because the movie will be so long if they make it exactly as the book. Thats why they have to edit it to make the movie more interesting.And its a different case when you're reading and watching.

That fact, gewcew, is the very reason some of the best writers have not agreed to have their works made into a movie. They know that Hollywood has a terrible track record when it comes to making a book into a movie. For that reason I will always read the authors book before I see the movie. I know this has been the case with several of Stephen King's books. The movies did not come close to doing them justice.

When a book becomes popular film producers tries to get the same thing from a movie. This has been successful with Harry Potter movies and Da Vinci Code. However, even those movies had just like some summaries of the Books. The movies did not have excitement of the Books. That is because every emotional effect given by the book cannot be given from a film. The magic presented in HP books have been nicely put into the film. But I do not think the emotions, feelings have been depicted in the film in the same way. I think this is a problem with the medium pf presenting.

you know this is one of my peeves. when i watch a movie derived from a book like LOTR or Narnia, i get annoyed when they add parts that aren't in the book. i would keep saying "that's not in the book!" however, when we watch movies that are derived from books we should see it as a separate work and not so much attached to the book version. they do this because there are some things that may have been wonderful to read but would not be quite as appreciated once it is translated into film. obviously there are also many things they have to leave out, like in the lord of the rings. if they remained faithful word for word in every book the trilogy wouldn't be just 3 hours long each, but far longer than what is practical, and who would want so sit for like 10 hours in the cinema? also they would add some scenes, like in narnia, the romance between caspian and susan, which isn't in the book, to make the movie more interesting, and so it would also appeal to those that aren't necessarily fans of the book.

Sometimes it detracts from the book and ruins the story. Such was the case with the highly-anticipated and dramatised release of The Golden Compass. It was a beautiful story, but the movie left much to be desired. I think they do it because of time-constraints. A movie cannot be as long as a book due to all the special effects that have to be generated, and for filming expenses (location, film, actors). These are easy to explain in black and white text, but hard to realize on screen without blowing a huge budget. Also, the director or the screenwriter might have differing views from the original author of the book. That's why movies are, at best, adaptations of the books, not directly text-to-screen.

A book is unlimited, wheras a film takes time and money. It's unrealistic that a book could be turned into a film without having it cut, and the fact its cut most likely means changes have to be made to certain parts in order to leave out others.

True. I wonder too. I just don't get it. Why do they have to change the story? Sometimes they don't just change the story, they even change the plot! This is why there are bad movies resulting from great books.

i think it is because it will not be practical.. cus reading a book takes you a few days, and of course different people see the contents of the books differently.. like what i imagine the plot of the story may differ.. so it is quite difficult..

I actually know the answer to this. Often times it is the ego of the director, the producer's ego, to make the story PC and sometimes even one of the actor's ego if they are a big enough star. These are the reasons in the past why actual movies made from books did not follow the book. The movie makers just seem to always believe they can do better than the book's author. The movie makers just seem to always be wrong, too!

Like everyone else said, it's a matter of interprertation. When I was in undergrad film school, we talked about adaptations from books and other forms of stories and how there are some stories that are very good, but bits and pieces are not as adaptable or easily portrayed in movie form; there are also cuts that are made from books in movies because of the need for movies to fit into the time frame of the film. Take the Narnia books/movies, though; although they are probably the most accurate movie adaptations from books that I've seen, they are not in order due to the marketability and story strentgh of some of the other books. UNfortunately, the book business and the movie business are not very intertwining.

I think a lot of the time the movies would just be too long to watch if they made theme exactly like the book. Everyone is pretty much used to a 2 hour movie so that is what they have to fit the book into more or less unless it's really special like Lord of the Rings type stuff.

It was because that movie has only 2 to 2 and half hours length long and the book can be many pages. We can put exactly all the stories from book to movie as its consume alot time. The other thing is if the movie goes long it would be boring as it was a movie not a drama hehe...

There are many factors why the movie didn't make exactly as the book. 1. Books may not written for movie, so many plot in the book cannot be translated to the movie. 2. Books may be written too descriptive and will be boring to adapt it all to the movie. 3. Movie director sometimes failed to understand what the book writer want for his book. 4. If books and movie are the same, maybe cannot be sell anymore.

Yes, this is a fact that a book based movie is never exactly like a book. Partly this is because the content of the book is too much for a two and a half hour movie. There's just too much detail in the book that you cannot include in a movie. Therefore it is a must that the movie must do away with the less important parts of the book. Then for simplicity of shooting and keeping the budget and resources in mind some parts of the book are altered to make them suited to the needs of the movie makers. Sometimes the book is altered to make it more popular.