Books made into movies.

Yeah, I agree that some movies that are based from novels or fictional books lack the its true essence because some of the most significant parts of the book were ommitted from the movie. Just like in the case of Harry Potter series.. I have the read the books first before seeing the movies and I noticed some parts of the 2nd movie (HP and the Chamber of Secrets) were not included in the movie. It's a bit disappointing since that is not how you expect it to be but of course not everything in the book can be included in the movie. But I do hope that when they make a movie of that book, they should make sure that the most significant parts of the story are not removed because they will lose the true essence of the book.

I seem to be peculiar in my opinion that just because a book has been made into a movie, it does not mean the movie is bad. In fact, I believe some movies to be better than books*hides*I have loved many a movie that was first a book or short story; Interview with the Vampire, Watership Down, Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream..., Minority Report, AI/Supertoys... (except for the STUPID Pinocchio ending; bloody Kubrik), Flowers for Algernon (okay, I'm a freak... I liked the awful and simplistic movie), Howl's Moving Castle (utterly different to the book, still amazing), the plethora of god-awful Stephen King movies and the ever so beautiful Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption... the list goes on. People say well yeah, they HAD to cut stuff to make the movie shorter... but the movie was still rubbish because they missed this scene and that scene, and totally changed Ingrid's character. Pft. You're telling me that Blade Runner was rubbish? That The Green Mile wasn't amazing and poignant? That Watership Down didn't make you cry? Please. A written work and a screen production are two entirely different media. What you can say in a single visual image may take pages in a book. What you can express with a single, well chosen word in a book may take an entire scene to show in a movie. How does this relate to your question on the importance of scenes that are cut and changed? Simple; you can cut a scene and still get across what that scene showed, but in a different and shorter way in another scene. So, the scene may have been important in the book, but is not so important for the movie. In fact, it might not even work to express what needs to be said in a moving picture medium. Would people rather a laborious and tortuous scene be kept, just for the sake of keeping things exactly the same? Or would they rather the idea, the message, the image that the scene showed be given to the audience in a similar but more suitable way? Well... I think that was about as least ramble-y as I could make it...*sheepish grin*

I'm an amateur writer and have no experience in movie making, so this is only opinion. I think when a book is adapted into a movie, the intent is to show one main story. Lots of books have subplots that are necessary for the full experience of the book, but may be able to be taken out without losing the general meaning of the main story, if that makes sense. I'd say the adapted form (in this case, the movie from a book) is there to give you the gist the story, not the whole thing. Although, I'm sure some people would argue that there are parts of some books that didn't need to be in the movie or the book itself. But, I don't think that every scene that gets cut out means it didn't serve any purpose in the book. And, of course, there's the time constraint of movies. I'm okay with scenes being cut, because you can't show everything in a movie. What really gets me is when things are changed that don't need to be changed, don't make the movie any better, and the only explanation is that movies are a different medium. That's true. I don't expect to watch a movie and have what someone is feeling spelled out like in a book. Except for voiceovers, we don't hear people's thoughts in movies the way we do in books. But, the "different medium" explanation seems like a cop out sometimes when you can't explain it farther. There's a children's book called Ella Enchanted, that was a retelling of Cinderella. It was adapted into a movie and they had the bare bones of the story, but otherwise it was a completely different tale (at least from the reviews and clips. I haven't seen the whole movie, but I know enough to know it's not a faithful adaptation) Makes you wonder why the changes were necessary or how they made the movie better. And, it was annoying because this probably isn't a book that's going to have multiple adaptations. So, people who wanted to see that book brought to life only got something that vaguely resembles that book. I think movies based on books should feel like the book brought to life. When it doesn't feel like that, it's wrong. That can be done even if you cut things and change them. The Princess Bride is a very faithful adaptation of the book, and things were cut and characters condensed. But, they still fit. That's probably because the same person did both the movie and the book.

Although I love to read, I also love to watch movies. I do notice a distinct difference when a book is made into a movie. Most movies made from books do not contain the same amount of indepth view that you get from the books. You miss out on alot of the small things that actually make up the character. Also in some movies based on books there are whole sections taken out b/c of time restrictions. A perfect example...in one of the Harry Potter books Hermoine forms a group to help get rights for the house elves that work in Hogwarts...in the movies there is no mention of this at all. I'd say if you watch a movie based on a book, read the book too...you won't believe what you've missed. [b]**AT PEACE WITHIN** ~~STAND STRONG IN YOUR BELIEFS~~ [/b]

Books convey even the thoughts and little details that you cannot escape.But in movies it is difficult to portray.So mostly if we watch a movie after reading the book on which it is based then there is bound to be disappointments.Very few movies succeed in being as good or even better that the book."Gone with the wind" is book where the character of Scarlet O'Hara is so unique but in the movie I found it to be a little maore on having the negative shade. Zoya by Danielle Steel was as good a movie as the book itself. Recently the movie "Namesake" by Mira Nair surpassed the book it was based upon.

One of the main reasons books are almost always much better than the films made from them is that each of us makes mental movies as we read. On film, we have to take what the director's mind made. There are many things we read that can't be on screen, because they exist only in the realm of emotions. Usually, it's the film that's over-long, not the book. I'm certainly not the only one who prefers my own version to that of most directors. There are a few exceptions, but their films are usually based on the book, not even trying to depict the book. That makes them very different experiences.

A movie is a different media from a book. While a book is descriptive to the minute detail, a movie can omit certain details and leave it to your imagination. Usually I end up disappointed when I read a book and then watch a movie. It seems that my imagination is always more vivid than that of the producer.

Yeah I think for the movie producers they are limited to budget and some others may require additional technical thingy to make it possible. So I guess its practical not to do it on film. Well I guess if you're really a book lover it is better to have it read in a book than watch it on film. But reasons behind why they cut certain scenes are vary in every story on how difficult it may seem to make once scene from another.

I didn't read this book or see this movie, but I do know a few cases of this where the book was way better than the movie. The three I will mention all started out as books by Terry McMillian. The first book turned movie I saw was Waiting To Exhale. Although they kept to the book pretty strictly, there were a couple of scenes that they didn't transfer from the book. They weren't critical to the storyline, but I would have liked to see Bernadine trip out on the Xanax, or when Savanna's friend tried to come on to her. The second one was How Stella Got Her Groove back. I know everyone who read the book first had to be way confused when they saw the movie; the movie starts in the middle of the book, and then they added stuff at the end of the movie that wasn't even in the book. I think they should have stuck to the storyline, because we would have gotten to know Stella a little better. The last one is Disappearing Acts. This one was made for TV, which I think was the biggest problem. They had to edit not only for time, but for content as well, because it was on broadcast TV. It still ended up being good, but we never delved into Franklin's drinking problem, which would have given us more of a feel for him.

No I don't think that the books are too long and that the parts that were cut out in the movie were unnecessary they just don't have enough time to make it all into a movie so I think that they should make the movies longer not the other way around.

Ah.. My fav topics of discussion. I have always cursed many a directors and producers for spoiling the books by making worthless movies out of them. The two books which were completely spoiled and mutilated by them were the Bourne Series and the Eragon. Both the books were very good and the story in them was something that is completely different from the one found in the movies. The books were so full of life and zeal and flavor, but the movie was downright bad. In fact, the producers completely changed the whole story of the Bourne series killing main characters in the middle of the sequence... The same's the case with the Harry Potters. Somehow, the whole taste of the book is lost when it is made into a movie.. bourne

I think all the parts of the book are necessary or they wouldn't be part of the book. However, with making them to movies they have to cut scenes and change things that make that part of the book unnecessary for the movie, although it was necessary for the book. My question is if they are going to cut and change things so much why make the movie in the first place, because its not going to be the same as the book.

It is imossible for a movie to show all the parts of the book. I don't think the parts that were omitted were not necessary but I really depends on the director/screen writer of the movie. As we read a book we already have a picture in mind what the scenes look like so when we watch a movie based on that book we have read, we can say the book is better because some parts are deleted to fit the viewing hours in theaters. In case of "A Walk To Remember" i first had watched the film and liked it because i had not read the book and then after some time read the book and like the book and the movie at the same time. In case of harry potter books. I have seen the first movie first and love it so i read the books and like the books even more. But when the later movies were released i kinda disappointed in them because I already knew what was happening and was hoping to see some scenes which were not included in the movie. I'm sorry haven't watched nor read the "The Plain Truth" but I think it's just a matter of which have you done first, the watching or the reading.

My respons for the topic of Books made into movies is thst some time one book is great.but his topic is not intersting movies vise.There fore i use these book for make movie that is not good.so i found those book who good for moveis and intersting topic for these book make a good movi.