Why is the book sacred?

[strawman]

Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.

So people always complain that the movies never match the books.

Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions? What is intrinsically wrong with having 5 different versions of Red Riding hood, and several different versions of, say, Lord of the Rings?

Got me thinking - why do we hold books sacred when we go to see the movie? Why are people so upset when there are major changes to the story line?

At best all I can come up with is that it's a "raping my childhood" thing - the book can obviously contain a lot more, and/or one's imagination is significantly better (or at least more dear to oneself) than what can be produced in a movie, and so people naturally become more attached to the book version.

Then I start to wonder if it's partially that as humans we instinctively notice differences (it's a survival trait) and attempt to reconcile them (ie, caveman left cave with spear, came back with meal, caveman left without spear, came back hungry, or didn't come back).

So - aside from poorly made movies (which may just be one's clouded judgement due to story changes anyway...) are there books that have been done well as movies, but the changes bother you, and why?

 

[Chibibar]

Changes never bother me. I treat the book and movies as two separate medium. There is NO way a book can be 100% convert to a movie without missing something. A human mind can imagine quite a bit that could cost millions in special effects. When a person reads a book, there might be some "fave" part that a reader might love. When it is not part of the movie, they cried "raped my childhood" but another reader might like the movie cause his/her part was in the movie.

So in short, changes doesn't bother me between books and movies. It is just different medium of telling a story.

 

[chakz]

Good question. I don't know- Sometimes it can be because when key elements of the plot are changed it changes what the stories about and causes it to have a different effect on the viewer- Take "I am legend" for instance. Its pretty easy to tell what its about- role reversal between vampires and humans. The version with the "bonus" ending does a pretty good job of maintaining the effect but the original one ruined the whole point of the story. Now not all movies make such drastic, not to mention idiotic, changes the the story but even then a minor change here and there can have a pretty nasty effect on the story as a whole.

Personally I don't always need a movie to follow a book word for scene. I think lord of the rings did a damn fine job of presenting Tolkien's master piece while maintaining the integrity of the story and there several events (some more important than others) were left out or changed. So there perhaps it matters whether or not the change is detrimental to the whole?

I think the real question is how much can you change it before it becomes a completely different story?

 

[PatrThom]

I think it's more that there are times when it is done very well, and times when it is done horribly. Unfortunately, the latter makes the stronger impression, so our memories get skewed in that direction, and we tend to remember that change = horrible.

--Patrick

 

[Dusty668]

I think the real question is how much can you change it before it becomes a completely different story?

That was always my problem. Or like in Cujo when they completely changed the ending of the story, it was supposed to be terror then tragedy. The movie made it just freaking out in a car.

 

[Chazwozel]

Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.

So people always complain that the movies never match the books.

Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions? What is intrinsically wrong with having 5 different versions of Red Riding hood, and several different versions of, say, Lord of the Rings?

Got me thinking - why do we hold books sacred when we go to see the movie? Why are people so upset when there are major changes to the story line?

At best all I can come up with is that it's a "raping my childhood" thing - the book can obviously contain a lot more, and/or one's imagination is significantly better (or at least more dear to oneself) than what can be produced in a movie, and so people naturally become more attached to the book version.

Then I start to wonder if it's partially that as humans we instinctively notice differences (it's a survival trait) and attempt to reconcile them (ie, caveman left cave with spear, came back with meal, caveman left without spear, came back hungry, or didn't come back).

So - aside from poorly made movies (which may just be one's clouded judgement due to story changes anyway...) are there books that have been done well as movies, but the changes bother you, and why?

Because books are for smart people and movies are for dumb people. What better way to scoff at people than turning your nose in the air and saying, "the book was better."

 

[Covar]

Depends on the movie. Sometimes a movie does a good job of preserving the feel and the themes of the book. Other times a movie will not. This is made worse when story elements are taken out that are important to the story or the message.

I find whether or not I like a movie made from a book depends on whether I saw the movie first (Wizard of Oz, Big Fish, Stardust) or read the book first (Watchmen, Harry Potter series, To Kill a Mockingbird). Only real exception that I can think of is Lord of the Rings, which despite the changes (Faramir in the theatrical cut pissed me off to no end) were excellent movies that did justice to the original works.

 

[Silver Jelly]

If something works as a novel, it probably is tailored to work as one: changing the medium means changing the work of art itself, and it's difficult to tune it as well as it was tuned to be the original, successful format.

 

[Shannow]

Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.

 

[bhamv3]

Someone, I forget who, might've been Michael Crichton, once said he would never read a book first and then watch the movie version, because it's never quite how he imagined it in his head. I think that might be the issue for most people who hold the book sacred - they find the movie version to be too different from how they imagined it, from what they wanted to see.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.

EXACTLY!

it is very hard to translate the written character to a acted character, the book can give you are more intimate view of that character soul and trueself and lets you to visualize it in a way that (to you) properly fits the description, while a actor will give you a visualization, and you have to understand it.

Plus, there is the just problem with time, I understand that no ones wants to stay watching the same movie for 6 hours, but still you miss stuff that needs to be let out.

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Someone, I forget who, might've been Michael Crichton, once said he would never read a book first and then watch the movie version, because it's never quite how he imagined it in his head. I think that might be the issue for most people who hold the book sacred - they find the movie version to be too different from how they imagined it, from what they wanted to see.

Yes, I do notice that I always enjoy both versions better, if I see the movie first and read the book later (like Bicentenal Man), but seeing the movie usually spoilers much of the joy of reading, so I usuallly stick with the book first movie later pattern.

 

[Bowielee]

I think the real question is how much can you change it before it becomes a completely different story?

That was always my problem. Or like in Cujo when they completely changed the ending of the story, it was supposed to be terror then tragedy. The movie made it just freaking out in a car.

This is also my issue. I love many book adaptations that "purists" hated. I really don't mind concessions made during the translation from one medium to another, but then you have examples like I Robot or I Am Legend, where they are so significantly changed from the source material that they are almost unidentifiable as even being the original story.

Frankly, I liked I Robot as an action flick, they just should have completely dis-associated it from any of Isaac Asimov's work.

 

[Chazwozel]

Someone, I forget who, might've been Michael Crichton, once said he would never read a book first and then watch the movie version, because it's never quite how he imagined it in his head. I think that might be the issue for most people who hold the book sacred - they find the movie version to be too different from how they imagined it, from what they wanted to see.

Michael Crichton also self admitted that he sucked at doing screenplay writing.

 

[fade]

I think the answer's simple. The book author made it up. It's his/her story, not the movie writer/director's. It bothers me when a screenwriter tampers with the original vision and calls it the same thing. It's not any longer. Little changes don't bother me. The obviously required changes needed to bring the book to screen don't either. I don't even mind demographically targeted changes like the black Kingpin or the swapping of Glorfindel for Arwen. What does bother me are the changes that either fundamentally alter the plot or the character of the players. Like the constant hobbit crying, esp. from Sam. The temptation of Faramir completely negated the entire purpose of that scene. Stuff like that does bother me. The original is....well the original. I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.

All that being said, there are some occasions where the movie is better than the book. The aforementioned Princess Bride is one. The original 80's TMNT cartoon was another for me. BUT the book is still the original.

 

[Eriol]

What does bother me are the changes that either fundamentally alter the plot or the character of the players. Like the constant hobbit crying, esp. from Sam. The temptation of Faramir completely negated the entire purpose of that scene. Stuff like that does bother me. The original is....well the original. I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.

I agree with this. When you change the characters into completely different types and roles, then why didn't you just make a new one? It's the lack of continuity between them so that they are no longer the same in spirit rather than merely translations between mediums.

Also the comment above about not having the thoughts of the characters also can have a large impact. How many times in the LotR movies did you think "why the hell did they just decide to DO that?" The answer is in the books, but unfortunately motivations are almost non-existent in the movies. But of course then they change the characters too, so it's totally shot. Hence why I was NOT a fan of the LotR movies.

And then there's the "reboot" approach to a movie. One great example where this worked is The Hunt for Red October. If you've read the book and seen the movie, you realize the creators of the movie decided to "let's keep the general idea of a defecting submarine with a silent drive, and throw out the specific plot." But they also kept the same general characters, and made sure that all their motivations made sense in the movie itself. You didn't need the book to understand them. It's one of the best examples IMO of a great book made into a great movie, but having only a "thematic" relationship between the two. It was done right.

 

[Bowielee]

Some movies can be great by being an almost shot by shot translation. They're rare, though. Misery comes to mind. It was a great film with only one real change I can think of from the book. Other than that one change, the dialogue is almost word for word from the book.

 

[@Li3n]

What does bother me are the changes that either fundamentally alter the plot or the character of the players. Like the constant hobbit crying, esp. from Sam. The temptation of Faramir completely negated the entire purpose of that scene. Stuff like that does bother me. The original is....well the original. I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.

I agree with this. When you change the characters into completely different types and roles, then why didn't you just make a new one?
[/QUOTE]

Because if you made a new one you'd miss out on all that free publicity...

 

[Dusty668]

Sometimes they do pass it though, Running Man, (dunno why I am stuck on Steven king movies for this thread but there it is.) I had no problems with the movie version, mainly because the story (not novel way too short, barely one scene in a movie) had 3 common plot points, a game show with death and life at stake, the name of the main character, and the name of the story.
Ta Frikken Da.

So, Cujo ticked me off for years, Running Man, great movie.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep to Blade Runner, great movie, a little bothered because of all the similarities, but Daryl Hannah & Joanna Cassidy were so freaking hot...

 

[PatrThom]

Some movies can be great by being an almost shot by shot translation. They're rare, though. Misery comes to mind.

The Last Unicorn is another. Except for the singing, it's an almost perfect translation.

--Patrick

 

[fade]

And the entire ending.

 

[JCM]

Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.

So people always complain that the movies never match the books.

Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions?

Its not a problem, its just that whenever an adaptation is made, 2 things happen-

a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)

b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).

Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.

 

[Dei]

I still remember going to see "The Lost World" with 3 friends + me who had read the book and one friend who didn't read the book. The one friend who didn't read the book could not figure out why we found the movie so humorously bad.

 

[Philosopher B.]

Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.

This. ^

Also ... books smell nice.

 

[fade]

Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.

So people always complain that the movies never match the books.

Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions?

Its not a problem, its just that whenever an adaptation is made, 2 things happen-

a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)

b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).

Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.[/QUOTE]


I actually preferred the first Hellsing series.

 

[JCM]

Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.

So people always complain that the movies never match the books.

Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions?

Its not a problem, its just that whenever an adaptation is made, 2 things happen-

a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)

b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).

Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.[/QUOTE]


I actually preferred the first Hellsing series.[/QUOTE]I lost interest the second they shoved a weird bald guy as main villain, and had Alucards "uber" attack be melted hair.

Comparing that to the manga and Ova´s display of how damn powerfful he is, the whole Nazi vs Vatican vs Hellsing grudge match, and such awesome stuff as-

Spoiler

Alucard turning back into Vlad the Impaler armor and all, with every soul he drank blood from returning to fight for him as his army
Anderson using the thorn of Christ and the last fight between him and Alucard
Walter betraying Hellsing and revealing himslef to be a traitor

Again, like with Full Metal Alchemist, the anime wasnt bad at all, it just didnt reach 10% of the greatness that the later manga story did, and now with the OVAS, that is being corrected.

Dont even get me started on the pathetic two anime arcs after Rurouni Kenshin stopped following the manga.

 

[ElJuski]

There's a lot of little intricacies when you're dealing with adaptations, because of the two very different mediums of the art itself, and also, the business behind the art.

Books usually have time to unfold at their own pace, for better or for worse. Many books have multiple themes to explore, multiple characters to develop...and they have the time to do it. It sometimes can be difficult to take the sprawling text, ideas, images and themes and to compress it into a two-plus hour film. Movies, in that sense, have to be leaner.

Another thing is the difference between the author and the director. The author creates visual images in your imagination. He writes to produce images and to elicit emotion from the reader. The director uses actual images to convey what the audience sees and feels. Sometimes, the director interprets--or chooses to change--the author's vision (assuming for the better). This double-creation sometimes doesn't match audience expectation (and sometimes it makes it better).

And that's not getting into the business-making side of Hollywood, which hedges bets on ticket sales, and will strong-arm movies one way or another.

As far as movies that could be said to be better than the book, however, I'd say:

-Fight Club (about the same as the book, but the cast, script, and director really made the story pop)
-Jurassic Park (Spielberg's vision was perfect; the movie condenses a lot of the boring Michael Chrichton science blather)
-No Country For Old Men (though it's really a tie; again, the Coens adapted the book practically word for word)

And yeah, tons more. I guess the point is, it's not about something being changed, its whether that change was necessary or detracting from the experience of the story. You have to wonder, "Why the fuck DID Gaiman change Beowulf so drastically?" instead of just hating on it, as is.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

Also, I've heard that Dexter the TV Series kicks the shit out of Dexter the book series.

 

[Espy]

I don't see how any book could capture the awesome that is Michael C. Hall's Dexter.

 

[filmfanatic]

Trust me, the books are bad. By the third book, it is revealed that

Spoiler

Dexter's Dark Passenger is in fact an ancient spirit of evil, possibly an offspring of the ancient god Moloch, that has persisted throughout history and influenced many animals and people

. Yeah, it's really bad.

 

[Espy]

Oh good lord. That is so dumb.

 

[fade]

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep to Blade Runner, great movie, a little bothered because of all the similarities, but Daryl Hannah & Joanna Cassidy were so freaking hot...

I can't for the life of me figure out what this sentence means. The book and movie deviated, but even Dick thought the movie version (what he saw of it) was awesome. He lauded the screenwriters for writing the rest of the story, and for getting the visuals almost dead on.

 

[drawn_inward]

Have any of you watched the movie and then read the book and still like the book better?

I kind of think that it is a matter of perspective. There are very few movie re-makes that I like. The original will always stand out for me. Even if technically, the re-make is a better movie, I usually like the original better. Same goes for books vs. movie. To me, the book is the original, and the movie is the re-make. I know they are different mediums, but they're both about telling a story. Books can give you depth of character better, but movies can sometimes give better visualizations

If I have watched the movie first and then read the book, I am usually a bit underwhelmed, and vice-versa. It's just a matter of perspective for me.

 

[@Li3n]

Have any of you watched the movie and then read the book and still like the book better?

LotR... while i had heard of the book before i was under the impression it was SF as i 1st heard about it in an introduction/foreword of a SF book. Only when i heard about a film coming out and saw some stuff on it i realised it wasn't.

Kept myself from reading the book with the express intention not to have the film ruined. As FotR was a good film i went and got the books... couldn't stop at the first volume so for the next two movies the flaws where easier to spot...

Heck, even the extended edition seemed too short.

 

[Cajungal]

Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.

This. ^

Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]

...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.

 

[Philosopher B.]

Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.

This. ^

Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]

...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

 

[Green_Lantern]

Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.

This. ^

Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]

...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.[/QUOTE]

Ironically this can be my only problem with books, or more specifically, I can't read old books because I am allergic