Books to movies, are they only trying to make oneshot blockbusters?

[Maxilian]

The first was ok, the other 4 (?) were shit.

I agree with everything you say... i mean, the first RE was Ok... but the others were like "WTF IS THESE?! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ALL THE COOL RESIDENT EVIL CHARACTERS?!"

- - - Updated - - -

I always preferred the Adam West Batman movies myself. You know, the ones with the "KAPOW!" and "THWACK!" splash graphics and the "carousel reversal spray" that Batman conveniently had in his utility belt.

Well... i don't remenber well... but i think the first Adam West Batman movie was actually good...

[Deleted]

Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy.
Fantastic Radio Series.
Epic BBC Mini TV series.
Complete and Utter Bastadizastion of a literary classic, Deviates so much from the books during some points that it becomes unrecognisable as HHGTG and just turns into a film about some quirky characters trying to be funny.

imo, unless Hollywood can make a faithful adaptation of a book, then it should never attempt to make the movie of it. Some books lend themselves to being fantastic on the silver screen, however unless propperly done, by a director that is really invested in the story then invariably it becomes a total dog of a movie.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy.
Fantastic Radio Series.
Epic BBC Mini TV series.
Complete and Utter Bastadizastion of a literary classic, Deviates so much from the books during some points that it becomes unrecognisable as HHGTG and just turns into a film about some quirky characters trying to be funny.

imo, unless Hollywood can make a faithful adaptation of a book, then it should never attempt to make the movie of it. Some books lend themselves to being fantastic on the silver screen, however unless propperly done, by a director that is really invested in the story then invariably it becomes a total dog of a movie.

Same thing happened to Pride and Prejudice. Epic BBC TV adaptation, very mediocre movie full of melodrama and cringeworthyness.

[Bowserkills7]

The hunger games was a bad movie compared to the books for one major reason, you never got the impression they were starving. In the books they were always days away from dying from hunger, you never got that impression in the movie it was all about the fighting and the romance.

You have got to be kidding me. That isn't what The Hunger Games was about at all, you are just using the word "hunger" and pretending you understand.
The Hunger Games movie wasn't as good because you missed out on Katnisses inner monologue. All of her actions are explained by her, and you can see her reasoning for specific events. Her relationship with Haymitch inside the games was a good example of this (due to her understanding of how his gifts work, and how to put on a show for the audience). Her trying to cope with Rues death was a big one as well.

Eragon had to be the most dissapointing movie I have ever seen. The Ra'zac were completly murdered in their concept, and the entire thing just flopped without the story to continue it on. If a better script was written that series could of made millions. I havent read the Percy Jackson books, but from what I have heard they missed huge plotpoints in the first movie and thus the second one will likely be horrible as well.

Also, I loathed the Harry Potter movies. The only decent ones were #1 and #2, but I don't see how you could follow the plot without reading the books first for the rest, it was just so vague. No details were given, and the narrative was poor. I guess I just prefer books anyway.

[Deleted]

Same thing happened to Pride and Prejudice. Epic BBC TV adaptation, very mediocre movie full of melodrama and cringeworthyness.

tbh, I didn't know Pride had been made into a movie, Period Drama's not my usual cup of tea where TV / Books / Movie's are concerned. However I do have family members that go ape for this type of stuff, so its surprising they have told me to avoid / see it.

[taheen74]

There are very few good book to movie translations. Let's take a look at the one's adapted from Stephen King books (I'm including made for Tv movies also):

The Stand: for some reason, everyone seems to love this one. But at most- it's decent (my main problem with it was Molly Ringwald- she made an annoying Frannie). There's a few "WTF did they make that change for moments" but overall, it sticks with the storyline.

The Shining: there's 2 versions: Kubrick's version (which is mainly about alcoholism in my opinion); and the TV version. The TV version sticks more with the book (I just couldn't stand the kid they had playing Danny).

It: quite honestly- one of the worst adaptations: only a few scenes in the movie actually did happen in the novel, the rest of it was more of a "WTH did I just watch?" Tim Curry plays a good Pennywise though.

The Green Mile: excellent adaptation from book to film.

The Shawshank Redemption: once again. excellent adaptation of a short story.

1408: I'm iffy on this one. I enjoyed the movie, but I still don't understand why they added the stuff about a wife and a kid into it. The story is about a man who goes into a haunted hotel room but upon entering the room, it reads like a hit of acid. It's a strange short story.

Now what Hollywood needs to do is sit down and see what the script writers of movies like the Green Mile and Shawshank did right. Though what I do find somewhat amusing is the fact that a lot of fans of those movies never realized that King wrote the novel/short story those are based on.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally I don't think the Hollywood visualization is where it falls down. It's the lack on internal monologues that are so present in books but can't be translated well onto screen. Inner monologues are great for character development and many movies based on books have suffered because the information that is usually conveyed through these monologues is left to be conveyed by the actor's skills, or just forgotten. Usually doesn't work out well and we end up with a version of a character that hasn't translated to the big screen.

^^ this. King adaptations have issues because there are a lot of internal conflicts/things going on in the book. The Shining is a good example of that.

[Deleted]

Apparently plot doesn't sell tickets. so they hire Micheal Bay and use explosions instead!

[JSStryker]

The Tom Clancy novel "Sum of All Fears was turned into a piece of crap movie.

[Zippoflames]

Don't know if anyone mentioned it but what the f did they do to Reacher.... The books are great but Christ the movie is dire

[poser765]

You have got to be kidding me. That isn't what The Hunger Games was about at all, you are just using the word "hunger" and pretending you understand.
The Hunger Games movie wasn't as good because you missed out on Katnisses inner monologue. All of her actions are explained by her, and you can see her reasoning for specific events. Her relationship with Haymitch inside the games was a good example of this (due to her understanding of how his gifts work, and how to put on a show for the audience). Her trying to cope with Rues death was a big one as well.

I think Rich is pretty spot on. Hunger was pretty important, nay, integral piece of the larger setting. It may not have been LITERAL hunger (though not far off) but more of an over reaching sense of desperation in most of the districts, a manifestation of which was hunger. The districts were oppressed, their populations famished, miserable, and basically slaves. THAT was the setting of the book. That's what made pretty much everything that happen either worth happening in the first book, or possible to happen in the sequels. Without the desperation of the districts, there would be no revolution to "catch fire" in the later books.

THAT is what the movie failed to show. There was no sense of misery or dread. Katnis was hunting in the woods illegally to help her family survive...literally survive. The movie made it seem like she was frolicking in the forest on a Sunday afternoon.

- - - Updated - - -

True, it would be interesting to see an attempt at Malazan. Iskaral Pust and Tehol for life.

lol No one would know what was going on. lol to capture the true feel, the series would have to be directed by four different people with completely different interpretations of the books, aired on random nights of the week, NOT in chronological order, and every 20 minutes a still scene would flash showing a giant hand giving you the finger.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it was last year that out of the top 10 movies 1-2 of them were actually original.

This is why I rarely watch new movies anymore. Lol, there is nothing I haven't seen already! I've either read the book, played the game, watched the cartoon when I was a kid, or read the comics...oh, or didn't like the first one in the series.

Movies are trite. It's that simple. They are base, repetitive, offer no creativity. I don't want to see Giant Robots 4, X Set of Super Heroes 2, or Y Set of Super Heroes 3, or Spin off From Super Heroes X: The Rise of Moose Knuckle, Kissing in the Rain (based on a Nicholas Sparks novel), or Furiously Driving Ugly Japanese Cars 17.

[Kraenen]

capitalism always favours the lowest common denominator

[poser765]

capitalism always favours the lowest common denominator

So does consumerism.

[Bad Ashe]

there's too much emphasis these days on "re-booting".
many modern day takes on old stories die this way.

imo: tell the story the way it was written, or make something else.

[taheen74]

there's too much emphasis these days on "re-booting".
many modern day takes on old stories die this way.

imo: tell the story the way it was written, or make something else.

Surmises my opinion of Under the Dome. I keep trying to tell myself it's the Bachman version.

[Adam Jensen]

There are loads of crap movies that are based on a book. On the other hands, there are loads of brilliant movies where most people don't even know they're based on a book.

They're 2 completely different mediums to tell a story, 2 which do not always transition so well from 1 to the other.

Forrest Gump was a terrible book.