# Should books be made into movies?



## Joseph_Evans (Jul 24, 2011)

I personally love it when a great book is made into a great movie (e.g. Lord of the Rings), but I hate it when a great book is made into a bad movie (e.g. Northern Lights/The Golden Compass)

What are your thoughts?


----------



## SuseHocking (Sep 11, 2012)

I agree. When it is done well, that is awesome. But I have been so disappointed before when a fave book of mine gets totalled by a bad movie remake. Or when things I think are key in the book aren't brought up in the movie. I hate that.


----------



## Pinworms (Oct 20, 2010)

No, I don't think books should ever be made into movies.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

The problem with film adaptations of books is that people expect a carbon copy of their favourite book to be transposed to the screen according to their very personal view of the text. A film adaptation is just that - one person's (or one team's if you don't buy auteur theory) interpretation of a book's core narrative, adapted to suit a different medium. Some great parts of books just don't work on screen, and vice versa, so it's important that filmmakers aren't shackled to delivering every reader's favourite scene.

_Jurassic Park_ is my favourite example. In the novel, the velociraptors are disposed of by Alan Grant injecting a deadly toxin into dinosaur eggs and feeding them to the raptors while they stalk him through a laboratory. Although the sequence is very tense and works brilliantly in a science-fiction thriller, it doesn't have the scale of vision that Spielberg puts into a huge chase sequence that replaces the scene in the film version. Sam Neill sitting in an office fiddling with eggs and a syringe just wouldn't have the tension or payoff that the brilliant sequence with raptors stalking children through the kitchen delivers in buckets.

Similarly, Christopher Lee and a host of Tolkien fans might be cheesed off that Peter Jackson didn't include the Scouring of the Shire in his adaptation of Lord of the Rings, but with a four hour director's cut and open derision across the world at the number of endings in that film already, he certainly made the right decision. See also Tom Bombadil and Farmer Maggot.

If anything it's the slavish fan-serving adaptations that irritate me (Harry Potter, particularly the first two, Twilight, etc) for not having the balls to embrace the different narrative possibilities of the cinematic medium.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

I love my favorite books being made into good movies.


----------



## Lensman (Aug 28, 2012)

I'm mostly into science fiction and fantasy. Even with the current computer-generated imagery, the pictures in my head are often better than a film director can produce. A really good film can sometimes, just about, be as good as a book... but they're few and far between. A film can only grab the highlights and key scenes from a book - so much gets lost in the transfer. I prefer films that are original and designed from the outset as a film, rather than a book being mutilated to make it fit the needs of the cinema.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I thought John Carter was good, but they missed essential parts of who John Carter is.



Spoiler



In the movie, John Carter is shown as being traumatized by the Civil War, and unwilling to fight. On Barsoom Dejah Thoris has to plead with him to fight. That's not John Carter. In the books, it's made clear that he'a a "fighting man". In the movie they add a flashback showing him coming back home from the Civil War only to find his farm burned and his wife and child killed by the "Damned Yankees". That's not in the book, that's lifted from Confederate propaganda. There's no indication that he even had a wife or child in the books. John Carter fought for Virginia in the Civil War, but there's no indication that he was a hardcore believer in the Confederate cause, he was just fighting for his state.

It's very popular to have characters make the Hero's Journey of self-discovery, but it can be overdone, not every character has to go through this journey. John Carter already knows who he is, he's not angst-ridden. I'm a fan of Barsoom, and I can enjoy the movie even if I think they didn't do justice to who John Carter is.



Movies based on books are adaptations, and some changes have to be made. But people should think hard when they depart from the book, and ask if this change really has to be made. Sometimes, they depart from what made the book worthwhile in the first place.

Sometimes, of course, the changes really work. The Wizard of Oz departs considerably from the book, but it works.


Spoiler



In the movie, the Tin Woodman, the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion go to the Witch's castle to rescue Dorothy after she is captured. But in the book, the Flying Monkeys pull the stuffing out of the scarecrow, toss the Tin Woodman off a cliff and capture and pen up the Cowardly Lion. Dorothy rescues them after she kills the witch. If the movie had done it like the book did, these characters wouldn't have been as important to the story.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

alawston said:


> If anything it's the slavish fan-serving adaptations that irritate me (Harry Potter, particularly the first two, Twilight, etc) for not having the balls to embrace the different narrative possibilities of the cinematic medium.


^^ what he said


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Since the mid or late 80s I have grown dissatisfied with movies, especially American movies.  It is even worse when the movie is based on a book I've read or want to read; the images, story, and characters mix unhappily in my head.  So I have a flat out rule not to watch movies based on books I've read and to skip other movies unless social circumstances would be awkward otherwise.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

alawston said:


> Similarly, Christopher Lee and a host of Tolkien fans might be cheesed off that Peter Jackson didn't include the Scouring of the Shire in his adaptation of Lord of the Rings, but with a four hour director's cut and open derision across the world at the number of endings in that film already, he certainly made the right decision. See also Tom Bombadil and Farmer Maggot.


Neither Tom Bombadil or Farmer Maggot are important to the story. I understand that there were time constraints, and that a full-blown Scouring of the Shire wouldn't be practical. But the point was that the Shire was not untouched by war, and that by cutting it out entirely, they come home to a perfect paradise untouched by war. They could have suggested the Scouring by having them arrive to see, not the untouched perfection that they had expected, but a Shire that had suffered some damage in the war. It would have taken perhaps a minute or two to show some damage, and people cleaning it up.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

I'm all for it, but I can see how older books can pose a problem. The fans of the book expect a faithful rendition, but the makers of the movie may find themselves facing characters that might not garner sympathy from modern audiences. So the movie maker has to walk a fine line. Sadly, not to many of them are very good at that.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

Yes, they should. For the very simple reason that many people never read novels. By making a film version, it brings the story to a wider audience and may even persuade some people to buy the book. And that may lead to them buying more books, which is to everyone's good.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

alawston said:


> If anything it's the slavish fan-serving adaptations that irritate me (Harry Potter, particularly the first two, Twilight, etc) for not having the balls to embrace the different narrative possibilities of the cinematic medium.


I believe the Harry Potter movies are the way they are because J.K. Rowling insists -- contractually -- that each movie sticks exactly to the book on which it's based ... which, yes indeed, I think is a mistake. Movies have far less room for content than novels do, and so adjustments must be made to fit the plot into that medium. Having said which, I just watched _The Woman in Black_ and then, afterwards, read the original book, and there is definitely such a thing as changing a novel's plot too greatly.


----------



## seanyeager (Sep 10, 2012)

No never. 

I'm joking of course.

Thing is though a book works in a different way and paints pictures and emotions in your head.
A film is somewhat literal in so far as it tells you what to see, feel and think - in most cases.

Worse though is when key elements of a book are missed out in the adaptation.
It does seem that everything has to end up as a three act plot with a happy ending, hence 
the only variation becomes how we get to the happy ending.
Maybe that's why so many films full of action are considered dull.

Sean Yeager


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Action movies can be dull if there's nothing to the movie beneath the action. If we didn't make movies out of books, we would have missed out on a lot of great movies. Sometimes changes do have to be made, but when movie adaptations flop, it's often because the movie strayed from the book.

As far as "happy endings" go, stories about success are generally more interesting than stories about failure. People are more likely to want to read about the Wright brothers building an airplane than they are about the people before them who tried and failed.


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> I thought John Carter was good, but they missed essential parts of who John Carter is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Part of the trouble John Carter had is that the Barsoom series was one of the first true scifi adventure series, and as such served as inspiration for almost every writer and movie maker in the genre since. George Lucas himself said the arena scene in The Phantom Menace was lifted from A Princess of Mars...and he was far from the first. So when it came time for Barsoom to take its place on the screen, everything original about it had already been ripped off a thousand times before.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Now it's been years since I've read the book and I never saw the movie, but from what I heard the John Carter movie took liberties with the Dejah character by allowing her to wear clothes.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Zackery Arbela said:


> Part of the trouble John Carter had is that the Barsoom series was one of the first true scifi adventure series, and as such served as inspiration for almost every writer and movie maker in the genre since. George Lucas himself said the arena scene in The Phantom Menace was lifted from A Princess of Mars...and he was far from the first. So when it came time for Barsoom to take its place on the screen, everything original about it had already been ripped off a thousand times before.


There is that. When you go back to the original, people often say "I've seen this all before," and don't note that what they have seen is people imitating the original. When the Lord of the Rings movies came out, I remember one person claiming it was a D&D ripoff. He apparently was serious, not knowing that D&D came much later, and was to a great extent inspired by LotR. Tarzan was much more popular than Barsoom (at least there were more books and adaptations), but the Barsoom books had a great deal of influence. We often aren't aware of where the conventions we use come from. I was watching a Flash Gordon serial, and I was thinking that A Princess of Mars could have been done as a serial, but they would have had to make some sacrifices, the green martians would have to be reduced to 2 arms, and be of normal human height. I watched a stage adaptation of A Princess of Mars, and for the green martians, they had actors carring a pole with a green mask about 10 feet in the air. I think that was unneeded, people didn't look at the masks, they looked at the actors. On stage, if you tell me the actor of normal height is really 15 feet tall, people will accept it.


----------



## cheriereich (Feb 12, 2011)

Sam Kates said:


> Yes, they should. For the very simple reason that many people never read novels. By making a film version, it brings the story to a wider audience and may even persuade some people to buy the book. And that may lead to them buying more books, which is to everyone's good.


Yes! This ^^^! Movies about books can only bring new readers to the books.

Plus, I'm a very visual person. I like to have read the book and then see the movie. I even like novelizations of movies.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

Sam Kates said:


> Yes, they should. For the very simple reason that many people never read novels. By making a film version, it brings the story to a wider audience and may even persuade some people to buy the book. And that may lead to them buying more books, which is to everyone's good.


I agree! I would have never read Lord of the Rings (the book had kind of weird association in my mind with a few highly unpleasant people who claimed to be great fans) if it wasn't for the movie. It is now one of my favorite books. And there are many others, like Club Dumas (the movie was called The Ninth Gate), The Hogfather - that inspired me to read, and consequently fall in love with nearly all Pratchett books! - or Great Expectations. Of course, there is a danger that an atrocity like the movie version of The Golden Compass would discourage viewers from reading the book. But overall, a movie version, even if it's a mere illustration like Harry Potter movies, really makes people more interested in the book on which it was based.
Although I would like to see some sort of legal protection for great and widely enjoyed books so that Hollywood people can't make horrible movies out of them with impunity


----------



## Carrie Rubin (Nov 19, 2012)

Some books make for better movie adaptations than others. Thriller books can often become great movies. Many horror novels end up as bad movies--not all, of course, but sometimes what is creepy in books comes across as stupid in movies. More literary works can be difficult to capture on film, and it's these I'm most leery of.


----------



## Ergodic Mage (Jan 23, 2012)

I was just commenting on this in G+. There the discussion was whether _Rendezvous with Rama_ should be made into a movie. 
The point came up that Dune the movie was horrible while the mini series was pretty good. My thought was the movie concentration on the plot and action while the mini series remembered the story.
In this sense it would be difficult to make _Rendezvous with Rama_ into a good movie since though the story is great there was little movie action. Some uninspired director would forgo telling the story of wonderment in exploring an unknown and alien environment and attempt to add unwarranted action.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

If they don't make books into movies, where are they going to get any good ideas for movies?  

Partially a tongue-in-cheek comment, but without actually making a list I have the impression that most of the movies I really enjoy are adaptations of novels or short stories.

Yes, I know there are good original movies.  

Mike


----------



## Carrie Rubin (Nov 19, 2012)

jmiked said:


> If they don't make books into movies, where are they going to get any good ideas for movies?
> 
> Mike


That's a great point. Many movies do come from books. I guess we just don't think about it, because many of these books weren't well known before they became movies.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

If for no other reason, books should be made into movies so that at least a few of the very good authors who don't enjoy the multimillion sales of the lucky few (where "lucky" is really some fortunate combination of skill, hard work, and -- yes -- dumb luck) still stand a chance of making a decent living from their chosen craft. Of course, the side effect of that is that pedestrian (or worse) authors also sometimes strike it (comparatively) rich; and, of course, the lucky few get even richer.


----------



## timskorn (Nov 7, 2012)

Absolutely.  Why not?  We don't have to watch the film.  And as others have said, many people who watch the film may never read the book.  At least they get to enjoy the story in another format.  Is it as good?  No, but it's better than not experiencing it at all.

I loved the Lord of the Rings movies.  Never read the books.  Someday I will, but not yet. 

The Road was a near literal adaptation of the book.  In some ways, I'd like to actually see a story come to life.  To see it in reality and not in my head.  The visuals we get through prose and imagination is usually far better than what a movie actually presents us, but in some instances, it can be just as good.  The Road was a good example.  McCarthy's prose, unfortunately, is lost in a movie and is one of the main reasons I enjoyed the book.  But the visuals of the film matched nearly to what I had imagined.

Word is they are attempting to turn Blood Meridian into a film.  That is a monumental undertaking that has a high probability of failure, and am of the crowd that despite being my favorite book, would rather they leave the story to McCarthy alone.


----------



## Bjorn Street (Dec 18, 2012)

Some of the best films started off as books!  If a book is great, that should make it possible to write a great screenplay!  Sometimes that happens, like with the Hunger Games or Lord of the Rings.  Sometimes not so, like the Hobbit!  Sorry if I offended some of the Hobbit fans who helped the film break box office records.  The book was a masterpiece... the film trilogy... we shall see.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

jmiked said:


> If they don't make books into movies, where are they going to get any good ideas for movies?


From other movies?


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> From other movies?


I said _good_ ideas.  

Mike


----------



## amishromanceauthor (Sep 27, 2012)

I think books make better mini series or tv series.  Generally short stories or novellas are the most easily adapted into books.  

You have to remember also that Hollywood's goal is to make money.  Quality is optional as long as the box office is there.


----------



## Low Kay Hwa (Jun 15, 2012)

Many aspects of a novel can't be shown in a movie. For example, stream of consciousness, lengthy backstory summary...

I remember reading _The Notebook_ before watching the movie. While it was heartwrenching in the book, people were laughing (literally!) when Alice (is that her name?) said, "Who are you?"

Then again, there are more people watching movies than reading books.


----------



## trixycae (Oct 23, 2011)

Recently I've been reading more books after watching their movie or TV series adaptations (The Help, Game of Thrones, Number One Ladies Detective Club) so I'd say book adaptations are a good form of promotion for writers. It's only a shame when some books don't end up living up to expectations but so far I haven't come across that many that have disappointed me that much. It tends to be the other way round (that is, good book to awful movie).


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2012)

It depends a lot on the type of book. Something like David Gemmell's heroic fantasy or Steven Pressfield's stuff would readily make for good movies... epic fantasy with 10 POV characters and not so much action per single book would be harder to pull off (though possible). And yeah, short stories would often work well.


----------



## David Anderson (Dec 15, 2012)

Low Kay Hwa said:


> Many aspects of a novel can't be shown in a movie.


I agree, and I think that authors don't always take advantage of the things that can be accomplished in written form. Books provide an experience that movies don't, and can't. A film can be very good as a film and still not live up to the standard of the book. A book just brings the imagination to life in a way a movie doesn't, because a movies imagines for you. A book makes you do the work.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

amishromanceauthor said:


> I think books make better mini series or tv series. Generally short stories or novellas are the most easily adapted into books.


Very good point. Movie makers often have to pare the details of a novel's plot down to make the story fit into a 2-3 hour time-slot, whereas you can fit the whole of a novella in (_Being There_) or -- if you're adapting a short story -- even add to the original detail (_The Man Who Would Be King_, which was originally a Rudyard Kipling short.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bjorn Street said:


> Some of the best films started off as books! If a book is great, that should make it possible to write a great screenplay! Sometimes that happens, like with the Hunger Games or Lord of the Rings. Sometimes not so, like the Hobbit! Sorry if I offended some of the Hobbit fans who helped the film break box office records. The book was a masterpiece... the film trilogy... we shall see.


Personally, I LOVE the Hobbit movie. Not offended, just saying that I think it was beautifully done.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

I think the question's being approached from the wrong direction. We're all sitting here criticising adaptations of much-loved novels, but... what about bad books?

Some of the greatest films ever made have been based on _really_ bad novels. I've never read it, but I gather _Bridges of Madison County_ is a schmaltzy bunch of crud. It was adapted masterfully by Clint Eastwood. Apologies if it's your favouritest book.

My candidate for 'greatest film ever made' is _Pierrot le Fou_, adapted from a truly forgettable pulp thriller by (if memory serves) Lionel White. And it's not the only bad book that inspired a Nouvelle Vague film.


----------



## jaimee83 (Sep 2, 2009)

John Grisham was hired on his 1st movie as a tech consulant.  As the story line strayed from his book he kept complaining they weren't following his book.  The Director or Producer took him aside and explained he (John) sold the movie rights to his book and he no say in what they do.  The movie is BASED on his book as much or as little as they choose.  After that John sells the movie rights and has no further involvement, just cashing the checks.


----------



## Low Kay Hwa (Jun 15, 2012)

David Anderson said:


> I agree, and I think that authors don't always take advantage of the things that can be accomplished in written form. Books provide an experience that movies don't, and can't. A film can be very good as a film and still not live up to the standard of the book. A book just brings the imagination to life in a way a movie doesn't, because a movies imagines for you. A book makes you do the work.


And, according to some studies, when we imagine the scene, we tend to remember it better than something that is shown to us.

Movies are good if the characters are eye candies, haha.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

There is a difference between changes that are made to make the book work as a movie, and changes that turn it into something that is completely different in spirit or attitude.

For example, many of the plot changes in the Hobbit did not worry me at all as they made the story flow better on screen.

But the other changes, eg in Bilbo's character and the revelling in cartoony violence, made the movie so different from the book that I just could not enjoy it in the end.

Maybe I would have enjoyed it,if I had not read the book.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I often look at the book and the movie as separate entities that may or may not have the same plot. If they follow each other fairly well, then I can find enjoyment in how the director interpreted the book - including the changes to characters or plot. I've recently started reading _The Walking Dead_ graphic novels after following the series for the past 2.5 seasons and I love how they are are the same yet different. I've heard from purists who hate the series for these changes, but I look at them as a further dramatization and and exploration of alternates.


----------



## rjspears (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm in agreement with most of the comments -- good adaptations of books are a good thing.  Good books translated poorly to film always stink.

You have to divorce yourself the book.  They are different animals.

It has been rare for me that a book I loved was made into a better movie.  I have found a couple books that I think the filmmaker did something more creative than the writer.  I think Spielberg did a great job with Jaws and his changes worked for me.

Another book translated to film that I really liked was Manhunter (1986) based on Thomas Harris' Red Dragon.  (This is before Silence of the Lambs exploded on the scene.)  I think Micahel Mann did some nice things with the movie.

--
R.J. Spears


----------



## J. W. Rolfe (Oct 21, 2012)

Sure, I don't see why not. Many great screenplays begin as novels first.


----------



## Angela Brown (Nov 16, 2012)

With so many reboots of reboots, I'm glad to see a movie adaptation of a novel. Sometimes it is done brilliantly (LOTR) and sometimes, not so well (not trying to go there lol!!) But it also brings novels to people's attentions and gets purchases of books where it may not have happened before.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

alawston said:


> The problem with film adaptations of books is that people expect a carbon copy of their favourite book to be transposed to the screen according to their very personal view of the text. A film adaptation is just that - one person's (or one team's if you don't buy auteur theory) interpretation of a book's core narrative, adapted to suit a different medium. Some great parts of books just don't work on screen, and vice versa, so it's important that filmmakers aren't shackled to delivering every reader's favourite scene.
> 
> _Jurassic Park_ is my favourite example. In the novel, the velociraptors are disposed of by Alan Grant injecting a deadly toxin into dinosaur eggs and feeding them to the raptors while they stalk him through a laboratory. Although the sequence is very tense and works brilliantly in a science-fiction thriller, it doesn't have the scale of vision that Spielberg puts into a huge chase sequence that replaces the scene in the film version. Sam Neill sitting in an office fiddling with eggs and a syringe just wouldn't have the tension or payoff that the brilliant sequence with raptors stalking children through the kitchen delivers in buckets.
> 
> ...


I agree with so many things in this I just quoted the whole thing.

To answer the original question--of course, books should be made into movies; why wouldn't they be?

But they are different mediums with different advantages and challenges. The version should reflect that. Movies show things, books describe them. A book can literally be just about any length. Movies must be between two and three hours (with two-ish hours being the standard). I don't expect a movie to be just like a book, in much the same way I don't expect orange juice to be just like eating an orange. 

And I always, if I know a movie is being made from a book, prefer to see the movie first and then read the book, so I can enjoy the movie (or not) on its own merits. Then, as there is no way for everything to be in a book to be in the movie made from it, I read the book so I can be suprised by the new stuff, even if it's a literal adaptation. And I can better appreciate the choices the screenwriter, director and the author made that way.

Betsy


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I think it is a debate that authors and movie makers and movie fans have been having since movies came into being.  I agree.  I love a movie that does the book well, but they can sometimes be few and far between.  I cannot think of any movies that I liked the movies more than the book.


----------



## gljones (Nov 6, 2012)

My answer would be I like seeing good books made into good movies, for example LOTR.

I don't like seeing good books made into bad movies, for example Dune.

I went off on Dune the movie in another thread somewhere.  It could be the worst translation of book to movie in cinema history.


----------



## Letty (Dec 28, 2012)

yes. two of my favourite books have been made into great films , To kill a Mocking Bird and the Lovely Bones . another all time favourite of mine is the Life of Pi ,which I'm going to see tonight.


----------



## David Anderson (Dec 15, 2012)

Thought experiment: imagine if every book you ever read had to star celebrities. You couldn't picture any other people in those books except for celebrities you have seen in movies or on TV. And you wouldn't even have many choices among the celebrities--pretty much every guy is Bruce Willis. Every girl is Nicole Kidman. 

This is why I sometimes prefer books never be made into movies. Movies can be so powerful, imagetically, even if they're bad, that these images can overtake the book and ruin it. 

And then there's the problem of watching the movie first, then reading the book. How do you imagine your own characters and settings if you've already seen the movie?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

David Anderson said:


> And then there's the problem of watching the movie first, then reading the book. How do you imagine your own characters and settings if you've already seen the movie?


I can't say that's ever been a problem for me...

Betsy


----------



## Letty (Dec 28, 2012)

life of pi was the best movie adaptation I have ever seen ,outstanding


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Some of my favorite movies were books first. The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, The Wizard of Oz, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath, Forrest Gump and I could go on and on. The last two I saw were The Help--which while well done, was almost too much like the book. If you saw the book, you didn't need to see the movie because there wasn't anything new. The Hunger Games was also very much like the book, but the movie was able to add a dimension to it because of all the action in it.


----------



## Starry Eve (Mar 10, 2011)

When I first saw 'The Bridges of Madison County' starring Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood, I was moved to tears at the end. The film was so emotionally powerful for me that it made me want to read the book; however, the book was a disappointment because to me, the writing style was just thin and limp. If I had picked up the book first, I likely wouldn't have given the movie a chance. I guess it's more uncommon when the book doesn't measure up to the movie...


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

_Should books be made into movies?_

After seeing The Hobbit I'm very tempted to answer 'No, please!', but there have been remarkable movies made from books. One for all is 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.


----------



## JLVaughan (Dec 30, 2012)

Most definitely yes, but the butchering of a really good story with a bad movie should be punishable by stoning


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Of course, having said what I said, I still dream of one of my books being made into a movie...just sayin'...


----------



## CarmenConnects (Oct 15, 2012)

I think a good movie can be made from a good book and apparently Hollywood does, too. The problem is when Hollywood decides to improve upon it--as with the Percy Jackson movie and Eragon--and turns it into a mess. On the other hand, books like Pride and Prejudice, The Great Gatsby and Anna Karenina provide a tangled plot, a rich setting, and complex characters that beg to be on the big screen. When a movie adaptaion is done right it really is an homage to the author.


----------



## Will Hadcroft (Sep 29, 2011)

I don't mind movies based on books, but if I've read the book, I always get irritated by what has been left out (or indeed added!). I think a movie script should adhere as closely to the author's intentions as possible.

The BBC adapted John Chritopher's _Tripods_ trilogy in the 1980s, but because they wanted 13 episode seasons per book, a lot of the original story was padded out with additional storylines. As a result, the show was deemed slow and plodding by some and viewing figures dropped. In response to this, the BBC cancelled filming of the third and final book (which I think is outrageous!). If they hadn't been so greedy, they could have told the story of the whole trilogy in 18 episodes, rather than doing two books in 25 and giving up.

In movies, _The War of the Worlds _ is a good example of having two very different adaptations and neither closely adhering to HG Wells' book.

Sometimes, movie makers think a cinema going audience won't appreciate a multi-layered plot (even though readers of the book version clearly could). I was disappointed that _The Time Traveler's Wife _ had a couple of plot strands missing and they'd changed the ending. While the film was well cast and had the look and feel exactly right, it was lightweight, whereas the book had real depth.

The one good thing a popular movie adaptation will do, though, is make people seek out the novel that inspired it.


----------



## Troy Jackson (Sep 7, 2012)

As an author, I would say YES.  I would love for my novel to be made into a movie.

Oh wait, that wasn't really the question, was it?  

Obviously not every book can or should be turned into a movie.  Just like with books themselves, movies can be very
hit-or-miss, but they cost companies gobs more money than a simple book, so they are even MORE selective.


----------

