# Who Doesn't Give a Fug About the Movie?



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

With all these threads about books and movies, I'll throw in a new category of not giving a fug about the movie. For example, some of my all time favorite novels, _The Trail_, _Lolita_, and _The Sound and the Fury_ may or may not have been or will ever be made into movies, but the bottom line is I don't give a fug. I read the books, I liked the books, and have obsoletely zero interest in ever seeing a movie version.

I've heard Cormac McCarthy's _Blood Meridian_ is being made into a movie. I don't give a fug. Someday I'll reread the book, but nothing on Hell or Earth can ever spark in interest in me about the movie.

So what movie versions of books do you not give a fug about?


----------



## BoomerSoonerOKU (Nov 22, 2009)

I'd somewhat agree...

I have seen 2 movies in the past two years. Both have been 3d IMAX. I'm a sucker for new technology. But, other than that the only tv/movies I watch are public broadcasting (Nature & Nova) / reality series (American Chopper / Storage Wars).

Having said that, if I loved a book, I'll probably be more likely to watch a movie based on it. For example, I'm very curious to see what HBO does with George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_. I think it's just easier for people to look forward to something and get involved if they are already familiar with characters and plots.


----------



## Pawz4me (Feb 14, 2009)

I have zip, zero, less-than-no interest (if that's possible) in movies.  I'm just not much of a watcher of anything.  If I click on a news story not realizing it's a video, nine times out of ten I'll exit out of it.


----------



## PG4003 (Patricia) (Jan 30, 2010)

I don't watch very many movies either.  If it's a movie based on a good book, I always feel like there is no way the big screen can match my imagination, and it's disappointing.  I always feel like people who see a movie and have not read the book, have missed something.  There's no way they can convey all the feelings and thoughts of the characters in a movie like it's done in a book.


----------



## DmslinaDrtyDrss (Dec 2, 2010)

I LOVED Phillipa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl and was really excited to hear about the movie with Scarlett Johansen and Natalie Portman but oh.... what a let down  why is it Hollywood always feels the need to over dramatize a story that's already dramatic enough!?!  An awful awful attempt.
Kind of like the Vintners Luck by Elizabeth Knox - that must have broken her heart.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

I agree...movies based on favorite books almost always disappoint. Even audio books (after I have first read a book) usually don't mesh with the narrator in my head.


----------



## Helen Hanson (Sep 13, 2010)

I see few movies and cringe when they make a movie out of a favored book.  Along with butchered plot lines, the casting usually irritates me.  Like most of us, I have an image of characters in my head when I read.  I rarely appreciate central casting's interpretation of a character.

I'm updating my website and commissioned an artist for a new look.  He had a clearly recognizable man embedded in his original concept.  I had the artist make the man less identifiable. I didn't want the character's features so clear that someone could pick him out of a line-up.


----------



## Russell Brooks (Dec 23, 2010)

Geemont said:


> With all these threads about books and movies, I'll throw in a new category of not giving a fug about the movie. For example, some of my all time favorite novels, _The Trail_, _Lolita_, and _The Sound and the Fury_ may or may not have been or will ever be made into movies, but the bottom line is I don't give a fug. I read the books, I liked the books, and have obsoletely zero interest in ever seeing a movie version.
> 
> I've heard Cormac McCarthy's _Blood Meridian_ is being made into a movie. I don't give a fug. Someday I'll reread the book, but nothing on Hell or Earth can ever spark in interest in me about the movie.
> 
> So what movie versions of books do you not give a fug about?


I read two weeks ago that Starship Troopers, the movie, was based on a novel. I felt sorry for the author.


----------



## LaFlamme (Dec 9, 2010)

I see your point, but I think the more important thing here is your use of the word "fug." There is just no better alternative to the more explicit word than "fug." It sounds almost identical to the harsher word yet somehow, it's almost playful. Very well done.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Russell Brooks said:


> I read two weeks ago that Starship Troopers, the movie, was based on a novel. I felt sorry for the author.


Don't worry, the movie came out nearly a decade after the author* died.
________
Robert A. Heinlein, whose book was published back in 1959 and is considered a classic of the "golden era" of science fiction.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

NogDog said:


> Don't worry, the movie came out nearly a decade after the author* died.
> ________
> Robert A. Heinlein, whose book was published back in 1959 and is considered a classic of the "golden era" of science fiction.


And all of his would be on my list. Read 'em all (or all that I could track down), but there's no way I'd ever go see any of them as a movie. Not that anyone has tried to make any, other than that one (as far as I know). Thank goodness.

I'm not sure I'd want to see any Stephanie Plum movies, either. I have mental images of the characters, and don't want them spoiled.

Then again, I'm kinda curmudgeonly that way.... I don't like what Disney did to Grimm's fairy tales either.


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

Susan in VA said:


> And all of his would be on my list. Read 'em all (or all that I could track down), but there's no way I'd ever go see any of them as a movie. Not that anyone has tried to make any, other than that one (as far as I know). Thank goodness.


Destination Moon (1950)










Project Moon Base (1953)










The Puppet Masters (1994)


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Gee, I'm so glad I missed those....  and I have no intention of looking them up now.  But thanks for enlightening me.


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

I actually thought the 1950s ones might be good for a giggle. We once watched a 1950s movie that was (unintentionally) the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. We still mimic the aliens ( men in dinosaur type suits creeping across the landscape) but the best bit was the rocket taking off, they climbed the ladder to a door in the side, realised it was too heavy for lift-off so threw out their _suitcases_ to lighten the load, kicked the ladder away, closed the door and took off.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I try to look at the book and the movie as different projects with different characteristics.

One of my favorite books, _I Am Legend_, has been made into a movie three times: _The Last Man on Earth _ (with Vincent Price) was the most faithful, but very low budget; _The Omega Man _ (with Charlton Heston) was at best "inspired by" the book; and the Will Smith starrer _I Am Legend _ turned an intimate drama into an action movie and totally blew the ending.

On the other hand, I thought that the BOOK _The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_ was poorly structured and largely boring (with a dynamite 3rd quarter), and the moviemakers did a good job of minimizing the boring stuff and concentrating on the good part, so overall I think the movie is better than the book.

Books and movies are such different media, I really try to regard them separately and try not to weigh one against the other.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Suitcases in a rocket, what could be more natural. 

My vote for most hilariously bad is one where the Evil Being is a _carpet_. Seriously. It kinda floats through the air. Except in about half the scenes you can see the sneakers of the college kids that they had hired to walk under it and support it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jan Strnad said:


> I try to look at the book and the movie as different projects with different characteristics.
> 
> One of my favorite books, _I Am Legend_, has been made into a movie three times: _The Last Man on Earth _ (with Vincent Price) was the most faithful, but very low budget; _The Omega Man _ (with Charlton Heston) was at best "inspired by" the book; and the Will Smith starrer _I Am Legend _ turned an intimate drama into an action movie and totally blew the ending.
> 
> ...


Exactly my feelings...it would be like comparing apples to apple pie...

Betsy


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Most of my favorite movies are movies based on original screenplays, not on novels (such as _You've Got Mail_). Hollywood tends to add too much glitz to good novels that don't need any glitz. It's almost impossible to make a decent visual retelling of a 100,000 word novel in two hours of film. Too much has to be cut, and directors almost always end up cutting my favorite parts of most novels (the quieter moments of character development, for instance) in favor of plot.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

purplepen79 said:


> Most of my favorite movies are movies based on original screenplays, not on novels.


I doubt authors will ever take my advice, but I've always thought that a novelist must write the novel as a _novel_ and not a novelization to the movie in his head. Sadly, I think, many modern novelist _are_ writing for a future screenplay or at least hopes for a screenplay. If the authors have stories in the heads seen as a movies, write the screenplay, not the novel. Novels have been around far long than movies and did just fine without adaptations.

This brings me to a personal opinion. People can be either a _reader_ (of books) or a _watcher_ (of movies\TV) but not both. Readers can watch an occasionally movie and vice versa, but people can not be both. People who claim to both are probably more watcher in denial than a reader; they read a book saying, "That would be a good movie" or see a movie in they heads as they read. I must be a reader because I don't see film versions in my head and have never closed a book longing for movie to be made.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Geemont said:


> This brings me to a personal opinion. People can be either a _reader_ (of books) or a _watcher_ (of movies\TV) but not both. Readers can watch an occasionally movie and vice versa, but people can not be both. People who claim to both are probably more watcher in denial than a reader; they read a book saying, "That would be a good movie" or see a movie in they heads as they read. I must be a reader because I don't see film versions in my head and have never closed a book longing for movie to be made.


Hmmmm. Well, I'd disagree. When I read, I read. When I watch a movie or TV show, I am watching. I do both a good bit and don't sit there thinking 'this show would be a good book' or 'this book would be a good movie'. Of course, a good book, well written, will definitely let me 'see' the action. But it doesn't happen with every book. I notice it most with really well written books that are easy to get lost in, or books that are less well written and practically scream "make me into a movie". I like the first kind a lot, get bored easily with the latter kind.

I've never left a movie and thought, "I must go seek out the book to read it". In fact, I don't like to read a book after seeing the movie because I find the movie characters intruding into my consciousness. I don't want to look at book 'trailers' for a similar reason. The book should let me see the characters and action -- I don't need to be shown it separately and if I have to be to 'get it', well, I don't want to read the book.  I can count on the fingers of one hand the book/movie combos where I thought both were equally good and complemented each other rather than clashing in my brain. 

Anyway, I enjoy both watching movies and reading books and see them as two completely different things. That said, if seeing a movie encourages someone to pick up a book, I think that's a good thing. . . . .


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2011)

Geemont said:


> This brings me to a personal opinion. People can be either a _reader_ (of books) or a _watcher_ (of movies\TV) but not both. Readers can watch an occasionally movie and vice versa, but people can not be both. People who claim to both are probably more watcher in denial than a reader; they read a book saying, "That would be a good movie" or see a movie in they heads as they read. I must be a reader because I don't see film versions in my head and have never closed a book longing for movie to be made.


I disagree with this opinion as well. Movies, books, and even video games fit under the umbrella of "stories," and when you're focusing on the story, the medium tends to vanish. You forget what you're reading, you're absorbed in the screen. Of course, when you're reading a book, the only artform you are imbibing is that of writing. When you're watching a movie, the writing intermingles with the artforms of cinematography, acting, directing and so on that can all be appreciated for how they influence the story. It really is just an extension of theater with new, modern elements thrown in. And the transition from page to stage has always been the focus of productive, thoughtful interpretation.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I certainly know many people (including myself) who are both avid readers and also movie fans. I cannot speak for them as to whether they think about the other media when enjoying either, but I very seldom do so myself. Sure, there have been pretty rare occasions where, while reading a book, I think about how some scene might look on film, but that is rare. Generally, though, the set of movies I like to watch are not congruent with the set of books I like to read, so it is not as if the formats are competing with each other for me. I guess I find novels better for telling certain types of stories and movies better for others, perhaps?


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

Geemont said:


> This brings me to a personal opinion. People can be either a _reader_ (of books) or a _watcher_ (of movies\TV) but not both. Readers can watch an occasionally movie and vice versa, but people can not be both.


Wow. This like saying that people who enjoy a good steak can't possibly enjoy eating a banana because one is meat and the other fruit. Yes, there are vegetarians who might think this way, but for most people, it's all food. In the case of books and movies, they are stories, as ForeverJuly said. I've been filling my head with stories as long as I can remember. I'm a voracious fan of films of all genres, particularly sci-fi and horror, and I've also read a huge array of novels over my lifetime. I love watching a film version of a book I've read, or vice versa. If I discover that a movie I've enjoyed was based on a novel, I will likely seek out that novel to read it and see how well the movie director translated the source material, and likewise, when I find out they're making a movie of a book I enjoyed, I can't wait to see it. A perfect example of this is Suzanne Collins 'The Hunger Games'. I absolutely loved that book, and I'm eager to see how it's interpreted to the big screen. I have no trouble distinguishing between both art forms, and I love them both in different and yet similar ways. I also enjoy steaks and bananas, just not at the same time.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

It's strange - there is one movie I refuse to see because the book was such a big part of my childhood: The Golden Compass. I don't even remember that much of the book now, but I remember being so attached to the  characters that I couldn't bear to see them in the movie, because it wouldn't be how I remembered it! Nowadays, when I really enjoy a book (like The Hunger Games), I'm excited to see how the movie turns out. It must have something to do with keeping my childhood intact.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I think it isn't about liking streak and bananas, but wishing one was more like the other.  Better yet, think of a man with two wives or parents with two children.  "I love you both equally, but wife2/child2, you should be more like wife1/child1."


There are many books were a novelist is writing as if the book were a movie.  The Hunger Games by Collins and Endurance by Killborn are both examples I read last year that fit that bill.  If the authors liked both equally, then why imitate the "movie" style in a novel?

Then there are readers who say things like "The book was dull in places but the movie made it better."  Said about the Girl With a Dragon Tattoo a lot.  The book wasn't dull, it the reader who was dulled some events or details other readers didn't find dull.

Do people disagree that some readers/authors are slanting preferences towards the movie style?  Not every book, of course, but significant numbers?  If so, why?  I think it is because they like movies more and books are the fill in.

In an introduction to Battle Royale, Max Allan Collins stated that the rise of novelizations of TV/movies before VCR filled the need to resee what wasn't easily available at the time.

Sorry for the typing/formatting, I'm on an iPhone.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2011)

Jessica Billings said:


> It's strange - there is one movie I refuse to see because the book was such a big part of my childhood: The Golden Compass.


Don't watch it! It's terrible!


----------



## mcostas (Nov 22, 2010)

Some things don't translate well into movies. For instance, I loved the book the fall of jericho and the roman and zombie war. After I read them I was thinking that they would make awesome movies. Then I realized that I have seen movies like that and they were terrible. 

At first I thought that series on the pillars of the earth would be good and was dissapointed I couldn't get it. Now I think it would be hard making that into a movie or series. 

If I see a movie based on a book, and it's not good, I no longer want to read the book so I've become mindful of that.


----------

