Books Into Movies does it irritate you?

[Bluebear 0]

I am fine with it. I often read the books first, so even though I have my own view it kind of gets combined with the film. What I hate is when they change things in the films, or they jump over things. Like in the Harry Potter films, it is so many things that they do not care to mention! I know that it would just take up time, but I really do not think that viewers would mind the film being 30 minutes longer. I know I would not.But I think that people that decide to turn books into films, should care more about the book. Even though it is "based on the book" they could focus a bit more on it and maybe actually learn the meaning of it. They kill so many visions about how the characters are and such things. But if people do not want to ruin their visions and memories - do not watch the film. It is as simple as that.

[netmarkethub 0]

Ya ... many people don't like books turned into movies.

[KeeperMustDie 0]

Yes I do enjoy movies that are derived from books. Of course not all such movies is worth of book, but I understand that the movies and books is totally different things and after You watch the movie You may want to read the book, it makes more fun to see same story from different sides and then compare it.

[HyBriD54 0]

Hmm, you've got some good points. Actually, that's what happened with me and A Series of Unfortunate Events. I watched the movie, liked it, then read the books. I thought both were pretty good but you always lose (as well as gain) something when you translate something from page to screen...

[moutonoir 0]

With the Series of Unfortunate Events movie especially, you lose all the references and humor the author includes in the writing of the book. This was also the case with the Princess Bride. I saw the movie first and I had no idea that the book was actually humorous, until I read it. Then I wished that the movie had somehow been able to incorporate that into it, since it really is what made the book interesting.

[Ajant 0]

Many people would never read all those books so the only way for them to see the story is the through the movie. Having that in mind turning good books into movies is a good practice. Also coming up with a good plot is not an easy thing so turning to books makes a lot of sense for this reason alone. Another positive with this trend is that many people see the movie they like and then go and find the book on which it was based.Some times movie can be good though it has little to do with original book's plot. For instance Starship troopers by Robert Henlien is a great and complex book with little action and a lot of character development and philosophical views by the author. Movie on the other hand is pure non-stop action with a little romance and humor. Now, I'm not the fan of action movies, I don't remember the last time I watched a movie that features Chuck Norris/Steven Sigal/Jean Claude van Damme/Dolf Lundgren but once in a while I like to watch a movie that allows me turn my brain off and just enjoy the action, explosions and special effects. Movie Starship troopers has all that but it also has atmosphere that is required in order swallow it all. After seeing the movie I decided to read the book so for me it's definitely a good movie though it actually has very little to do with original book.I prefer to watch the movie before reading the book because I agree with most people here about book usually being much better. If I first read the book I'd be very disappointed with the movie, but by watching the movie first I get to enjoy it too and then enjoy the book even more thus getting the enjoyment twice out of one story. I don't have the problem, that several people mentioned, with imagining characters in the book differently after seeing the movie.One important problem with movies is that very few movies can hold the attention of the casual viewers for more then 2 hours and that's usually not nearly enough to convey all the complexity and depth of the book (everything that makes the book good in the first place).Finally I wasn't going to bring up Lord of the rings but somebody else mentioned it so I have to comment. First movie is great (not perfect, but great) adaptation of the book. Second movie has little more flaws, but is still very good. I enjoyed watching them both immensely AFTER reading the books, which as I said ealrlier is not my favorite pracitice. Some of the changes made in them even make the story better (Faramir is no longer poor man's Aragorn, but a human with flaws and virtues; Frodo's inner struggle to save Smeagol from Gollum and thus hope for himself is more pronounced; scene when Boromir and Faramir capture Osgiliath adds depth to their characters based on the book's appendixes though it's not actuality in the book etc.). But 3rd movie is so terrible, it's unwatchable after reading the book. It makes major changes in the plot and the characters and none of it is good. At times it's boring and at times it's extremely annoying. Frodo trusting Gollum over Sam, and bringing undead to battle of Pelennor fields negates the core of the book. Denethor looks younger then Boromir and is turned into a mindless pig in stead of powerful and cunning lord etc. I just have no words to describe how disappointed I was with it after loving first 2 movies

[joeblogg 0]

dude! think about harry potter. i love when they turn movies into books. most good movies are from books - lord of the rings, harry potter, the da vinci code. i mean great movies come from books. who likes harry potter and the da vinci code? who's a fan of lord of the rings?

[y4nzi 0]

I love the concept of turning movies into books although there is a big risk of disappointment if what you envisioned yourself isn't what ends up on screen. I guess thats the problem with many of the adaptations because everyone has their own different view, books leave the character/story/setting open to your own imagination whilst movies give less scope for that.e.g. Narnia was one of my favourite books as a child and I was so excited about the movie, was slightly disappointed as was I with the Davinci Code, although on the other hand Lord of the Rings was an excellent adaptation of the triology

[networker 0]

It irritates me that many of these books have beenturned into movies. The way I see it,one doesn't even know Lord of the ringsat all until one has read the trilogy. I mean,I've read a clockwork orange and never have any desireto see the movie.Reading a book is like having a private,custom movie. Call me messed up or what, but the best entertainment is still in books.

[africa 0]

I hate it when they turn books into movies.Most often they fail to interpret the story and it loses a lot the exciting stuff.just reading and then watching Harry Potter will be such a bore because sometimes they leave out the most gripping of scenes.One film i thought was well done was The Lord of the Ring trilogy.All three were so well done and they never lost nothing. I think the director should take over Harry Potter, he know what he does.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I love movies more than books...I just find that the ability to see people is much better.I am a very visual person. If I see something, I can remember it forever, but if I just read/hear it, I won't.So for me, videos and movies are a much better way of commiting things to memory, whether it be about books, or even related to learning/school.

[contactskn 2]

Me and my girlfriend are both pretty big movie buffs, but at the same time love to read. Lately we've been having a pretty big discussion about our distaste for books being turned into movies. The most recent "big" book title to be turned into a movie is, one of our favorite book series, Twilight.
Twilight is an amazing book and I'm really looking forward to the movie. She, however, is very upset that they decided to make the book into a movie as it will "ruin her view of the characters." We can both agree that the movie will not compare to the book; however, I enjoy watching movies that derived from a book as it furthers my perception of characters and being a visual person it really helps me get back in touch with books I've read in the past.

So what do you guys think? Do you enjoy movies that are derived from books or are you like my girlfriend who absolutely hates when they put your favorite books on the big screen?


( I'm sorry if this is not the right place, I looked and this seemed most fitting.)

Yes my dear it is a trend now a days I think. May be due to lack of good stories the movie makers are turning to good books and trying to convert them into a movie. Obviously it depends upon the group of the movie makers as to how successful it will be to convert a good book into a good movie. Obvious if the group lacks in any field like screen play , music, direction, editing etc. Then I think it will be messed up. And the whole flavour of the book will be destroyed. 

[sheepdog 10]

I guess it depends on the book, and the movie, and who makes the movie. In general, when you read the book, there are so many more details than what they put in the movie, the movie leaves you feeling like something is missing. Books spend more time with sub plot details, Movies tend to stick to the action parts, so seeing many movies can be a dissapointment. There is less development of charectors in the movies, where as in books, they usually give you a great deal more information about the players in the story. Generally, I find movies are a bit of a dissapointment. There are however, exceptions. The Lord of the Rings series was fantastic as a movie. The special effects and graffics were out of this world. The books were actually not as exciting as seeing it played out in pictures.

[Zeyomie 0]

I find that a lot of movies from books are actually pretty lousy, but on the flip side, more often then not If I see a movie that was made from a book I have not read, and the movie was at least decent, I am encouraged to read the book. Eragon for example. I haven't read the book yet, but I really want to. I didn't even know there was a book until I saw the movie. There are a lot of books I would love to read as a result of watching the movie. I can see the other side of it though. No movie would ever been as good as a book because there is so much you can put into a book that you just can't fit into a 2 or even 3 hour movie. So much will always be lost and that takes away from it every time. It's sad really.

[gummybear 0]

No, it doesn't irritate me, considering the adaptation is true to the spirit of the story. A lot of people get hung over the details... like, "In such and such movie, they completely omitted such and such characters or lopped them together and they completely ruined it!" ... I do understand when the movie writers condense plot elements like this because they have such a short timeframe of when the entire book is supposed to take place ( 2-3 hours on average ) so that part is forgiven.. I just saw the Les Miserables movie adaptation today, and to tell you the truth, no i havent read the book ( its supposedly 1,100 pages long, lol. So i think that even if i do start it'll take me quite a while to finish it. ) but I thought the main elements of the plot were rendered beautifully.. causes you to really feel for the protagonist and his circumstances.. I can't think of any movie adaptations I didn't like off the top of my head, but I'm sure there have been a few. For the most part though as long as they've done a good job I don't mind most of them.Oh... one movie adaptation that a lot of people probably didnt like was Charlie & The chocolate factory ( the most recent one with johnny depp. )I actually liked this adaptation because i'm a huge fan of Tim Burton's work ( he can do no wrong in my eyes! lol i kid, but to be honest, there isn't one film of his i haven't liked. ) and he has a really unique style of rendering things... in a way that you've never expected. It's absolutely magical when a film captures the spirit of a book