Hate film adaptations. Am I alone?

[LolasLiger]

On a pretty regular basis I get into a conversation which leads to discussions about favourite music, movies, books etc. When it comes around to books I will admit to having Lord of the Rings in my Top Ten favourites. I, invariably, get asked/told about the amazingness of Jackson's Trilogy, to which I reply that I haven't seen them, nor do I ever intend to. It is at this point that I get some responses from silence to being called a freak (but usually its in the middle, with people asking why but then not understanding my reasons).

The bottom line is that I loathe most film adaptations of books. By that, I mean books that I have read and loved. To me there is a direct relationship between the author and the reader, and it is a very personal one. The author has put down his/her thoughts and it is up to each individual to visualise and interpret, what the author intended to convey. As the postmodernists would say, the reader owns the text.

That relationship is broken when it is adapted for the big screen. An interloper has come in and attempted to foist their vision of the text on me.

Going back to the example above, I have read LoTR too many times to remember, and with each reading I am able to visualise a little more. I have the appearances, accents, geography, all mapped out in my head. But even a few trailers that I was unable to avoid managed to creep and spoil by own images. I am sure Mr Jackson did a good job, cinematographically, but he doesn't know me and what I saw in the words.

I have tried watching some other movie adaptations of my favourite books, but they just reinforced my antipathy to the idea. A couple of other examples of major fails are Birdsong and Captain Corelli's Mandolin. But the list is much longer; long enough for me to avoid them like the plague now.

I know many movies are based on books, and I am not a movie hater. The antipathy tends to work in one direction though....if I've read the book first, then I am not watching the movie.

Am I alone in this intransigence?

 

[Diana Blake]

I don't fully hate adaptations but in many cases I disagree with them. Things I feel important, characters I saw in my head, costumes and customs...they just never seem to fit with what film makers produce. However, the only time I really care is when it's a book or series I love. I was actually ranting about it a bit tonight in my room but when the announcement came that they were making a TV series out of the Sword of Truth I was so excited! Then the reality of the show sent me into a fuming rage. It's nothing like the series, the only things they got right were names and even then...gah.

I'll say that the LotR movies were good but there were things in the books that they left out that I would have loved to see. Beyond that, nothing can compare to the imagination. Cinema just can't catch the scope of what you see and feel when reading and it's never going to be quite the same.

 

[Evvie]

I do not hate film adaptations, but I cannot connect with them on any level if I've already read the source material.

For me, a big part of films is suspension of disbelief. Part of that is the "what's next?" aspect, not knowing where things will go or the ending (in some movies that's a moot point, as you can predict what's going to happen half an hour ahead, or if it's especially shitty, ten minutes in).

If I already know what's going to happen, if I've already experienced these emotions with the characters, and pretty much gone through the entire story - what does the movie have for me? I especially cannot focus or be engrossed in the story at all. It's like watching a Japanese commercial for a product I don't understand. I see the images and the stuff going on, but it doesn't register because all I'm doing is predicting the next moves I know will happen. It's like the movie doesn't leave an imprint on my mind.

It makes me sad that there are some movies I won't be able to enjoy - the Harry Potter movies, for example - but on the flip side, Twilight will never enter my mind on any significant level.

I definitely understand not watching a movie if you've read the book, and generally if it's a book I like, I avoid watching the movie.

I will definitely be there at midnight if they ever release the adaptation of Alanna the Lioness. She says she's holding out to have Jackson direct it.

 

[Evvie]

...although I did think this thread was about getting a movement started to adapt hate films

 

[Jupiter551]

I'm sure there are cases where films made a positive change to a book, but I can't think of any. I can however think of dozens if not hundreds of cases where crappy changes were made that impact the experience negatively, for the sake of saving time and money.

 

[AnaVictoriaXO]

I dont hate them but I dislike when they majorly change things. For example, Water For Elephants. I loved that book, although it was kind of dark. The movie kept some things but was drastically different in story line, characters etc. So in those cases, I dislike it.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I know EXACTLY what you're talking about! The images and "movie" you develop in your head and hold dear get's ruined.
I feel the same way about "Of Mice and Men" (Steinbeck) and "On The Road" (Kerouac) which are the two novels I have read the most and developed the most connection with.
I refuse to see the adaptation of On the Road and even go as far as refusing to visit Denver if I can avoid it. I'm in love with the images and faces and streets in my mind and in no way want to ruin them.

Now I have seen the adaptation of "Of Mice and Men" and it did succeed in destroying my images. Thankfully I really love John Malchovich so it made it bearable but still disappointing.

Film adaptations of books I never felt a passion for, like LOTR for me, really don't bother me.

 

[Nordling]

I try not to relate the two. They are two separate experiences, books are more at a gut level...with tons of detail and development of characters.

A movie with it's time constraints, and the medium itself requires a different sort of art be created.

If possible, see the movie first.

 

[LolasLiger]

If possible, see the movie first.

I agree.

I have gone to the source material after watching a movie, just because the movie brought my attention to an unknown book/writer. For example, I happened to catch The English Patient on TV many years ago, and then bought the book. But I still found the book much better.

Even *disposable* movies tend to have better books behind them. I used to love the Eagle Has Landed (I love cheesy war movies), until i picked up a battered copy of the book in a junk shop. OMG, the book has so many subplots that were missed out in the film.

 

[Nordling]

If possible, see the movie first.

I agree.

I have gone to the source material after watching a movie, just because the movie brought my attention to an unknown book/writer. For example, I happened to catch The English Patient on TV many years ago, and then bought the book. But I still found the book much better.

Even *disposable* movies tend to have better books behind them. I used to love the Eagle Has Landed (I love cheesy war movies), until i picked up a battered copy of the book in a junk shop. OMG, the book has so many subplots that were missed out in the film.

Ever see the movie "Fantastic Voyage?" After the movie was released, from an original script, Asimov wrote a novel based on the movie. lol Kind of a reverse adaptation. And yeah, the book was "better."

 

[LolasLiger]

Ever see the movie "Fantastic Voyage?" After the movie was released, from an original script, Asimov wrote a novel based on the movie. lol Kind of a reverse adaptation. And yeah, the book was "better."

Is that the one where the shrink a submarine etc? I saw it when I was kid. Haven't read the book. I respect Asimov so I imagine he did a decent job. However, I generally stay clear of books that state "based on the movie". Most have been pretty poor, not only in their own right but also fail to do justice to the movie itself.

 

[Nordling]

Ever see the movie "Fantastic Voyage?" After the movie was released, from an original script, Asimov wrote a novel based on the movie. lol Kind of a reverse adaptation. And yeah, the book was "better."

Is that the one where the shrink a submarine etc? I saw it when I was kid. Haven't read the book. I respect Asimov so I imagine he did a decent job. However, I generally stay clear of books that state "based on the movie". Most have been pretty poor, not only in their own right but also fail to do justice to the movie itself.

Yeah, because they're usually written by hacks. Asimov did a full job on the novel, including an explanation (in SF terms) for how the miniaturization was possible.

 

[LolasLiger]

Now I want to start another thread on favourite sci-fi writers, and genres (I prefer hard sci-fi)...better check if there is an existing one first.

 

[Rose]

I completely understand where you're coming from. I've memorized most of the Alice books by heart and absolutely love the story. Unfortunately, there are a billion different Alice movies out there. The only way I can watch film adaptations of books is if I tell myself that it's just "based on the book" and is actually a totally different story.

With Tim Burton's recent version of Alice, he completely rewrote the Alice story. For me, this was fine because it wasn't the same at all. I have to separate the books and the movies so that I can enjoy them independently or the movies are just ruined. If I can enjoy the movie as a stand alone story and pretend that I've never read the book then it's fun for me. I read like crazy though and with all the movie adaptations, I end up lying to myself a lot. :lol:

 

[Nordling]

One movie that I consider an exception was "Lolita." Of course it helped that the author of the novel also wrote the screenplay. By today's standards, the story is kind of immoral, and probably the movie couldn't be made today, but if you take it for the pure writing and acting, it was a real accomplishment.

 

[LolasLiger]

Both of the movie versions of the movie (1962 & 1997 remake) have their faults. The original had a lot more to contend with, the censorship laws of the time. Obviously none of the sexual elements of the book could be shown directly on screen. But what is interesting about the film is that, though Nabokov wrote the screen-play of his own book, he failed to transmit many of the things that could have passed the censors even then. The book does have some funny bits in it, some a bit surreal, others just silly. It added to the depth of the story that he failed to include in the movie. But I suppose Kubrik had a part to play in that too. He maybe considered a great film maker, technically, but his films have never had a warmth. They've always felt sterile to me.

The 1997 remake is closer to the book but still misses out key themes. Still, Jeremy Irons manages to play the weak tortured protagonist better than James Mason did. Mason was just too, well, Masonesque :lol:

 

[Red7227]

Film adaptations of books I never felt a passion for, like LOTR for me, really don't bother me.

For the most part I agree that books are far superior to movies, with 2 exceptions. Dexter and LOTR.

Dexter has gone so far beyond the rather dark and introverted place the books were in, to a much broader and more engaging story, as it has progressed though its series.

The LOTR books I have read a few times and despise for the most part. The movies do a far better job of portraying the story than the books ever could. His imagination is not in doubt, but Tolkien's storytelling ability leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[AllisonWilder]

I don't hate them, but they certainly have never lived up to my expectations. I have such a clear picture in my head of how a character should look, act, sound, etc., but movies never portray it correctly.

Bastard Out of Carolina by Dorothy Allison and White Oleander by Janet Fitch are my favorite books and immediately spring to mind as being ruined by the movies. Even the original, unique covers that initially drew me in were changed to character covers after the movie and that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[schlmoe]

Nope, I don't hate them. For me, the book is almost always better (duh!). Seeing the movie doesn't change the fact it was a good book which I enjoyed. In general, film adaptions encourage me to read more. If I see a movie without having read the book, I'm likely to seek out the original story. If I see the movie after reading the book, the movie (whether good or bad) will make me want to read the book again...and I'll enjoy the book even more the second time.

It's pretty obvious, but most adaptions can't measure up because of time constraints. Pretty tough to condense 500 pages into 2 hours. Case in point: I have not yet watched "Pillars of the Earth". The book was over 800 pages, and even though it's an 8 hour mini-series, I know there will be stuff left out. I'll watch it eventually, but it's not on my "to do" list.

 

[LadyLuna]

hate is such a strong word. In some cases, I "intensely dislike" them. In others, there's this mild distaste.

One thing I absolutely despised though... After the LOTR movies came out, I was going through the bookstores. Some author apparently didn't get the memo about the movie being based on the book, because they wrote books based on the movies. I was like "WTF is this!?!" Oh was I livid about that!

Now, it's a little different for me for the LOTR series. I hadn't read the books yet when the movies were being made. So I read all the books, then watched the first, then read all the books again, and watched the second, on and on. I liked the first. It was well done. Oh, I was upset about some bits being left out, but I understood. But the second, it started getting really weird, completely changing the choices some characters made. I watched the third just to finish the set, and was livid at the end. They cut the scouring, despite having done ALL of the foreshadowing moments of it. A MAJOR wtf moment there. Why bother foreshadowing something that you then don't even have happen? UGH! And it wasn't even a case of "we ran out of time for it", because it was planned from the beginning that it wouldn't happen.

In most cases, when I love a book and then see the movie, I don't really remember the movie very well. In fact, I can look at a book and tell you instantly if I've read it or not, (I need the phyiscal copy, and it has to be the same cover as the one I read, or else I'll have to actually read a bit of it...), but ask if I've seen a movie and I won't be able to answer you until you tell me what the story is about. whereas a book, I'll know I've read it, and will remember a couple basic points of the story, but won't remember details.

In the case of comics, though... I don't really read many comics. HAD to get V for Vendetta after watching the movie, and after reading it, the comic makes a hella lot more sense than the movie did.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I don't hate film adaptations, I just try to judge the movie on it's own merit though I will be the first to tell you I have failed. I loved A Clockwork Orange, though they left the last chapter completely out, I loved Watchmen especially with the change at the end they made, I never read Game of Thrones but the series so far is doing nothing but making me want to actually go back and read the book. These are just a few examples, but if a film adaptation makes people want to go out and read the books that inspired the film, then no I can't hate them.

 

[katie_christ]

despite the stunning art of Jackson's Trilogy, it first brought me to hate film adaptations when i was 11. i then left The Silmarillion collecting dust on my parents' bookshelf, scarred by another's interpretation of Tolkien's magic. i shun book-to-movies now, sometimes whether i've read the book or not. they never satisfy me if i have read the book, and i know that the film will ruin the book for me. dramatics.
on a side note, i read the title of this thread wrong and entered fully prepared to discuss curb-stompings, gang-rape, intentional disease spreading, and gas chambers.

 

[LolasLiger]

I must apologise for the missing subject pronoun, and its effect on readers' impressions of the thread. I've been spending too much time with txt spkng youf, and I keep forgetting my vowels.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

One of my favorite movies, that of being "Shawshank Redemption" was a film adaptation, along with many other earlier works by Stephen King too from "The shining" to "Stand by Me" there have been a lot of excellent movies that have come from books and I think it's a bit quick to judge by saying "That movie was a book? Then I hate it already.".

 

[bob]

i've seen enough movie adaptations to agree in principle....too often, the written details of subplot, character development, and context must be sacrificed to the time constraints of the new format....and movies tend towards linear, easy to manage storylines, as well.

i agree with SweepTheLeg tho....a lot of stephen king's work translates admirably to the screen....but then, he does like to keep some artistic control of his work.....the film version of hearts in atlantis was disappointing tho

having said all that....blade runner....the film version of a sf novel by phillip k. dick, remains one of my favorite films, capturing both the mood and complexity of the novel

lastly, as a bit of a sf nerd, i gotta mention the film version of dune....the story of its adaptation into a movie is worth a movie in itself :lol:

i was sorely disappointed the first time i saw it, for many of the reasons that evvie cites upthread.....but it does grow on you....once you accept just how much had to be condensed into the film's beginning to get an unfamiliar audience to "suspend disbelief", the film version does a pretty fair job of creating the universe that frank herbert created.....

 

[LadyLuna]

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an exception!

if you've ever read the intro to The Ultimate Guide, Douglas Adams goes into how each adaptation is completely out of order and in some places completely contradicts the previous adaptations.

The movie was slightly out of order and in some places completely contradicts the previous adaptations.

:mrgreen:

 

[LadyLuna]

I had a thought, which belongs best in this thread.

There is ONE instance where I approve of film adaptations. Those books with shitty characters are usually better as a movie, because good actors can bring what is a two-dimensional character to life, and make it three-dimensional with their acting.

Now, I hate the following example, but it's the only one I have. The movie Twilight was better than the book Twilight. Both sucked, but comparing the two to each other, the movie was better.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Wizard of Oz was a film adaptation wasn't it? And oh so awesome. Princess Bride.

 

[LadyLuna]

Wizard of Oz was a film adaptation wasn't it? And oh so awesome. Princess Bride.

I tend to forget about Princess Bride... probably because it's almost nothing like the book. Film is very much a comedy, book... not so much. At all.

I think you're right about Wizard of Oz, but I don't know. I've never even seen the book O.O

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I only know of them being books. Never read them. Reading is hard.