|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 13, 2015 10:04:45 GMT
I note this section is new, so rather than polute a thread dedicated to one book, can I open this thread here, for general discussion between past books that have been made films, and past films that have had a book.
I would like to start with a simple question...
Which first?.
Have you ever watched a film and thought "I want to read the book"
Have you ever read a book and thought You WANT that to be a film, then heard it will be, and waited in anticipation to go and see it?..
And have you been disappointed?...
Has a book that has been made into a film that you enjoyed and read the book after, made you change your mind on the film?..
For me, I would prefer to watch the film after the book.
That is what usually happens with a good book I have read that has been made into a film, so I cant say I know "The other way", as I have yet to go watch a film and then tried to read the book afterwards anyway, so this is partially why I am asking that question.
Some books I have read have been made into film, and have not fared well.
Some have been absolutely "Light fantastic", and all the Terry Pratchet based films have entertained me well enough that the minor divergence from book to film are excused, because maybe the books description was not possible to be done in film.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I made a point of RE-Reading the books before I watched the film, as by then I had already been told they follow the books quite accurately, and wanted to see how true that was.
Again, I found the film scrip as near as possible spot on with the books....
I had no complaints, and the film(s) were hugely entertaining and worth the watch.
ONE occasion, I tried to read the books that spawned the Harry Potter films...
I was disappointed. Maybe its just the writers style of writing, maybe its because I had seen the films, but I found the book hard to follow... was that because I already knew what would happen next?.. had the film spoilt it for me?..
So here is a thread I think will be most useful for Book reviews that have spawned films...
And for any book that you would make into a film that hasnt already been done.
I can start on that.
The Long Earth series by Terry Pratchet and Stephen Baxter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 13, 2015 22:08:21 GMT
Usually the book comes first, the film second. Although it is far from unusual for a book of a film to be released around the same time as the film.
Ironically the books that differ most from the film tend, in my (limited) experience to be adaptations of the film script. This is usually because the writer is working off an earlier draft of the script, and things get changed during production and filming. (More than a few famous scenes were improvised on set)
Comparing a book and a film is usually difficult, since they are different media and what works in one doesn't automatically work in the other - even if you have the budget to film anything contained in the book. In the case of moving from book to film there are a lot of aspects that have to be changed or which can't be included without messing things up.
The biggest problem is usually time. No one is really bothered about having to spend long periods reading a book, as long as its decently written, but with films you have only two hours or so to tell a story. (Theater chains don't like films much longer than two hours as this limits the number of screenings they can have per day, and hence how much money they can take per day). This means that a lot of stuff ends up having to be cut out, although this is usually things not related to the main story.
My advice is not to try and judge a film by how closely it is to the book. In fact it is usually best to assume that the film is not going to be anything like the book at all. Instead try to judge a film by the most basic criteria; was it entertaining?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 13, 2015 23:24:53 GMT
I find the major difference between some books and films is often in books we see the story from the point of view of certain character and know what his internal monologue is. Or if we are in a third person point of view the Author still tells us things about a characters motivations and feelings that we cannot know from the action of the story.
I agree with Cybermortis about the time factor as well, take the film Dune, at the end Paul fights Feyd Rautha who does not really seem much of a threat, Paul is after all at this point basically a new Messiah capable of superhuman things. In the book it is clear that Feyd is a near duplicate in power to Paul,due to the secret Bene Gesserit breeding program, they are intact cousins, and the battle go in fact easily go either way. The film does not have the time to go too far into this.
I do think Good Omens by Terry Prachett and Neil Gaiman would make a great comedy film along the lines of Shaun of the Dead though, or possibly Dragonflight by Anne McCaffery would make a good film, it is short enough to not lose any of the story.
Take A Game of Thrones, the format of a mini series suits them better, there is enough time to tell most of the story, even if the series is now diverging from the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 14, 2015 0:05:40 GMT
Game of Thrones isn't diverging from the books, rather it has reached the point where its story has caught up to and is now moving past what has been written. However given that George Martin is closely involved in the series, and that producers are not idiots, it is highly likely that they know all of the major plot points and how he intends to end the series*.
Although not a film, GoT is a good example as to one of the reasons changes may be made when adapting a book to film. The books are, well, a rather confusing mess of largely unrelated stories and throw away characters that if used as written would result in a slow paced confusing mess. Or more than it is anyway.
The answer to this was to cut characters out and, where needed, pass their actions/plots onto other characters and of course totally ignore those plots that don't relate to the main story**.
Films have to do much the same thing...if usually not on the same scale.
(*Based on the rest of the series to date this will probably involve killing everyone who we've got to know, and handing the Iron Throne over to a character who appeared in three chapters five books ago. Or whom we thought was dead four books ago.)
(**Assuming, of course, that he ever gets around to actually finishing it. It is also quite possible that we might end up with two different endings for the series, one for the TV series - if it remains popular enough to reach the end of its run - and one for the books. Not that I actually care as while I'm willing to sing the series praises in many ways, and agree it is worthy of all the awards its been given, I can't stand the series.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 14, 2015 0:07:21 GMT
Ironically the books that differ most from the film tend, in my (limited) experience to be adaptations of the film script. This is usually because the writer is working off an earlier draft of the script, and things get changed during production and filming. (More than a few famous scenes were improvised on set) A good example of this is the 2007 Transformers live-action movie. The original script called for the character Jorge Figueroa (NSFW due to cursing) to die from his injuries, and the scene was even filmed. However, the decision was made to excise the death sequence, meaning that he survived (albeit off-screen, as the actor never returned for any of the sequels). Thing is, the decision was made so late in the game that both the official novel and the junior novelization remained unaltered; both books have him as being killed. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 1:21:53 GMT
I have read books that movies were made from and book that movies were based on and books that Disney movies were based on. I've also read novelizations from popular movies.
the one overall conclusion I have is that it very much depends on the abilities of the author and the screenwriter.
I have read the book that Disney based the movie The Rescuers on. the only similarity between the two is the names of the two mice.
the greatest job done of adapting from book to movie and the most disappointing job of adapting book to movie, are surprisingly the same director and author. LOTR was phenomenal. the Hobbit was a terrible disappointment. - to the extreme that I dubbed it "Dwarf Wars; the dragon menace, attack of the bloat, and revenge of the 5 armies."
I agree that the scope of the book needs to be carefully matched to the video media. I rented the Sword of Truth miniseries and while it was paced pretty slowly, it also kept me engaged through the entire show. Harry Potter survived the transition from 7 books to 8 movies. some of the follow up shows that have tried to follow the same format have been questionable whether they had enough material to carry it.
I would kind of like to see McCaffrey go the miniseries route, myself. I think a good producer could successfully go the miniseries route with several of the book series I like.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 14, 2015 8:51:59 GMT
Game of Thrones isn't diverging from the books, rather it has reached the point where its story has caught up to and is now moving past what has been written. However given that George Martin is closely involved in the series, and that producers are not idiots, it is highly likely that they know all of the major plot points and how he intends to end the series*. Although not a film, GoT is a good example as to one of the reasons changes may be made when adapting a book to film. The books are, well, a rather confusing mess of largely unrelated stories and throw away characters that if used as written would result in a slow paced confusing mess. Or more than it is anyway. The answer to this was to cut characters out and, where needed, pass their actions/plots onto other characters and of course totally ignore those plots that don't relate to the main story**. Films have to do much the same thing...if usually not on the same scale. (*Based on the rest of the series to date this will probably involve killing everyone who we've got to know, and handing the Iron Throne over to a character who appeared in three chapters five books ago. Or whom we thought was dead four books ago.) (**Assuming, of course, that he ever gets around to actually finishing it. It is also quite possible that we might end up with two different endings for the series, one for the TV series - if it remains popular enough to reach the end of its run - and one for the books. Not that I actually care as while I'm willing to sing the series praises in many ways, and agree it is worthy of all the awards its been given, I can't stand the series.) There are already major differences between the books and tv series even before they have caught up,and past the books. SPOiLERS..............do not read any further. The Lady Stoneheart plot has not been used, so the consequence of that have not occurred. Tully should by now be going southwards with Mance Rayders baby heir hidden as the girls child, I forget her name. The old knight, Imforget his name with Dany did not die this early, Imknow the actor playing him thought he had at least one more series to play him. I could go,on but there are plenty of sights on the net that will,least all the points of divergence. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 14, 2015 9:05:41 GMT
I have yet to see that set.
I am pre-warned that taking the story the Hobbit and stretching it into three films was not a good idea...
And in truth, I agree.
The book The Hobbit is ONE book.... how can three films be made of that?.. there just isnt enough material in the book,.
I have been waiting for all three to be "reasonable price" on DVD before I watch them.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 9:12:10 GMT
I have yet to see that set. I am pre-warned that taking the story the Hobbit and stretching it into three films was not a good idea... And in truth, I agree. The book The Hobbit is ONE book.... how can three films be made of that?.. there just isnt enough material in the book,. I have been waiting for all three to be "reasonable price" on DVD before I watch them. one book less than half as thick as any of the books the LOTR movies were made from. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 14, 2015 9:44:18 GMT
I have yet to see that set. I am pre-warned that taking the story the Hobbit and stretching it into three films was not a good idea... And in truth, I agree. The book The Hobbit is ONE book.... how can three films be made of that?.. there just isnt enough material in the book,. I have been waiting for all three to be "reasonable price" on DVD before I watch them. one book less than half as thick as any of the books the LOTR movies were made from. Yes, so how the hell did they manage to stretch THREE films out of that..... |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 14, 2015 14:01:00 GMT
one book less than half as thick as any of the books the LOTR movies were made from. Yes, so how the hell did they manage to stretch THREE films out of that..... They added stuff from the various appendices of the Lord of The Rings, the Simarillion etc., but still they added a massive amount of padding. One major thing was to introduce Evangaline Lilly's character, as JRR Tolkien was light on female characters and the film makers wanted some female interest. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 14, 2015 14:13:29 GMT
I would kind of like to see McCaffrey go the miniseries route, myself. I think a good producer could successfully go the miniseries route with several of the book series I like. Dragonflight itself is no thicker than the Hobbit, is just enough plot for one one Movie but not much more? Some of the later books like Dragonquest and The White Dragon are larger,, but others like Menollys story in Dragonsong and DragonSinger are shorter books. But I guess with the way some of the stories begin to intertwine a miniseries could be done joining those events all together or perhaps a series of films. I am sure that someone has written a timeline already. Just a thought would you start with the colonisation of Pern, to explain who the bioengineered dragons came about in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 14:57:38 GMT
I would kind of like to see McCaffrey go the miniseries route, myself. I think a good producer could successfully go the miniseries route with several of the book series I like. Dragonflight itself is no thicker than the Hobbit, is just enough plot for one one Movie but not much more? Some of the later books like Dragonquest and The White Dragon are larger,, but others like Menollys story in Dragonsong and DragonSinger are shorter books. But I guess with the way some of the stories begin to intertwine a miniseries could be done joining those events all together or perhaps a series of films. I am sure that someone has written a timeline already. Just a thought would you start with the colonisation of Pern, to explain who the bioengineered dragons came about in the first place? I am a big fan of "order written" production. I'm sure at least her earlier works have been nicely catalogued on a timeline. I think I would be inclined to start the timeline with dragonflight and go to the elimination of the threat, including the masterharper story arc; but leave the prequel stuff either for later, or for specials. I suppose the prologue is important, but most of the story is based on the premise of THEM not knowing all the details, and It kind of weakens the discovery if the audience knows. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 15:01:40 GMT
Yes, so how the hell did they manage to stretch THREE films out of that..... They added stuff from the various appendices of the Lord of The Rings, the Simarillion etc., but still they added a massive amount of padding. One major thing was to introduce Evangaline Lilly's character, as JRR Tolkien was light on female characters and the film makers wanted some female interest. plus they added various bits of padding to tie it into LOTR is ways that tolkien hadn't, really. and they got all overdramatic on the mythos of the black arrow. and Bilbo's interaction with Smaug. and of course, 75% of the third movie is based on three paragraphs of the book. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 14, 2015 21:33:48 GMT
I just finished Good Omens a bit over a week or so ago. Very funny book. However, i don't know how well it would translate to a screenplay. A lot of the best parts of it were the commentary bits about demons and Angles interactions on earth verses what humans did on their own and attributed to the supernatural. That sort of stuff is very difficult to put on screen. Same thing with The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy movie. That dry wit is very hard to translate.
One thing I watched that made me want to read the book was the BBC version of Sherlock. THat got me interested in reading the original novels by Arthur Conan Doyle. I have been slowly working though the complete works for about a year and ahalf now. I'll get it eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2015 23:41:00 GMT
I just finished Good Omens a bit over a week or so ago. Very funny book. However, i don't know how well it would translate to a screenplay. A lot of the best parts of it were the commentary bits about demons and Angles interactions on earth verses what humans did on their own and attributed to the supernatural. That sort of stuff is very difficult to put on screen. Same thing with The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy movie. That dry wit is very hard to translate. One thing I watched that made me want to read the book was the BBC version of Sherlock. THat got me interested in reading the original novels by Arthur Conan Doyle. I have been slowly working though the complete works for about a year and ahalf now. I'll get it eventually. I've been known to comment that the devil gets credit for a lot of stuff people do all by themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 15, 2015 1:20:40 GMT
One of my favorite bits of Good Omens was a bit there the demon in the book was commenting on his greatest evil was creation the M25 motorway in England.
|
|
