Do you think people who make books into films do justice to the book?

[ZCReviews]

Almost none do, but there are a few that I believe do an excellent job of telling a successful story, even if it isn't as good as the book. Like The Martian, that was a good movie even if it didn't cover everything in the book completely.

[Emily Witcher]

I think book lovers forget that a lot of books are mediocre at best. We preach to the rooftops that people should read the books the films were adapted from but we dismiss that it wasn't that compelling of a story in the first place. I can name many young adult fiction series or standalone books that were incredibly cliché and full of bad archetype tropes that I read as a guilty pleasure. Upon finding out they had film adaptations, I'd partake in it only to be reminded that the original story also made no sense.

We will say things like, " The book is better because it captures your imagination on the world the author built, " but you forget that the author's never introduced the world, they introduced a scene immediately with dialogue. The author relies on you to build that world instead of doing the world buildup themselves. Whereas a script writer works with the author or foundation of book to create a world for the adaptation. Unless we are introduced within the first few pages of landscapes, atmosphere, time setting, etc., the script writers and directors have to create something to captivate the audience.

How often have you read a book that entirely in first person? While you were reading it, did you find yourself having to create who the character was based off their dialogue and interactions with others in the story? I would often re-read paragraphs to make sure that I had not missed crucial details of the character outline, only to find that it was not something I overlooked, it was simply just not there. The adaptation of this book comes out and I hear from countless others, " the actor selected for this role looks nothing like the main protagonist from the series, " people blame the director for changing the story, but they did not change it, its just not the way you envisioned the character in your mind.

[Sandra Smith 18]

I always prefer a book to its movie counterpart. Movies can often be subject to their creator's interpretation of the elements in a book. The images formed in my mind when reading a book are often somewhat different from the images appearing on the "big screen." So many times, it's not a matter of doing the book justice, it's just different than what I expect.

[human reader]

I still need to see The Martian.

Last night I tried The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad. Mainly I was watching it for the Mr. Toad part. Mr. Toad is from The Wind in the Willows. Disney's adaptation was like if you took a story that had some comedy, removed everything but the comedy, and threw it out there. Between that and some changes, it somehow felt like the book and not the book at all. A lot of the characters seem practically irrelevant. If Kenneth Grahame had been alive, I think he would have been confused at what they had done. Anyways, the Cosgrove Hall 1983 version is meant to be much better. I'll probably watch that sometime.

[Angus Zonny]

I feel that some of them do justice to the book, but the others do not. The ones who do not end up having bad movies.

[Kristin Cowan]

It really depends but I always have higher hopes when the author is part of production.

[chizorom favour]

Honestly, I do not think justice is done to books that are turned into movies. For example, the movie "after" was made without a lot of details in the book. Most of the little things that matter are been removed or neglected

[NicoleFaith24]

I agree, unfortunately films often leave out little details that make the book good in the first place. Other times they leave out side plots that may not be important to the main story line but help make it more interesting.

[D_Tan]

Hi I’m new here! Some movies do (for me anyways) and some don’t. Have you guys read and watch The Perks Of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky? This is one of my favorite books of all time. It was well written, have a very good plot, the character development is so awesome. Like it makes you feel that you are the “friend” Charlie sending letters to. The drama and the suspense of the mystery on what happened to Charlie before the book started. And the movie captures that.

Or is it disqualified because the author is also the movie director

[Hanshaw]

Most movies do not do the book justice. However, the one exception I can think of is To Kill a Mockingbird. That was a brilliant screen adaptation.

[Blueberry Dragon]

Almost none do, but there are a few that I believe do an excellent job of telling a successful story, even if it isn't as good as the book. Like The Martian, that was a good movie even if it didn't cover everything in the book completely.

I agree with you @Zanne Crystle in that movies rarely have the details that a book has. Plus, a book leaves so much to the reader's imagination, which isn't always possible with a movie. But I suppose there is no harm in expecting more from movie-makers.

[Arnold29]

Some do. Although I think part of the problem is, as advanced as technology is, nothing compares to the power of human imagination.

No matter how great of a vision the director has, there will always be a part of the original reader fanbase who imagined the visuals differently and won't be satisfied with the onscreen portrayal.

I mean, for example in the case of Stephen King's IT; it's infinitely easier to describe a monster as an "otherworldly horror beyond human comprehension" and let the reader's mind wonder, than it is for a director to put an actual image for that.

Stephen King isn't under the pressure of showing you the monster, he only has to describe it. The movie however has the added pressure of showing you the monster...and that will always be more disappointing than whatever your mind imagined.