OnlineBookClub.org

Hi! I noticed that when books are made into movies, the movie producers might change the story to make the movie more interesting. While small changes might be fine, what are your thoughts on drastic changes? Would it be better to stick with the book's story, which is what the author imagined, or to change it to attract a bigger audience? What are some examples of good and bad movie adaptations, and what are some examples of some aspects that were lost when a book was made into a movie?

For me it really depends. I understand why changes need to be made sometimes as the big screen is much different than reading a book. I think it also depends on how involved the author is in the process. For instance, even Harry Potter had some changes made but J.K. Rowling played a big role in deciding what changes were made. This made the changes feel more authentic to me, because I knew that she okay'ed the changes.

yea, it actually depends. Sometimes changes are fine and understandable as long as they don't mess up the plot. And if a change is quite huge and significant, like, creating a romantic angle that was never there in the book or changing the climax of the story then it better be good than the original. Because it's really frustrating if they make these changes and it doesn't work out in favour of the story.

Sometimes I think that they make these changes to make the plot suitable for those that haven't read the book. And when I see it like that, I can at least understand the changes, but normally I am always screaming at the screen "It doesn't go like that in the book!"

I'm a professional screenwriter, and I think it depends on the book... Some books just can't be filmed without critical changes, and some written just like the movie goes... For example, I was writing an adaptation of the "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Kiz (love it!!!!!), and in the last draft of the script only few moments were taken from the book untouched. It is a really hard work for a screenwriter to transform text into the vision, so I really appreciate reading adapted scripts and compare them to the original book!

I recently read the whole Ransom Riggs series 'Miss Peregrine's Peculiar Children' the watched the move. The movie was good but the changes to the main characters were disappointing. I hate that Emma's peculiarity was changed from that of the book.

When books are made into movies, it is always a good idea to include the author in the decision making process of writing the screenplay. Harry potter movies were good for a reason.

Percy Jackson movies on the other hand, were terrible and have very little in common with the books.

I think many times changes are made simply to make the story come across properly in the limited time frame provided by one movie. They're necessary evils, but often contribute to the reason that the book is vastly more interesting than the movie adaptation.

I think many times changes are made simply to make the story come across properly in the limited time frame provided by one movie. They're necessary evils, but often contribute to the reason that the book is vastly more interesting than the movie adaptation.

It really depends but I think the approach is constantly changing. There is a book (can't mention name) that was made into a movie and the producer pretty much left everything about the book intact. Some say it was a masterpiece while others didn't take kindly to it; this was way back when.

Back in the early 2000s, I read a book/story by Clive Barker called 'The Midnight Meat Train' and was hesitant to watch the movie. After hearing that he had a hand in the movie I gave it a go. There were differences but the core elements were still in place.

Another good example would be the Great Gatsby novel and its 1974 movie counterpart along with the Tale of Two Cities and its 1935 counterpart. I can't recall any bad examples but there was a discussion of sorts with another reading challenge participant where we talked about Lincoln and Child's Relic book being completely different from the movie; which is understandable. That said, a movie adaptation of a book usually turns bad when fluff and unnecessary elements are added for the sake of being added.

People always get extremely upset when their favorite part of a book is changed on screen. I have come to believe that they're almost two separate things. Even if the author writes the screenplay, there's no guarantee the author's ultimate vision will get to the screen. One recent example I could cite is the recent television series The Haunting of Hill House. I adored the Shirley Jackson original book as well as the first movie adaptation. The television series has very little in common with the book but I also adored the series. They managed to pay homage to the Jackson story through its use of names and some tidbits throughout the series but the story was its own and brilliant on its own. So instead of getting mad at adaptations that don't work I just think of the movie or television series as something entirely apart from the book. I don't dislike a movie because they didn't fit in my favorite parts from the book, but I try to judge it on its own merit. And sometimes it doesn't work, but it's not because they changed details from the book but because it's just a poor job.

paigegreenpurba wrote: ↑03 Apr 2019, 20:40 I think many times changes are made simply to make the story come across properly in the limited time frame provided by one movie. They're necessary evils, but often contribute to the reason that the book is vastly more interesting than the movie adaptation.

I agree. Like, look at the adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. There were several changes made to the book's content for the film, with the biggest being the omission of Tom Bombadil, which turned out for the best. A lot of his beats came across more strongly with characters like Gandalf and Galadriel, and his section of the novel would have taken away from the cohesiveness of the film.

Moreover, I also think that sometimes changes need to be made to accommodate the actors involved. One of the most famous examples of these in recent history is the film/book Holes, which the author approved of, I believe. in the original book, the main character loses a drastic amount of weight during his time at the camp, but they couldn't put a child actor through that for ethical and practical reasons. As such, to preserve his health and safety, they went with LaBoeuf's original weight.

Nisha Ward wrote: ↑09 Apr 2019, 12:19

paigegreenpurba wrote: ↑03 Apr 2019, 20:40 I think many times changes are made simply to make the story come across properly in the limited time frame provided by one movie. They're necessary evils, but often contribute to the reason that the book is vastly more interesting than the movie adaptation.

I agree. Like, look at the adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. There were several changes made to the book's content for the film, with the biggest being the omission of Tom Bombadil, which turned out for the best. A lot of his beats came across more strongly with characters like Gandalf and Galadriel, and his section of the novel would have taken away from the cohesiveness of the film.

Moreover, I also think that sometimes changes need to be made to accommodate the actors involved. One of the most famous examples of these in recent history is the film/book Holes, which the author approved of, I believe. in the original book, the main character loses a drastic amount of weight during his time at the camp, but they couldn't put a child actor through that for ethical and practical reasons. As such, to preserve his health and safety, they went with LaBoeuf's original weight.

That's a good point that I hadn't thought of before. There's only so much an actor can do safely to accommodate certain roles!

It depends on the novel. For The Silence of the Lambs, there were little side plots cut away and other scenes that had be removed. They did nothing for the larger story, but added extra character detail in the novel.

I can understand larger novels needing more cutting down to fit into a film's time restraint. It's unfortunate, but has to be done. I've liked the new trend of mini-series turned out of books. It lets the story breath more without feeling too rigid.

Harry Potter and The Game of Thrones are good examples of that. Harry wasn't nearly as sarcastic in the movies and the plot changed from the book in Game of Thrones a few times too.