OnlineBookClub.org

Do films based on books really live up to expectations or just ruin it?
(For the Poll, vote on the majority - have you seen more that ruin it or more that live up to expectations?)

Its a mixed bag really, and depends very much on the viewer and how much they liked or disliked the book. I do think that in the wrong hands, a good book can be ruined on screen but when done well it can be excellent e.g. The Road, which i think is a fantastic adaptation. Also, Misery, Shawshank Redemption, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, 127 hours and others are also excellent adaptations.

StephenKingman wrote:Its a mixed bag really, and depends very much on the viewer and how much they liked or disliked the book. I do think that in the wrong hands, a good book can be ruined on screen but when done well it can be excellent e.g. The Road, which i think is a fantastic adaptation. Also, Misery, Shawshank Redemption, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, 127 hours and others are also excellent adaptations.

Right, you know 127 hours? I've heard that the book on it was called something different, what is the book called?

The book is called Between a Rock and a Hard Place (would almost be funny were it not for the subject matter!) and it details the account of what happened to the author when travelling alone in the canyons of Utah, must remember to put that on my TBR list.

Generally, I find the movies based on books worse, but there are always exception. So, I don't know what to vote...

There are exceptions but mostly I would say they destroy the book for me.
Apart from anything else they usually have to cut so much out of the book to to make it fit 'movie size'. I'm a great fan of strong female characters in books and usually (with the notable exception of Lisbeth Salander) few movies want strong female roles .. the Hollywood moviemakers especially seem to prefer victims.

That said, I have Shutter Island on my shelf to read next because I saw the movie (without even knowing it was based on a book!) & I thought the ending was very ambiguous and a work colleague said the book has a more satisfing ending ... we will see. I normally prefer to read the book first then I can give out about the extent to which 'they' destroyed it!

I have to agree with you Fran. The majority do not do the books justice, but there are definitely exceptions to this.

I agree with you guys..I didn't vote because some book to movie adaptations are horrible, some are okay and some are good. It's really not black and white so I can't give a definitive answer.

Majority of the movie has ruined what's on the book. Its like they can't give justification on what's written in the book. That's the reason why I don't watch the movies of the books that I've read because I usually get disappointed at the end.

Very hard poll to answer definitively. While there are many books that don't translate as well to visual media there are plenty that do. Take for instance Charlene Harris' True Blood series, the books are nothing more than cotton candy where as the series on Showtime gives the stories more weight and fluid. Same thing goes for Dexter, Band of Brothers, and Generation Kill. I do believe to do a book to movie and have it work well that book needs to be a series of films or shows.There are also things that just can't be conceptualized in a movie or television series, usually internal struggles of characters .


Over all I have no problems with books being developed i to movies. I always find it interesting to see who people cast as compared to my imagination of what a character looks like.

I like to watch movies based on novels but 99% of the time the book is better cause they try to cram everything in 90 minutes or leave too many things out

favourites include:
Bladerunner
Shutter Island

disappointments include:
Dune
Less Than Zero

not all movies ruined the stories

Thats true Davinci, if they made most movies word for word as the books the movie would be so long it wouldnt even be enjoyable. Lord of the Rings, for instance, if they put everything in it that was in the book for instance the Tom Bombidil part and all of the army of the dead part, and some other things, I would still be watching it. And that was one of the best film adaptations of all. I just finished reading Dracula and I couldnt help but think, in competent hands if they stuck to the story it would be a very long movie but if it was done right it would be a fantastic movie. None of the Dracula movies live up to the book. Even the Bela Lugosi version was done like a stage play altho the first part with the Borgo Pass and the castle scenes was very effective.

It depends honestly,

take The Warriors or The Outsiders. The books were fantastic and created it all. The Outsiders was an outstanding film, as well as the book. But I beg to differ towards some of the other books to films scenario...

It's hard to beat someone's imagination.
We read those black squiggles on the page and turn them into a story.
A director reads those black squiggles on the page and turns them into a movie.

You control your imagination but the movie director projects his imagination to control you.
Unless you share the same imagination, chances are the movie will fall short.