Books into Movies Genre Discussion

[kio]

For this month, I read One For the Money by Janet Evanovich

In this book, Stephanie Plum has been out of a job for six months. With her sparsely furnitured apartment and her car getting repossessed, she knows she has to make some changes and get a job fast. Desperate, she goes to her cousin Vinnie's bonds office. The filing job she thought he had open is filled, but she decided to give skip tracing a chance. Unfortunately, her first case is also someone she has a history with: Joe Morelli. Joe is a Trenton cop who is accused of killing an unarmed man. He doesn't show up for court and now, if Stephanie can bring him i, she can make $10,000. Too bad he's an expert at avoiding detection and she's just really bad at picking up her new profession. Will Stephanie succeed?

This book is really funny and has some great action scenes. These all seem to translate well on to film, which is probably why it was mad into one. Of course, its popularity doesn't hurt . The descriptions and the quirky characters make it a light, enjoyable read. Of course, seeing cars get blown up helps . I think what translates best on to the film is Stephanie and Joe's personalities and character dynamics. There wasn't too much changed in the movie, which was nice. Some of the foul language and sexual innuendos got left out for rating purposes on the movie, which was a little sad. Although I was glad to not have to watch

[Gravy]

I read three books for December, though one was only made into a Christmas special

The first was The True Meaning of Smekday, by Adam Rex, which I rated a four out of four.
The book is written for a slightly older crowd than the adaptation, Home. Also, while you expect things to be changed in the evolution from page to screen, you don't expect the core story to be changed. With this book it was. The major storyline, and the ending, were completely different.
While the book's main character if Gratuity "Tip" Tucci, the movie changed the focus to Oh. Yes, they even changed the name of the character, though I kind of understand why. Also, Pig is in the movie but plays absolutely no role aside from being cute comic relief.
This probably sounds like I'm bashing the movie, and in a way I am...I mean...how do you make thay decision to just completely rewrite the story? But, for all that, I actually enjoyed the movie. Jim Parsons is crazy. I think he may actually be a boov in a human suit
Perhaps this is becaus I enjoy kids movies, anyway, or maybe because I don't judge things as harshly as others, but I think both the book and movie are worth spending time with, though I will say that I would recommend the book over the movie, but isn't that almost always the truth?
Also, I "thought" in boov the entire time I was reading this book, and for a bit after. I actually had to filter myself because my brain wanted to speak boov-english

The second was The Life and Adventures of Santa Clause by L. Frank Baum, which I rated a three out of four.
This is the story of how Santa came to be, and how he gained his immortality. A boy child is taken into the forest of Burzee and given to Necile, one of the immortal beings who live there. She loves and raises him, but he grows up (as children do), and he leaves the forest to be among the mortals, his people. All of his cares are seen to: a house is built for him, his cupboards are full, he never wants for a fire, so he begins making toys for the children.

First he makes toys for the children in the local village, then farther, and farther still.
It cleverly explains the traditions of hanging stockings, and Christmas trees, and even why children may see mom or dad putting out presents on Christmas eve night.
The special that came from this story is one of my very favorites, which is why I finally read the book, and though details must always be left out, the special got the basic story done very well. My only complaint is that (from memory, I haven't seen the special in a couple years) I don't think the very end was included. This does not horribly change anything, it still ends in an acceptable place, though I feel as though the end was the inspiration behind the whole book.
I still recommend both, and I can't be sure I'm right about the end of the special...it wouldn't have been what stuck with me, so it may well be there.

The third was The Secret Garden, by Frances Hodgson Burnett, which I rated a four out of four.
This has always been a favorite movie, and I've meant to read it forever. I love the book just as much. The only real notable difference (though I've not seen the movie in awhile) is the difference between Mrs. Medlock: book vs. movie.
The movie version is far more...mean. I actually quite liked the book version
There were other little differences. Susan Sowerby wasn't really in the movie, things like that, but I still think it was one of the more well done adaptations, and (of course) I recommend both.


A note should be made that I saw all of these adaptations prior to reading the books. I always judge an adaptation more harshly when I read the book first, which is why I try to see the movies first. This would be a much different post had I read, and then watched.

[gali]

I read three books for December, though one was only made into a Christmas special

The first was The True Meaning of Smekday, by Adam Rex, which I rated a four out of four.
The book is written for a slightly older crowd than the adaptation, Home. Also, while you expect things to be changed in the evolution from page to screen, you don't expect the core story to be changed. With this book it was. The major storyline, and the ending, were completely different.
While the book's main character if Gratuity "Tip" Tucci, the movie changed the focus to Oh. Yes, they even changed the name of the character, though I kind of understand why. Also, Pig is in the movie but plays absolutely no role aside from being cute comic relief.
This probably sounds like I'm bashing the movie, and in a way I am...I mean...how do you make thay decision to just completely rewrite the story? But, for all that, I actually enjoyed the movie. Jim Parsons is crazy. I think he may actually be a boov in a human suit
Perhaps this is becaus I enjoy kids movies, anyway, or maybe because I don't judge things as harshly as others, but I think both the book and movie are worth spending time with, though I will say that I would recommend the book over the movie, but isn't that almost always the truth?
Also, I "thought" in boov the entire time I was reading this book, and for a bit after. I actually had to filter myself because my brain wanted to speak boov-english

The second was The Life and Adventures of Santa Clause by L. Frank Baum, which I rated a three out of four.
This is the story of how Santa came to be, and how he gained his immortality. A boy child is taken into the forest of Burzee and given to Necile, one of the immortal beings who live there. She loves and raises him, but he grows up (as children do), and he leaves the forest to be among the mortals, his people. All of his cares are seen to: a house is built for him, his cupboards are full, he never wants for a fire, so he begins making toys for the children.

First he makes toys for the children in the local village, then farther, and farther still.
It cleverly explains the traditions of hanging stockings, and Christmas trees, and even why children may see mom or dad putting out presents on Christmas eve night.
The special that came from this story is one of my very favorites, which is why I finally read the book, and though details must always be left out, the special got the basic story done very well. My only complaint is that (from memory, I haven't seen the special in a couple years) I don't think the very end was included. This does not horribly change anything, it still ends in an acceptable place, though I feel as though the end was the inspiration behind the whole book.
I still recommend both, and I can't be sure I'm right about the end of the special...it wouldn't have been what stuck with me, so it may well be there.

The third was The Secret Garden, by Frances Hodgson Burnett, which I rated a four out of four.
This has always been a favorite movie, and I've meant to read it forever. I love the book just as much. The only real notable difference (though I've not seen the movie in awhile) is the difference between Mrs. Medlock: book vs. movie.
The movie version is far more...mean. I actually quite liked the book version
There were other little differences. Susan Sowerby wasn't really in the movie, things like that, but I still think it was one of the more well done adaptations, and (of course) I recommend both.


A note should be made that I saw all of these adaptations prior to reading the books. I always judge an adaptation more harshly when I read the book first, which is why I try to see the movies first. This would be a much different post had I read, and then watched.

Well done! I have read the first and third books and loved them! I only saw the movie of the last book on your list and I liked it as well.

[Gravy]

Well done! I have read the first and third books and loved them! I only saw the movie of the last book on your list and I liked it as well.

Thank you!

I'm very happy that I've managed to keep my reading up through my slow season

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who liked The Secret Garden

[DennisK]

Try to imagine what you would experience upon climbing out of bed, starting morning's coffee, turning on the news to find that the world is all a-buzz about a message that was received from a people who were not from Earth – a people from somewhere near the star Vega. What would the world's religious leaders be saying? How would the world's governments respond? I believe I would stagger from the realization that my neighborhood was not the whole world – that the world was much bigger than I imagined – that my perception of God had been minuscule and limited. This is what Carl Sagan's book, Contact, is about. This is what the movie, Contact, is about. This story was created by both Carl Sagen and Ann Druyan.
The movie:
From what I read in Wikipedia, the movie Contact was started before the book was published. Carl Sagan was intimately involved with the movie's creation, but when it ran into production problems, which threatened to end the project, he published the book. That gave the production renewed enthusiasm. The director, Robert Zemeckis was brought in to complete the project. Zemeckis is known for his expertise in special effects. Ever since the movie, Avatar, I have the impression that movies with today's special effects are more glitter than story. But in Contact's case, I will have to revise that prejudice. Jodie Foster stared in the movie, and I can't think of anyone else more suited for that position. I believe she was responsible for bringing the story up to par with its special effects.
The protagonist is Ellie Arroway who was naturally gifted towards scientific studies. From a very early age, she was fascinated by the possibility that other peoples lived out amongst the stars. This fascination matured into a leadership role within the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) institute. Ellie's courier faced a number of challenges. In the movie, she had to deal with her doctoral supervisor, Dr. Drumlin who had considerable influence over SETI funding. He believed SETI was a waste of resources. Drumlin managed to pull the plug on her funding. This caused her to seek financing from private sources which brought her to an industrialist named Hadden. With Hadden's money, she was able to acquire the use of the 131 radio telescope array in New Mexico. After 4 years of listening for extraterrestrial signals, competing interests in the array managed to evict Ellie. It was on the eve of that eviction that the signal arrived. At that point, everything changed. The signal was in the form of prime numbers from 2 to 101. The signal first came with 2 beats, then 3 beats, 5 beats, 7 an on till it reached 101 beats. They then discovered that each beat carried within it a video signal. The video contained a recording of Hitler announcing the opening of the 1936 Olympics. This caused quite a stir. Within this video were further signal modulations that contained the blue print of a machine. ,
Michel Kitz was a national security adviser who did not want anyone to know about the message, nor did he want the machine to be built. He did all that he could to discredit the validity of the signal. Dr. Drumlin, suddenly became 100% behind SETI and he positioned himself into a position that gave the impression that he was the one responsible for the discovery of the message. Palmer Joss was a spiritual adviser to the president. He and Ellie had a romantic interest in each other despite the fact that Ellie was an atheist. It is upon this relationship that I believe the story hinged – faith versus science. The machine was built, but then destroyed by a religious zealot. Thanks to Hadden's finagling, a second machine was also built without the public's knowledge. Ellie was chosen to be its passenger. It took her to several star systems before placing her above the center of our galaxy. Exhausted, she slept. During that time, her host recorded her mind and constructed an environment for her comfort. It was a tropical beach. Her host then appeared to her in the form of her late father. It was here that he explained to her who they were.
Returning home, she discovered that no time had passed between starting the trip and ending it. Everyone thought the machine had malfunctioned. They believed that Ellie's experience was a hallucination. She was brought before a panel of people from all the nations that supported the machine's construction. She was publicly asked to denounce her experiences. Though she had no proof, she could not. One of the members of the panel asked her if she expected them to believe her based on faith alone? What a terrible thing to ask an atheist!
The book:
Frankly, I love both the book and the movie; so it is difficult to recommend one over the other. I recommend both. In both, I give a solid 4 out of 4.
There are some pronounced differences in the story between the book and the movie, but they are both, basically, the same story. The prominence of some of the characters within the story vary somewhat, and most strikingly, was that in the book, Ellie was accompanied by four other passengers. The movie is an abbreviated version of the book where some underlying messages or themes had to be left out of the movie. The biggest exclusion was that, in the movie, after the trip, the message ended and the story closed. In the book, there was another message. But I will leave that up to the reader to discover.

[gali]

Try to imagine what you would experience upon climbing out of bed, starting morning's coffee, turning on the news to find that the world is all a-buzz about a message that was received from a people who were not from Earth – a people from somewhere near the star Vega. What would the world's religious leaders be saying? How would the world's governments respond? I believe I would stagger from the realization that my neighborhood was not the whole world – that the world was much bigger than I imagined – that my perception of God had been minuscule and limited. This is what Carl Sagan's book, Contact, is about. This is what the movie, Contact, is about. This story was created by both Carl Sagen and Ann Druyan.
The movie:
From what I read in Wikipedia, the movie Contact was started before the book was published. Carl Sagan was intimately involved with the movie's creation, but when it ran into production problems, which threatened to end the project, he published the book. That gave the production renewed enthusiasm. The director, Robert Zemeckis was brought in to complete the project. Zemeckis is known for his expertise in special effects. Ever since the movie, Avatar, I have the impression that movies with today's special effects are more glitter than story. But in Contact's case, I will have to revise that prejudice. Jodie Foster stared in the movie, and I can't think of anyone else more suited for that position. I believe she was responsible for bringing the story up to par with its special effects.
The protagonist is Ellie Arroway who was naturally gifted towards scientific studies. From a very early age, she was fascinated by the possibility that other peoples lived out amongst the stars. This fascination matured into a leadership role within the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) institute. Ellie's courier faced a number of challenges. In the movie, she had to deal with her doctoral supervisor, Dr. Drumlin who had considerable influence over SETI funding. He believed SETI was a waste of resources. Drumlin managed to pull the plug on her funding. This caused her to seek financing from private sources which brought her to an industrialist named Hadden. With Hadden's money, she was able to acquire the use of the 131 radio telescope array in New Mexico. After 4 years of listening for extraterrestrial signals, competing interests in the array managed to evict Ellie. It was on the eve of that eviction that the signal arrived. At that point, everything changed. The signal was in the form of prime numbers from 2 to 101. The signal first came with 2 beats, then 3 beats, 5 beats, 7 an on till it reached 101 beats. They then discovered that each beat carried within it a video signal. The video contained a recording of Hitler announcing the opening of the 1936 Olympics. This caused quite a stir. Within this video were further signal modulations that contained the blue print of a machine. ,
Michel Kitz was a national security adviser who did not want anyone to know about the message, nor did he want the machine to be built. He did all that he could to discredit the validity of the signal. Dr. Drumlin, suddenly became 100% behind SETI and he positioned himself into a position that gave the impression that he was the one responsible for the discovery of the message. Palmer Joss was a spiritual adviser to the president. He and Ellie had a romantic interest in each other despite the fact that Ellie was an atheist. It is upon this relationship that I believe the story hinged – faith versus science. The machine was built, but then destroyed by a religious zealot. Thanks to Hadden's finagling, a second machine was also built without the public's knowledge. Ellie was chosen to be its passenger. It took her to several star systems before placing her above the center of our galaxy. Exhausted, she slept. During that time, her host recorded her mind and constructed an environment for her comfort. It was a tropical beach. Her host then appeared to her in the form of her late father. It was here that he explained to her who they were.
Returning home, she discovered that no time had passed between starting the trip and ending it. Everyone thought the machine had malfunctioned. They believed that Ellie's experience was a hallucination. She was brought before a panel of people from all the nations that supported the machine's construction. She was publicly asked to denounce her experiences. Though she had no proof, she could not. One of the members of the panel asked her if she expected them to believe her based on faith alone? What a terrible thing to ask an atheist!
The book:
Frankly, I love both the book and the movie; so it is difficult to recommend one over the other. I recommend both. In both, I give a solid 4 out of 4.
There are some pronounced differences in the story between the book and the movie, but they are both, basically, the same story. The prominence of some of the characters within the story vary somewhat, and most strikingly, was that in the book, Ellie was accompanied by four other passengers. The movie is an abbreviated version of the book where some underlying messages or themes had to be left out of the movie. The biggest exclusion was that, in the movie, after the trip, the message ended and the story closed. In the book, there was another message. But I will leave that up to the reader to discover.

Sounds good. I added it to my list.

[DennisK]

Sounds good. I added it to my list.

Hope you enjoy it, gali.

[DarkestbeforeDawn]

Although I am a tad late, I find that the worst transfer from print to film must be Lois Lowry's The Giver. I feel that there was nothing done correctly, in relation to the book. I understand that adaptations always cause strife for those who love the source material, but I feel that this movie adaptation got literally nothing correct. For example, making Jonas an older boy of 16/17 years old rather than 12 removes the disintegration of childhood in the book and replaces it with a character discovering a bad trick. The inclusion of a love triangle is incredibly trite as well; Fiona and Asher in the novel were supposed to drift away from Jonas, as it added to his growing isolation from everyone else in the novel except for the Giver, thus strengthening their bond. However, they hang around him in the movie to offer the typical romance and friendship/loyalty tropes found in most YA movie adaptations. The antagonist in the book isn't even clearly cut, there is a lot of gray matter for the audience to sort through and come to their own conclusion. However, in the movie, there is an obvious villain and they very lightly mimic the same philosophy in the novel, but it is watered down and cast aside for the in-your-face delivery.
I know this sounds like an incredible rant, but I hope that someone else can see this and have their similar feelings placed into words. I understand that the author, Lowry did enjoy the movie, but I feel as a reader that the movie did not do the novel justice. It failed to represent the novel many people have loved and failed as a stand alone movie to stand alone amongst all the similar YA movie adaptations.

[ardisdesigns]

I'm really excited about the Hunger Games film crossovers. I recently saw the movies (all of them actually, in preparation to go see Mockingly 2 in theaters) and the movies made me desperately want to finish the book series where before I'd stopped after the first one and not felt like I was missing anything. I think this is the best type of adaptation, where the books and the movies each bring something independent to the table because they recognize what their genre can bring to the storytelling that the other can't, and enhance the other, make you interested in going out to see the movie/buy the book.

[doyle5]

Movies can never be as good as the book. Books allow you to understand the main characters thought and feelings. The character thoughts and feelings become a huge part of the story. This is how we become attached to the character(s). The movie, in comparison to the book, does not allow the emotion connection we experienced with the book. Because that expectation was not provided, we are disappointed. Then there is the fact that the movie is an interpretation of the book through the director's and other crew members eyes. Each of us experience the same book in a completely different way. So, we are again disappointed when aspects of the movie differs from the book.

[rachel_bruhn]

Since most of the books I have been introduced to in the past few years came from watching the movie first I really don't know where to start with this thread! Many people have talked about the recent/popular ones: Harry Potter, Divergent, and Hunger Games. So, I want to throw some variety in there. What about Game of Thrones? I started watching the series before I started the books. When I did start reading I was thoroughly impressed with how well the series kept to the story from the novels. I attributed this to the fact that with a series they have more time to add the little details that often get left out of movies. My appreciation faded as the series started to deviate from the story. At first it was just a little, like re-sequencing things, but with this most recent season they completely changed everything. Huge parts were skipped and tons of things were added. It was like I was reading one story and watching a totally different one.

Along those same lines, what about Scorch Trials? I had just finished reading the third book in the series when we watched the film adaptation of Scorch Trials. I had already seen how they adapted the story for the first film, and I can't really complain about the adaptations. In fact there were some aspects of the movie that I preferred to the book. However, I can count the number of similarities between Scorch Trials the book and the movie on one hand. I mean, did the producers/filmmakers even read the book? This film deviated from the book so much that I gave up trying to sequence the film and the book as I watched.

My comments on Harry Potter: Why do people like movies? They can see stories come to life. People enjoy action and get bored with the "slow stuff" that often comes in books. Movies have the ability to cut out the "normal" parts of the book and squish all the interesting, action-packed stuff into a 2 hour film. So, why did we cut out the HUGE battle scene from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince? I'll forgive you for skipping pretty much the first half of the book, but I can't forgive you for neglecting that epic fight scene.

-- 31 Dec 2015, 08:54 --

I always find that the movies never really hit the mark because you miss out on the intricacies in the book that can only be hinted at in the movies such as the thought processes that the characters go through. I found this with Eragon. I loved the book and would recommend it, however the movie was such a let down after such promise. They cut too much out for the film, which meant important facts were missed out.

My fiance loves the Eragon series. In fact it is the only book series he will read. He made the same comment about how terrible the movie was and used that as justification for not having anymore film adaptations. I haven't read the books or seen the movie, but I feel the same thing happened with Percy Jackson and I am Number Four. The books are great, but the films cut out and/or changed too much, so they were a sore disappointment for fans of the books. In my opinion, that's why they flopped whereas other book-to-film adaptations haven't.

[Heidi M Simone]

Although I am a tad late, I find that the worst transfer from print to film must be Lois Lowry's The Giver. I feel that there was nothing done correctly, in relation to the book. I understand that adaptations always cause strife for those who love the source material, but I feel that this movie adaptation got literally nothing correct. For example, making Jonas an older boy of 16/17 years old rather than 12 removes the disintegration of childhood in the book and replaces it with a character discovering a bad trick. The inclusion of a love triangle is incredibly trite as well; Fiona and Asher in the novel were supposed to drift away from Jonas, as it added to his growing isolation from everyone else in the novel except for the Giver, thus strengthening their bond. However, they hang around him in the movie to offer the typical romance and friendship/loyalty tropes found in most YA movie adaptations. The antagonist in the book isn't even clearly cut, there is a lot of gray matter for the audience to sort through and come to their own conclusion. However, in the movie, there is an obvious villain and they very lightly mimic the same philosophy in the novel, but it is watered down and cast aside for the in-your-face delivery.
I know this sounds like an incredible rant, but I hope that someone else can see this and have their similar feelings placed into words. I understand that the author, Lowry did enjoy the movie, but I feel as a reader that the movie did not do the novel justice. It failed to represent the novel many people have loved and failed as a stand alone movie to stand alone amongst all the similar YA movie adaptations.

Funny enough, I read The Giver for this month and recently finished. I gave the book 4 out of 4 stars. I have also watched the movie and 100% agree with everything you have said regarding the movie. I love reading the book version, and was cringing through a lot of the movie. I think whoever made the movie thought they might have needed some of the YA flair. However, I believe I would've enjoyed it more if it stuck with the book more.

I would absolutely recommend the book! It's a great read!

[brrr]

Do books into TV Series count?

[fari30]

I think contemporaries or coming-of-age novels are more often made movies because they don't require a whole new world to be created. While Fantasy and Sci-fi book-to-movie adaptations exist, such as HP, Percy Jackson, Ender's Game, Divergent etc, they require things like monsters and otherworldly creatures and spaceships and these all cost much more time and money to make than a simple romance that occurs in Paris.

[elivia05]

A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks is one of my favorite book to movie adaptations. I give both 4 out of 4 stars. Both the book and the movie have moved me to tears.