Suggested by: Superfastreader:
Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?
I like comparing books and the movies they’re based on. Usually I’m a little disappointed that they left something or other out of the movie, but I understand they can’t include everything. What I really don’t like is when they completely change an event or character from the original story. I really didn’t like how they changed Faramir’s character in Lord of the Rings, for instance. It was a small change, but I hated it because I always admired his character in the book. Occasionally the movie is better than the novel. I like books for the development of the characters, and movies for action and scenery.
Those kinds of changes always bug me, too. Sometimes the movies change so many details, it ends up seeming like all they’ve used is the title of the original book. Must drive the authors mad. Or make them spin in their graves.
The one character I hated in the movies was Queen Amidala in The Revenge of the Sith. She was so sappy in the movie, whereas in the book, she was still a strong character even though she was hurting. I think the change in character ruined the movie.
I think of a movie as someone else’s interpretation of a story rather than a deliberate slavish copy so I don’t get too worked up about any changes. It’s sort of like how many different authors do their own re-imagining of certain fairy tales in novels. I can’t say one is inherently better than the other. They’re just different.
The changes don’t usually bother me. The only adaptation I can point at as really hating was Kubrick’s version of Lolita. Happy BTT.
I agree with that.