Forget the battle between 24 young
Tributes – this is the real battle…book
v movie.
Book v movie…book v movie….I'm a slave to two masters on this one because I love books and I love movies. When a book I love is made into a movie there’s
potential for the ultimate meeting of mediums, or for disaster.
As reported previously, The Hunger
Games was as successful an adaptation as I’ve seen in a long time – it was as
faithful as cinema would allow, alterations were seamless and the casting
near-perfect. Rather predictably, it set
me off on a review of other book adaptations I loved, and some I didn’t…
Salem’s Lot (1979)
Okay, so the casting isn’t perfect, and
some of my favourite characters from the book are missing (or irritatingly
rolled into one), but this version of Stephen King’s classic just sort of gets
it. The muted, small town horror
translates nicely on the screen, and the entire thing is defined by two things
- that scary-child-at-window scene
and that vampire. The 2004 TV movie should have worked – it had restored many of the small stories and
more of the townspeople of the Lot made an appearance, but it was just too self
aware, the characters too knowing. I’m a
huge fan of Rutget Hauer, but his version of vampire Barlow just didn’t have
the same impact.
The Notebook
We have to whisper this one. I know for some people this will be nothing
short of sacrilege, but – sssshhhh - I preferred the movie. I’m not sure how much this has to do with
seeing the movie before I read the book, but compared to Ryan Gosling and
Rachel McAdams on screen, the book just didn’t have the same intensity, or
appeal. Before I have fans of Nicholas
Sparks beating down my door, I would like to add that I enjoyed the book, but
it seemed like we were almost at the end before much had happened, and I was
more invested in the characters on screen than in the book.
The Lord of the Rings
Let me first say that fantasy is not my
thing, and Tolkien’s books have always been something of a challenge for
me. After three attempts I still haven’t
made it out of the Shire. I don’t want
to say it’s boring, exactly…okay I do. (Again, I’m not bashing the book here, it’s
just not my cup of tea) On screen,
though, it’s a different story altogether.
Jurassic Park
I do love a blockbuster, and I’m not
entirely unconvinced that this isn’t the greatest one of all. Steven Spielberg took a decent, if not
exactly page-turning, book and made into a true spectacle of
entertainment. The vibrations in the
water glass, the raptor chase in the kitchen, the electric fence, the John
Williams score – is there anything about this movie that isn’t iconic?
The Vampire Diaries
I first read the books as a teenager,
and I loved them. The television show
has very little similarity to the books, and I love it. It’s completely bonkers and the plot grows
more strange and convoluted with every hour, and this old-enough-to-know-better
fan is completely hooked.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t…
Eragon
I know I said fantasy isn’t really my
thing, but when it comes to movies I’ll pretty much watch anything once. Eragon was a harmless, pointless kind of
movie, one that normally I would have forgotten about had curiosity not got the
better of me. The movie seemed to be
missing half of its story, and when I learned that it was based on a book I
wanted to find out the rest.
The main question I was left with after
reading the book was why bother? If you’re going to adapt a book, should
it not have more than a passing resemblance to the, you know, book? I mean besides having the same title and both
having a big blue dragon. As harmless a
film as it was, as an adaptation it was terrible, and it was unique in that it
seemed to deliberately rule out any possibility of adapting the rest of the
series. Very odd.
Bridget Jones’ Diary
I love the movie. I do.
As a comedy and a crowd-pleaser, it’s terrific (especially the All By
Myself opening). But as an adaptation it’s
a huge let-down. The book and Bridget
herself are both much smarter than the film gives them credit for, and the
character comes dangerously close to slipping into caricature.
The Twilight Saga
I’m not an expert, but I feel there’s
more to adapting a book than sticking a pin in random pages and filming those.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Part 2
Only two scenes needed to be done right
for me to love this movie the way I loved the book – Mrs Weasley’s showdown
with Bellatrix and Neville’s big moment.
That was all I asked. Instead
they were rushed, out of sequence and diluted.
Two scenes – it wasn’t too much to ask was it?
Sometimes, though, there’s a draw…take
a bow, To Kill a Mockingbird, one of my favourite adaptations of a book despite
being so different. Gregory Peck isn’t
the picture of Atticus Finch I see in my head when I read the book, but he is Atticus Finch. We don’t get to see all the small adventures
Jem and Scout have in their summer, but we know they have them. Book versus movie? Sometimes, there’s room for both.
What’s
your favourite – or at least favourite – adaptation?
I feel you have very good judgement! I tend to prefer books to the movies, but I think I'm with you on every case in which I've read/watched both!
ReplyDeleteThose were precisely the two scenes in Harry Potter that I wanted to see and were brushed over. For me they were two of the best scenes in the books and WHAT DID THEY DO?! They were such brilliant, revolutionary moments and they went ''phut''.
I love fantasy myself, but still have to agree on both Eragon and Lord of the Rings. I thoroughly enjoyed the LOTR movies while the books... well you had to have wellies and a shovel to wade through them.
The most disastrous adaptation of a book might be 'The Seeker'. The Dark is Rising book series was old fashioned fantasy, but subtle and powerful. The movie... it killed me inside. How could they?
It's not a book, but as a great fan of the TinTin comics, I thoroughly enjoyed the new movie. It was ridiculous and fun and happy being what it was!