# This annoys me...



## NerdyMunk (Aug 30, 2008)

I am tired of those book fanatics bawing over how their book movies are not faithful to the book.

Okay, Fact #1- Most books I have read do not have the most realistic characters or the environments/situations the character(s) get into. This is why Hollywood changes it around to make it appeal to audiences (not just YOU book fans!) as well. Like Neville Longbottom subbing in for Dobby. It wasn't the greatest move, imo, but it seemed to work. And Narnia in 2005 as well. C.S. Lewis did not describe the battle sequence at all, but the director aimed at it, and pulled it off. So stop bawing and look brightly, America.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 30, 2008)

Often, it's just not feasible financially to translate the book entirely (and/or it would run too long) to movie form. Movies like Stuart Little. The boat battle scene apparently would have taken up over half the movie's budget, had they done the scene exactly as what was in the book.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Aug 30, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Often, it's just not feasible financially to translate the book entirely (and/or it would run too long) to movie form. Movies like Stuart Little. The boat battle scene apparently would have taken up over half the movie's budget, had they done the scene exactly as what was in the book.



And many people did not like the book's ending. That's why they changed it.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 30, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> And many people did not like the book's ending. That's why they changed it.



I've never actually read the book, so can't say.


----------



## Frasque (Aug 30, 2008)

Speaking as a 'book fanatic' it's not so much changes being made, but incredibly stupid changes being made for no reason. For example the movie "Relic" combined the two lead characters into one person, which was completely dumb considering in the book they're as different as night and day - it would be like filming the Hound of the Baskervilles and making Sherlock Holmes and Watson into a single character. Never mind the fact that the character they more or less got rid of went on to be the star of a seven book series, effectively cutting off sequels. Also, the movie Relic sucked donkey balls.


----------



## Eevee (Aug 30, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> I am tired of those book fanatics bawing over how their book movies are not faithful to the book.


people who read are now "book fanatics"?

find any case where a story in one medium has been butchered upon translation to another; of course the original fans will be pissed off.  it only happens a lot with movies because hollywood apparently contains no talented writers


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 30, 2008)

Eevee said:


> people who read are now "book fanatics"?
> 
> find any case where a story in one medium has been butchered upon translation to another; of course the original fans will be pissed off.  it only happens a lot with movies because hollywood apparently contains no talented writers



That's what happens when you have tens of thousands writers, but only 14 "original" movies.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Aug 30, 2008)

Eevee said:


> people who read are now "book fanatics"?
> 
> find any case where a story in one medium has been butchered upon translation to another; of course the original fans will be pissed off.  it only happens a lot with movies because hollywood apparently contains no talented writers



Well, yeah, most fans appreciate the characters they are reading about, but never really think that it is going to become a movie or not. Some miss to even think about if the characters are realistic or not. I have been a writer for some portion of my life, and I know it is hard to create realistic characters and the scenarios they come across. So if Hollywood wants to change it around a bit because they are a little queazy about making a movie truly faithful to the book, then go ahead, do it. It attracts audiences, it attracts more fans that the book fans can commune with. And they sit there and hope to bring positiveness to the book fans who always seem to be pissed once there's a book movie to come out. I think they need to buy an open mind, imo. >_>


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 30, 2008)

Some books do translate well to movies. The Godfather, To Kill A Mockingbird, et al.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Aug 30, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Some books do translate well to movies. The Godfather, To Kill A Mockingbird, et al.



Only a select portion to please everyone.


----------



## Beastcub (Aug 30, 2008)

i think leaving out dobby and the house elves REALLY helped simplify the story and was a good move.

some movies do a great job at protraying a book, leaving out/changing little and even using quotes from the book. 2 movies that i think did a swell job are Watership Down and the Last Unicorn, both did a good job and captured the "essence" of the story and characters. 

disney though has a tendancy to really sugar coat their movies, in the orignal hunchback of notredamn esmerlda dies and quazzy choses to be burried alive with her, and at the end of the little mermaid she dies as she could not bring her self to kill the prince to save her own life.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 31, 2008)

Beastcub said:


> some movies do a great job at protraying a book, leaving out/changing little and even using quotes from the book. 2 movies that i think did a swell job are Watership Down and the Last Unicorn, both did a good job and captured the "essence" of the story and characters.



I disliked how WD left out stuff like the Prince Rabbit tales and also Hazel's encounter with the human female. Plus a lot of the stuff at Cowslip's warren was omitted.


----------



## Dyluck (Aug 31, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> C.S. Lewis did not describe the battle sequence at all, but the director aimed at it, and pulled it off.



The battle sequence was completely irrelevant to the plot and to the greater meaning of the novel. The director has made Narnia into a Lord of the Ring wannabe epic battle series, which is never what it was made to be. And aside from making the irrelevant battle the entire focus of the film, he also removed all of the important symbolism and plot points from the book (which would not have made the film any longer in the least, and if it had, he could have just cut a few minutes out of his precious little fighting faggotry).

Furthermore I can pretty much tell that you don't know anything about neither films nor books and that you're just the typical American looking for a cheap action flick.


----------



## Gavrill (Aug 31, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I disliked how WD left out stuff like the Prince Rabbit tales and also Hazel's encounter with the human female. Plus a lot of the stuff at Cowslip's warren was omitted.


Not in the kiddy version of the movie. It was more faithful to the book, but less exciting.


----------



## Monak (Aug 31, 2008)

It can be done most production companies just don't want to front that kind of a budget though.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Aug 31, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> The battle sequence was completely irrelevant to the plot and to the greater meaning of the novel. The director has made Narnia into a Lord of the Ring wannabe epic battle series, which is never what it was made to be. And aside from making the irrelevant battle the entire focus of the film, he also removed all of the important symbolism and plot points from the book (which would not have made the film any longer in the least, and if it had, he could have just cut a few minutes out of his precious little fighting faggotry).
> 
> Furthermore I can pretty much tell that you don't know anything about neither films nor books and that you're just the typical American looking for a cheap action flick.



So you wanted Lucy and Susan just to come back and see Edmund, Peter, and company standing over a litter of dead bodies with no explanation?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 31, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Not in the kiddy version of the movie. It was more faithful to the book, but less exciting.



? There was more than one version? I've only seen one.


----------



## Dyluck (Aug 31, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> So you wanted Lucy and Susan just to come back and see Edmund, Peter, and company standing over a litter of dead bodies with no explanation?



I would have liked such an irrelevant battle to have not lasted for three quarters of the movie.

And if they _had_ skipped the entire battle, you wouldn't have missed anything. You could fill in the entire thing in your head just as easily. No explanation is really needed.


----------



## Gavrill (Aug 31, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> ? There was more than one version? I've only seen one.


My bad, I meant the animated series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watership_Down_(TV_series)


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 31, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> My bad, I meant the animated series.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watership_Down_(TV_series)



Ah, I heard of the animated TV series (it's on Youtube)


----------



## Gavrill (Aug 31, 2008)

It's not very exciting, but they do include almost every scene from the book including Cowslip's warren.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 31, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> It's not very exciting, but they do include almost every scene from the book including Cowslip's warren.



Cowslip's warren does appear in the movie, but only for one scene. Nothing is mentioned about the wall painting or carrying things in the rabbits' mouths. Just a quick in and move on. (And Holly says nothing about meeting Cowslip's warren, which he did in the book)


----------



## Beastcub (Aug 31, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I disliked how WD left out stuff like the Prince Rabbit tales and also Hazel's encounter with the human female. Plus a lot of the stuff at Cowslip's warren was omitted.



they managed to squeeze in the prince rabbit tales with the opening

one of the big things that bugged me was with blackavar, he was an interesting character and a strong rabbit once he joined hazel's warren and he did not die in the book.

plus they left out fiver's son at the end.

they also messed with the farm rabbit situation, they were not white and one buck and doe did escape with them.

moonwart is presented as a pure villian in the film, but in the book he was like a revoluttionary leader with the way he was running things so differently, the issue being how overly harsh he was. my fave line is when hazle sudgests combining warrens, it was something along the lines of "it was the deciding moment of wether he as true visionary or a tyrant"

i still think the film captured fiver very well as well as keha (i love keha) and pipkin as well as bigwig


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 31, 2008)

Beastcub said:


> they managed to squeeze in the prince rabbit tales with the opening
> 
> one of the big things that bugged me was with blackavar, he was an interesting character and a strong rabbit once he joined hazel's warren and he did not die in the book.
> 
> ...



You mean General Woundwort, don't you? 

I did love Keeha, Fiver and Pipkin too. Bigwig was funny. My favorite line from the book/movie is from Bigwig. "My chief told me to defend this run, and until he says otherwise, I shall stay here." Especially since Bigwig was opposed to Hazel being Chief Rabbit at first.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Aug 31, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> I would have liked such an irrelevant battle to have not lasted for three quarters of the movie.
> 
> And if they _had_ skipped the entire battle, you wouldn't have missed anything. You could fill in the entire thing in your head just as easily. No explanation is really needed.



The battle sequence only took up 20 min of the movie, dude. If you are talking about Prince Caspain, yeah, that was 100% battle sequence. Not for L, W, &TW.


----------



## Dyluck (Aug 31, 2008)

That's only because in the first movie they were forced to spend some time introducing characters. Otherwise, well. :roll:


----------



## Azure (Aug 31, 2008)

It's annoying, but neccessary.  A prime example is Lord of The Rings.  While done pretty decently(and with a fine soundtrack) there was still a whole fuckton of things that you wouldn't understand if you didn't read the book.  However, to make a movie based on those books that rang true to real fans, would take more money than the entirety of hollywood possesses.  It simply depends on the franchise, and the director.  Remember, movie making is about entertainment AND profit.


----------



## Tatsuyoujo (Sep 3, 2008)

If you go to a movie you should already know they don't have enough time to fit all the details of the book into the movie.

People that whine about that are n00bs. I don't bother myself with n00bs.


----------



## sssandy (Sep 6, 2008)

First, some books wouldn't fit a whole movie that is why it is shortened in the films.  Just like the Harry Potter Series. Second, those who have read the book knew the story already and only gets disappointed with the movie because its not what she was expecting.  I think we can only give an honest opinion on a movie if we haven't read the book.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Sep 6, 2008)

I think that a lot of the problems concerning book to movie crossovers regard cognitive dissonance. i.e. The reader, having read the book, naturally assigns various figures and settings to the ones described in the text. However, more often than not, this mental image is not at all like what the director of said film has in mind, leading to frustration and dissatisfaction on the side of the audience.

On the other hand, I do understand and to a point endorse the editing of plot points to make a film flow better. Want to see a movie that follows the plot of a book exactly, line by line? Look up "War of the Worlds" by Pendragon Pictures. It literally proceeds the same as the original H.G. Wells novel proceeds and as a result it's painfully long, incredibly dull, and on some occasions laughably horrible. Another good example is the excision of Tom Bombadil from the LotR series, fuck that faggot.


----------



## Aikahime (Sep 6, 2008)

There's still no excuse for the movie Eragon


----------



## NerdyMunk (Sep 6, 2008)

Aikahime said:


> There's still no excuse for the movie Eragon



As someone said, depends on the director's vision. If J.K. Rowling and Kate DiCamillo directed all their books into films, they would probably have to cut some stuff out or change things around too, mainly to keep or develop audiences, interest, and profit.


----------



## Aikahime (Sep 6, 2008)

yeah, but in the Eragon movie, they changed almost EVERYTHING, they only kept the basic plot elements


----------



## Dyluck (Sep 6, 2008)

Who cares? Eragon sucked.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> Who cares? Eragon sucked.



And the scary thing is, the same people are now making a Voltron movie...


----------



## Dyluck (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> And the scary thing is, the same people are now making a Voltron movie...



I was expecting a "WTF NO YOU'RE WRONG YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY EVERY CLAIM YOU MAKE ON AN INTERNET FORUM OR ELSE NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AND YOU'RE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT AND DON'T FORGET TO SITE YOUR SOURCES IN MLA FORMAT" from you.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> I was expecting a "WTF NO YOU'RE WRONG YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY EVERY CLAIM YOU MAKE ON AN INTERNET FORUM OR ELSE NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AND YOU'RE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT AND DON'T FORGET TO SITE YOUR SOURCES IN MLA FORMAT" from you.



Why? <.<


----------



## GatodeCafe (Sep 7, 2008)

Aikahime said:


> There's still no excuse for the movie Eragon



The excuse is that the book sucked.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Sep 7, 2008)

The dragon was awesome, tho'.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Sep 7, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> The dragon was awesome, tho'.



But the dragon was voiced by a porn star, dontcha know?


----------



## Dyluck (Sep 7, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> But the dragon was voiced by a porn star, dontcha know?



Furries, dude, don't tell them that.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 7, 2008)

What's the point in making a video adaptation for a book if you're going to just hack it to pieces to get at the juicy action and leave out small, but noticeable, details that have some relevance to the plot? 

If you're not going to do a thing all the way, then fuck it and don't do it at all. I'd rather you go off and make some Winnie the fucking Pooh movie than destroy a book by making a shitty movie about it.


----------

