Gutter Guys & Gals : Full Moon Baking

[December]

Someday, someday someone will write an AMAZING book or series, and when the movie men come knocking on the door, they will smile politely and turn them down so that the story they made can remain what it is and the readers who adore it can go on adoring it unadulterated. And booklovers the world over will rejoice....

Not that I can actually blame an author for signing on with Hollywood: quite apart from the money (and who can turn their nose up at that?) it must be thrilling that someone thinks your book worth making into a movie. And it would be hard not to jump at the chance to take your story to a wider audience. Especially if you'd liked other movies made from books.

Personally, I hate books made into movies.... I like to think that if I were an author I'd have the courage to turn the movie makers down. But I imagine it's hard than it looks.

[fanMNM]

December- I, too, find that books made into movies are always disappointing. I have to say that there is a part of me who gets excited when it is announced that a book I love is being made into a movie because I can't wait to see what it looks like played out. It's interesting for me to see a filmmaker's interpretation, always hoping it'll be as awesome on the screen as it was for me reading it. It hardly ever is though. Afterwards, that is when I regret the excitement altogether. That is when I begin to wish more authors would turn down movie deals, like you said.

There are two exceptions that I can think of...Wicked, which was a play and not a movie (at least not yet), was excellent and I enjoyed it much more than I did the book (especially the ending). Also, the Count of Monte Cristo...I know that's horrible of me, but it's my love of happy endings that had me leaning toward the movie version. I could live with the ending of The Count of Monte Cristo...but I liked the movie's ending better

But overall, I have to agree that books lose something in the transition to the movie screen. I wonder if that would be true if they were to make a movie that was exactly, word for word, scene for scene, like the book? But then we'd have to hope the actors portray it right, wouldn't we? So I guess that answer is no.

That's why reading will always be my number one passion

[December]

I'm inclined to think that the difficulty is intrinsic to the difference between the two media. Books lend themselves to certain kinds of storytelling, and movies to others. So it would be rare to find a book which could translate well word-for-word (or scene-for-scene) to movie form: a really good movie would have to go about things quite differently from the book it's based on. And that in turn presents problems for anyone who already has the book version of the story in mind. We think, "hey, but that's not the same story anymore."

In a way, the problem is that movies and books look like they are doing the same thing. If someone were to make, say, an opera from a favourite book, or a ballet or even a graphic novel, we'd probably have an easier time enjoying the opera (or ballet or graphic novel) for what it was: something which takes the book as a springboard for creating a whole new work of art. But with movies, the possibility of simply "bringing the book to life" looks so tantalizingly within reach. Only we find that, in practice, movies which are rigidly faithful to their books have a way of falling deadly flat. Think for example of the first Harry Potter film. The director was so careful to track the storytelling of the novel that the result feels almost like a set of opulent, kinetic illustrations to the book (wizard photos, you know?), rather than an freestanding rendition of the story.

[marielle]

Think for example of the first Harry Potter film. The director was so careful to track the storytelling of the novel that the result feels almost like a set of opulent, kinetic illustrations to the book (wizard photos, you know?), rather than an freestanding rendition of the story.

Yes but they changed that with the second movie...I have the feeling they are doing to opposit from what Summit is doing with Twilight...

the Harry Potter movies started really true to the book and it got worse ( in my opinion) with every movie, just so they could get non-readers into the cinema's and see it...while with twilight I get the feeling they are being more like the book every time they make a new movie, the first one was a bit off (again that's just my opinion), but NM and Eclipse were really following the book...I think that if you haven't read the books Eclipse will be harder to understand...even if you have seen the first two movies...

having said that... I think some books just shoudln't be made into a movie...as much as I love to watch the HP and twilight movies I still feel like I just want to read the book...with HP it's gotten to a point where my family is watching the movie and I'm getting up to get the book...it's just so much better...

I really hope they won't make an opera or musical out of the twilight saga...I think very few stories could live through that transformation...I do love musicals and opera's but please keep it to the old stories or the stories that would really fit into it...
I just don't see the whole werewolf phasing and the magic of the story being translated into a theatre play...

[cullengirl]

But overall, I have to agree that books lose something in the transition to the movie screen. I wonder if that would be true if they were to make a movie that was exactly, word for word, scene for scene, like the book? But then we'd have to hope the actors portray it right, wouldn't we? So I guess that answer is no.

That seems to be generally true, but I think the main question is whether or not the producer/director/screenplay writer really understands the book and the author's message. I find that majority of the Masterpiece Theater (I really miss that show. I wish they brought it back instead of the Contemporary Mysteries) adaptations are very close to the books. For the Twilight Saga, I felt that Chris Weiz knew the book better than the other two directors, which is why even though I'm not a movie fan, I can digest NM much better than the other two movies.

[LadyDi]

December, as usual you wow me again with your insight - I actually read your post aloud to my husband and found myself nodding. It's a tricky balance, isn't it? I thought the 5th Harry Potter movie was the best of the bunch, despite veering away slightly from the events in the book. Yet, I was vexed with the 6th Harry Potter film because it veered too far away from the books, and as you've already pointed out, the 1st film stayed too rigidly close to the original source material. My hubby has claimed that short stories or novellas would make the best film adaptations, because they are short enough to be elaborated upon without losing the essence of the story.
I'm not sure, CG, if I'm totally in agreement with your idea about the director understanding the author's message. It's so hard to be able to pinpoint just one major theme in a book, it's so open to reader interpretation. I mean, if you had to say what the main theme of Breaking Dawn is, could we all agree? And could that theme, even if we did agree what it was, be adaptable to the screen? Before the film versions of NM and Ec came out, it was argued that Catherine Hardwicke would be a great director for Tw because she was a woman and women supposedly understand the book better. Yet, the Tw film is the most cringe-inducing for the mis-steps it takes.
Forgive me for going on another tangent, but I got to meet Pel and it was delightful! Pel, if you are reading this, I hope I didn't alarm you by seeking you out for conversation each day. For me, a convention is not so much about the actors as it is about the fellow fans and other people you meet.

[cullengirl]

I'm not sure, CG, if I'm totally in agreement with your idea about the director understanding the author's message. It's so hard to be able to pinpoint just one major theme in a book, it's so open to reader interpretation. I mean, if you had to say what the main theme of Breaking Dawn is, could we all agree? And could that theme, even if we did agree what it was, be adaptable to the screen?

You do make a point, LadyDi, but isn't that the purpose of making a movie out of a book. Another interpretation, but I guess my biggest gripe is not following the basic events in the book. As for the BD, I thought I knew what it was about, but now I have no clue. Actually, I like to pretend that it doesn't exist. *grins*

[December]

shhhhhh.

[xhopeonaropex]

About the BD comment from CG -> Hahahaha
FanMNM I love Wicked. And I actually liked the play more than the book. And after reading A Lion among Men I started feeling like it was lagging. It took me a while to finish it because of the unnecesarry info and plot, and yet the only way Maguire will ever get people (or at least me) to read his next book is mentioning the possibility of Elphaba being alive.

CG I also do feel that Chris Weiz really did a great job out of the 3. He really helpmed me imagine how NM would have really been. Not that much of a difference than the book but I would see it being ok since it's a movie and some things MUST be altered to fit the imagery. But personally I loved it since NM is my favorite out of the four books. and I was able to get a great vision of it from Weiz's great vision. I wish he did Eclipse. At least Everything was brighter in NM

December Our similarity in POV's surprises me more and more. You're a genius my friend

LadyDi I also agree with you about the author's message and the reader's interpretation. Every person's vision about the book is at least slightly different. But on an average there could be a lot of difference between each fan. So I think we just need to accept at least a part of the director's vision too

[marielle]

what about the fact that thet will be releasing BD2 a year after the first one...??
anyone worried about that?