Do you like books made into movies?

[lterrell]

Lifetime did a good job with the Robert's books. I've seen them all and I did read the books before seeing the movies. I was happy to see they didn't use high profile actors. I would like to see several others made in to movies. Maybe some of her trilogies would work. Maybe the SiFi channel could pick up some of her fantasy.

Generally, the Mary Higgins Clark books have been good TV movies.

John Patterson's books are excellent but the Women's Murder Club did not translate to the TV show. The writers did not stay true to the books. I read the first six books and got confused by the series on TV. I also think the "Cross" movies were disappointing. Too bad for Mr. Patterson!

I'm currently finishing up the "Eve Duncan" series written by Iris Johansen. If you haven't discovered this author, maybe think about giving her a try. I think these would make a good series if the writer stayed true to the books. The variety of characters has great potental for HD. There is also a variety in occupations which should help the series longevity. I am tired of the CSI stuff.

[uod_sa_libro]

Oh! I like the Chesapeake Bay series by Nora Roberts! Is there a TV series made after it?

I think it really depends. I like books more, but there are times when a story's impact could be magnified when it gets turned into a movie. I was a bit disappointed with the Twilight movie. I don't know, I guess I just pictured Bella differently. She seemed very dead and bored in the movie. Please don't kill me Twilight movie fans!

[geo]

I generally hold off watching a movie if there's a chance I might read the book. So I've held off on Cold Mountain and No Country for Old Men for now.

I think movies should work on their own merit, and whether they complement the original source is almost irrelevant. For example, the Wizard of Oz, the movie, is necessarily a very different work than the book on which it is based. It doesn't simply try to recreate Baum's story on film. The movie exists as a separate work of art, which is as it should be. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, movies that successfully mirror the written source, although I can't think of any offhand. Obviously, some books lend themselves to film better than others. Some people would point to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings as one that is "true to the book." Admittedly, it is a beautiful and lavish production, and certainly financially successful, but in my opinion it simply doesn't—and can't— do justice to Tolkien's visionary literary work.

[Julian]

Generally, it's a risky business. Books made in to movies often turn out not as you expected. It's probably to do with the director's vision, that's his view of how it happened and what it all looked like. Your own, or my own, would always be at least a little different.

Earthsea, for example, a movie made after Ursula K. LeGuin's very entertaining stories, was poorly made. It was overall a decent film, but the script absorbed the first two books (combining the stories) and cramming it into one movie. I disagree with that move.
Also, there are many sequences in the film that never happened or were completely altered from the books.

An example of a good job, however, would be Lord of the Rings. Sure, they changed a lot from the books and ommitted certain characters (Tom Bombadil) but it worked better that way. After all, Lord of the Rings is an older story than Wizard of Earthsea. So, sometimes, tweaks are good.

To cut the longwindedness short, I'll just say it depends on the film/book in question. I think it's always at least a bit thrilling, before crushing disappointment sets in, for a longtime fan to see his/her favorite story adapted for the screen. That has a weight to it.

I hope I've made sense.

[Sara]

Being an avid reader I suprisingly enough love movies based on books! Especially on books I've already read, its always interesting to see someone bring a book to life. Though I like to actually read the book before seeing the film ...

[Iluvbookz13]

Usually I've found myself utterly disappointed with books being turned into movies. It's like thinking about how many pixels are in one letter on a computer; it isn't easy to compact a Harry Potter book into a 2 and a half hour movie. I've caught myself anticipating certain characters with the exact personalities and physical features the book was able to capture, and yet the movie's characters cannot seem to fit that. It is hard to find an actor that looks and acts EXACTLY like the character.

In essence, the exquisite detail and character compilation is seldom captured in a movie. The chances of having just one character built exactly like one in the book...not even.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, but Today is a Gift; that is why they call it the Present."[/i]

[Iluvbookz13]

Or, if I had to live my life over again, I'd dare to make more mistakes that did not show. I have a tattoo, BIG mistake!

[GreyIxia]

Honestly, I hate books made into movies. The sad thing is that I'm just SO curious to see how it comes out, so I go to see them and then get disappointed.

I think that people are turning so many books into movies because many people prefer watching a 2 hour long movie than reading a book that may take days or weeks to read. Also, these people don't seem to have any good ideas for movies. They've also started to remake old movies (like Jane Eyre [they remade it in 2006]).

But, I must admit that I do enjoy seeing them and critisizing them. I do not advise you to watch a book ade into a movie with me if I've read the book. I end up talking a lot throughout the movie, pointing out flaws and things that they missed . After I read a Harry Potter book, I'd watch the movie with my mom and I think she was getting annoyed .

[SouthernBellaKV]

It's hit or miss for me. What helps me is going into the movie telling myself that details are going to be left out, so I just have to get over that. I'm a nerd and adore the Harry Potter books. I can nitpick every single movie that has come out, but I can also step back and say that a couple of them were done well for what the director had to try to fit in. It's not easy taking a 400+ page book and turning it into a two hour movie.

I also find it interesting, if I haven't already read the book, to see the movie first and then read the book. That doesn't leave me with a sense of dissatisfaction with the movie, and then I feel like I got more out of the book. I grew up watching Oliver, and didn't read the book until college. I was amazes at how much detail was dropped from the movie, but I still enjoy the movie.

I'm also sad to say I've seen some movies that when I tried to read the books, I couldn't get through the books. I've lost count how many times I've tried reading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but I just can't get interested in Tolkien. My fiance and I watched The Golden Compass, and then decided we were going to try to read the book together. After about two chapters we could not handle it anymore. But...I love the movies that were derived from both of the authors' works.

[GreyIxia]

Well, in my opinion, The Golden Compass was a great movie, but it was horrible compared to the book. I read the book before seeing the movie, so maybe that's why I could bear to read it. They took out the whole ending of the book--it wasn't supposed to end like that. BUT it did have Nichole Kidman in it and I love her!