Lately I have seen a few fan-created movie trailers for some of my favorite books. I truly admire how these were put together. They are fun to watch and I do get excited about the idea of my favorite books going to the big screen.
But then I have to think about other movie-renditions of some treasured books. Were they awesome? No. Were they decently done? Sometimes. Did the movie kind of ruin the book for me? On occasion.
What say ye? Should some of your favorite books go to film?
When pondering this question, I think of a few examples. Have you read Jim Butcher’s The Dresden Files? If not, you’re slacking. But did you watch the single season tv show based on the first few books? Not really like the books at all. How about the whole Harry Potter franchise? Or the Narnia Chronicles? I felt like some of the movies in both those series took the books seriously and others did not. I view Peter Jackson’s work on The Lord of the Rings trilogy as a gold standard from going from book to movie. With that said, there were still some significant changes to the storyline.
I hear a little noise here and there that Orson Scott Card’s classic Ender’s Game is going to be moviefied. The kids were pretty young in the book; can Hollywood pull that off on the big screen?
I wouldn’t mind seeing Brent Weeks’s the Night Angel trilogy move to film, nor Alan Dean Foster’s Pip and Flinx series. However, I don’t think film could capture the intricacies of the Terre D’Ange books by Jacqueline Carey. Those books are so deep, and in may ways have a different take on societal norms that our current society, that I don’t think a producer/director could instill that in 180 minutes or less.
What books would you love to see go to the big screen? Which books should remain as print?
While you ponder that, here are two fan-made movie trailers that I quite enjoyed:
Ah, the ages old “the book or the movie?” question! Usually, I’m in the pro-book category, though I can often enjoy even not-particularly faithful film adaptations as intetesting “Elseworlds” (to borrow from comics parlance) tales…others (like my spouse and daughter, for examples) have more difficulty. I think it’s because I was comics obsessed as a kid, and am a bit more used to fluidity of character from month to month in the same medium (and until recently, really bad films).
I really kind of liked the Dresden tv show, for example (i loved tv Murphy, actually), and I found Lynch’s “Dune” an interesting failure. Nothing like the book (which I was lukewarm to), but full of Lynchian crazy. Also, Game of Thrones on tv (i’ve only seen series one) is really quite reverent to the source, and really good because of it.
on rare occasions, the movie is actually better. I’ll argue to my dying day that both Interview With The Vampire and The Shining were both immensely better on film (particularly the former).
books do allow for increased depth and detail, which I think we all appreciate. the best example of flawed adaptation is probably the Potter films: the found their groove eventually, but cut things so deeply that one loses most of the story if you haven’t read the book. The first 2 were horrid, and the last half got better (though the story ended up fundamentally different in many ways. The third would have been a near-perfect adaptation with the addition of a few lines of dialog explaning the relationship between the map and deceased dad’s running crew.
I like your idea of fluid characterization. I think I’ve been in the same room with a Marvel comic once, but I have been devouring the Marvel Movies, from Iron Man to Thor to The Avengers and I like to think that I “get” it, this Super Hero awesomeness. I’ve been listening to some of the Now Playing podcasts and those fellows go on and on about *this* Hulk or *that* Hulk, but they’re all together one and the same character that is The Hulk.
It’s pretty apparent when a movie/book rendition is dumbed down, witness Gorky Park (book by Martin Cruz Smith). But when the movie is done with artistry and intent, wow! The photography alone can bring aspects to the story that printed words alone can’t, witness Empire on of the Sun (book by J. G. Ballard).
fluid characterization…that’s the world of comics. It’s funny how you mention the Hulk – he really does switch; from savage beast to tempermental four year old to hulking brute with Banner’s intellect (with or without his scruples); you never know what you’re going to get. But, it’s all in fun. The movies are starting to seep into comics as well, though – Tony Stark, for example, started out in the 60s as a Howard Hughes type, and slowly shifted into the guises of Steve Jobs, Hugh Hefner, and even kind of a womanizing Donald Rumsfeld. Downey Jr’s portrayal has actually helped rehabilitate the character a bit in recent years – while the sarcastic, handsome womanizer with a good heart is a nice distillation of the character over the years, in recent years, he was kind of an asshole (see “CIVIL WAR…never mind, don’t) and the movies have brought him bato his core thanks to the popularity of RDJr.
I also found the Dresden tv show fun (and I saw it before reading the books), yet the books were quite a bit better.
I hope you don’t mind if I digress into coverart. The Dresden books covers show Harry Dresden in a hat on all 13 books – yet the character doesn’t have a hat.
This makes me contemplate how imagery associated with a book alters how we see the characters. Since I watched the tv show first, and saw the book covers second, I have always pictures Harry Dresden with short hair and a hat, even tho I know the character has long hair and no hat.
yeah, the hat has always bugged me as well. I *think* I remember JB making a joke in one of the books about a hat once, though, as a nod to the incongruous cover art.
television shows and movies and whatnot do tend to alter readers’ perception for characters in books. Going back to Dresden again, I read maybe three of the books before seeing the TV series, and in my head, Murphy was always a bit of a blonde cipher. After the TV show, never mind how many times she’s described as blonde and short, she’s still brunette and olive skinned to me.
The big one, though, is GRRM’s Song of Ice and Fire. Everyone is now their actor counterparts to me and it’s much easier to keep them differentiated. Before I saw the TV series, Tyrion was some sort of malformed hobbit, but now he can’t be anything but Dinklage, and in my mind, that’s all for the good.
Pingback: chuck dash parker dot net – your unreliable narrator » Blog Archive » other places
Pingback: From Film to Books « Darkcargo