Books to movies to books was Re: What should we do next?

[dumbledore11214]

Ali:
Another rather popular example is the Gone With the Wind movie (I
believe someone mentioned it a while back). Most everyone I know who
likes the movie couldn't get through the book (myself included). 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Personally I loved the book and movie.

Ali:
On the other hand, Dumas (pere) also writes extremely long books, but
I could read the musketeers trilogy over and over again (though
possibly never again in French) without ever acknowledging movie
versions were made (then again, no one wants to cover the middle story
anyway).

Oddly hypocritical of me, yes? :)

Alla:

Squeee, it is so rare to meet Dumas' fan here. Three musketeers are 
amazing and while I know one movie which to me comes close enough to 
the book, I still think the book is tons better and that horrible 
Disney version should never been called Three musketeers.


Potioncat:
> But making a movie for an audience who is already fans of
> the book is harder.

Ali
I think that's exactly the problem right there. For someone like
Steve Van, who doesn't care to read the books, he can take the movies
unto themselves, judging them against their own internal logic/story.
Contrast that to most of us who see the movies and books existing in
contrast to each other, we can't judge each medium by itself so we
always find things wanting here or there. It's especially a big
problem for HP because the books are now done but the movies aren't.
We can nitpick about what was left out in one movie (versus it's
corresponding book) but what if it comes back in another movie where
it's more convenient for that medium to have it there?

Alla:

But the thing is, I don't do that. I mean, yes I  often do find 
myself wishing that filmmakers would include storylines they would 
cut out, sure, as fan of books it is indeed inevitable. However, once 
I get over that fact, I do try to give movie it is fair chance and if 
movie stands out on its own, I would still say it is a good movie. 
The only thing I would insist on that this movie has nothing to do 
with the book, you know?

I would never say the movie is bad simply because it does not reflect 
the book in detail, except one thing – I think if movie does not 
reflect the book, while it claims it does, it is a lie on filmmakers' 
behalf, unfair capitalizing on the name of the book (any book) that I 
know and love.

I would call the movie bad, if I consider the acting bad, if I 
consider the visuals bad, the storyline not watchable, etc, etc. 
Again, Bourne movies, I certainly would not call them bad, just 
having very little to do with the books.

Although having said that, yes, sure there were couple of times when 
to me the story in the book was so much richer that maybe that 
influenced me. But again, that was mainly disgust that the book was 
butchered so badly and they still wanted fans of the books to come 
and see - The Seeker comes to mind again. 

Ali:
<SNIP>
As such, I've come
up with a rule for myself: if I know of a movie coming out for a book
I want to read, I shall hold off on reading the book. I did this for
Twilight (and enjoyed the movie more for it) and will do it for Neil
Gaiman's Coraline - don't know why but I can ignore the movie for the
book but not the reverse.

Alla:

Oh yeah, for me I try not to reread the book if movie is coming.

Ali:
By the way, for whoever mentioned it, the Count of Monte Cristo anime
was probably the only on-screen version of that novel that ever came
close to conveying the darkness and beautiful story behind the book.
(Let's not forget that fluff piece that was Gerard Depardieu's
version.) Ah irony.

Alla:

Yes, that is what I was trying to say, I think it is the best 
adaptation from every movie I watched that called themselves "Count 
of Monte Cristo".