Movies and Books

I just finished reading the first volume of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" today--not for the first time--and as a reward, I watched the extended film version. Most of the time, I prefer books to their movie counterparts; the films tend to be disappointing. I can think of a few exceptions, however.

The best book gone silver screen I have ever seen is "The Princess Bride." The screenplay stays very true to the book--a very rare occurrence. I think this may be because the original book just happened to translate so well to the screen, that revisions were unnecessary. But does that mean no other books are written well enough to go directly to screen? Or are screenwriters simply overeager to put their own twist on popular tales?

Take the Harry Potter films for example. There is a LOT missing from the films, as any avid book fan can point out. (I still think they should have done "extended versions" of these films, like "The Lord Of The Rings" movies. So what if the kids couldn't get work permits for that many extra hours? I wanted to see them dealing with some Blast-Ended Skrewts!) I think the directors decided to cut out the details that the true readers love to find in order to appeal to a wider audience--the ones with shorter attention spans. Overall, the films for the most part do the novels justice. They are definitely not the same as the books, but I can still leave the theater fulfilled, as it were. (Even though Harry's eyes still bother me--they're supposed to be bright green! Seriously, how much do colored contacts cost?)

One book turned film I was HIGHLY disappointed in was "Eragon." The novels are absolutely fabulous, and I'm still anxiously awaiting Paolini's concluding volume, but the film was a complete disaster. None of the characters matched the descriptions in the book, an especially important detail when the author made it such a point to illustrate those characters' physical features. The plot in the film was inconsistent with that of the book--and I understand this will happen at least in some small degree to nearly every screenplay version of a novel--but there were vital errors that will seriously impact the next film's plot. Not that I ever expect there to be another film--the screenwriters messed up the story line that badly! The one redeeming quality: the computer-animated dragon was cool-looking. Yeah. Not much redemption there.

The "Twilight" books and movies are a pretty decent pairing. Yes, there are some differences between the novels and films, but they are within the acceptable range. (I was disappointed in the director's choice to use a different actress to play the revenge-seeking redheaded vampire in the third film, but my guess is they didn't want to wait for the original to finish the other film she was doing.) We'll have to wait and see about the last film--the two main characters get married and go on a honeymoon in the novel. I thought the scenes were tastefully written in the book, but "tasteful" doesn't sell in Hollywood.

Then there is the other, very rare extreme, where the movie is better than the book. I have not read the book "Stardust," yet other readers have described a few sordid scenes and I doubt I'll ever waste time reading that book. "Wicked," a musical, not a movie, is also more clean than its original novellian counterpart. Interesting--this means I have never had this experience myself, where I thought the film better than the book. Guess that's just the bibliophile in me!