In this situation, the movie was a success and I'm glad it was available; however, this is not always the case. Movies like The Hunger Games and Harry Potter tend to stray from the original text. It's not that the movies are bad, but I'd rather they stick to the plot or go a completely different way, like use the same idea, but change up the plot and title so the book can be its own being. The Harry Potter series, for instance, seems to mean all things Potter - books, movies, board games, etc.
It seems like books become movies to appeal to a larger audience. So many people say "Oh yeah I've seen the movies, I just haven't read the books." For Harry Potter, many people just don't want to spend the time reading thousands of pages, when they can just sit back and watch the movies. This is what's frustrating because in my opinion, the books are so much better. It's not just the storyline that is more compelling, but the way Rowling tells the story. She is actually a good writer, unlike so many series-authors today (i.e. Stephanie Meyer).
In my opinion, a movie rendition can change the value of a book, in the public's eye. The Potter series was unique in that it grew up with a generation. The first book targeted 3rd graders; the last one featured gory death scenes aiming for teenagers and young adults. You can't see that in the movies, its just not the same. Before the first movie came out, everyone went out and bought the book to see what all the hype was about. Now they just rent the movie and say, "that was decent."
In contrast, movie-Hamlet does not change anything about the original Shakespeare piece - that's what's so great about it. Everyone would still rather read the play for the experience of reading Shakespeare. This is one example of a movie that doesn't spoil the original literature, and I'm sure there are more out there. So it goes both ways, in my opinion, but more often than not, the movie doesn't live up to the book's standards.
Here are my questions:
1. What do you think about movies that are based on a book - or real life events - that have a different title and storyline (i.e. The Vow, Rambo, Die Hard)?
2. What about movie propaganda? Do transformers action figures and party favors have any impact on the cultural significance of the film?
It seems like books become movies to appeal to a larger audience. So many people say "Oh yeah I've seen the movies, I just haven't read the books." For Harry Potter, many people just don't want to spend the time reading thousands of pages, when they can just sit back and watch the movies. This is what's frustrating because in my opinion, the books are so much better. It's not just the storyline that is more compelling, but the way Rowling tells the story. She is actually a good writer, unlike so many series-authors today (i.e. Stephanie Meyer).
In my opinion, a movie rendition can change the value of a book, in the public's eye. The Potter series was unique in that it grew up with a generation. The first book targeted 3rd graders; the last one featured gory death scenes aiming for teenagers and young adults. You can't see that in the movies, its just not the same. Before the first movie came out, everyone went out and bought the book to see what all the hype was about. Now they just rent the movie and say, "that was decent."
In contrast, movie-Hamlet does not change anything about the original Shakespeare piece - that's what's so great about it. Everyone would still rather read the play for the experience of reading Shakespeare. This is one example of a movie that doesn't spoil the original literature, and I'm sure there are more out there. So it goes both ways, in my opinion, but more often than not, the movie doesn't live up to the book's standards.
Here are my questions:
1. What do you think about movies that are based on a book - or real life events - that have a different title and storyline (i.e. The Vow, Rambo, Die Hard)?
2. What about movie propaganda? Do transformers action figures and party favors have any impact on the cultural significance of the film?
Giving movies based off of books a different title than the original piece of work or life event gives the director more freedom to transform the story into something that can be well presented on the big screen and make sure it's entertaining for the audience. When you see these "different title" movies, I already walk into the movie thinking that it's definitely not going to as similar as I would expect other movies based off of books to be. Basically, I don't get as angry if some fairly major detail is changed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you, giving the film a different title is a great move. The exclusion of certain book-details is expected and maybe even encouraged. It almost becomes a type of fan fiction. As for movie propaganda, I feel that the action figures and party favors are impacted by the movie, rather than the movie being impacted by the toys and whatever else. It just seems like a way to make a bunch of extra dollars off of a film through means of a completely different market and genre.
ReplyDeleteI think that movies with different titles and plots are an excellent idea, as they are still entertaining and engaging while they leave room for an audience to still be encouraged to read a book or read into details of a real-life situation and avoid angering book fanatics. I agree with the Harry Potter stuff, simply watching the movies obviously doesn't do the books justice, and it's almost aggravating when friends or family watch the movies and think they're ok or even brilliant, because they have no clue how awesome the stories really are.
ReplyDelete