How many times have you read an amazing, well-written novel? How many times has that novel been turned into a movie and made a total disaster?
Personally, my opinion is that if a movie is made to tell a story from a bestseller, it should follow the story line verbatim. It seems that the very few movies that DO follow a novel's storyline turn out better in the long run for not only the readers, but for the viewers as well. For example, other than the additional narrator, the Notebook actually followed the novel pretty well. Angels and Demons by Dan Brown did leave out a few points (I believe this was do to time constraint) but overall, conveyed the meaning and gave the viewers adventure like the novel.
But in relation to Dear John, Time Travelor's Wife, My Sister's Keeper, and so on, Hollywood ruined the novel for all those who read it.
Why do producers do this? Apparently because "following a book loyally does not guarantee box office success".
In Dear John, Hollywood altered the ending so that they could give their viewers the sense that John and Savannah lived "happily ever after". In the movie, John and Savannah continue their loving relationship after the death of Savannah's husband, Tim. This novel was purposely written to be a tragedy. What is so tragic about a happy ending? Sparks wrote the first half of the novel as a love story so that the readers could connect with John and Savannah, so that in the end, the readers are able to relate to John's suffereing when he loses his love while away at war. Also, the movie did not touch on why John and his father had such an awful and distant relationship, so in return, you never understand the true meaning of the coin collection unless you read the novel.
In My Sister's Keeper, Hollywood turned a beautiful and heart breaking story into "an outrage" for the readers. For everyone who read Jody Picolt's novel, this movie was a HUGE disappointment. The ending is what captured the readers and Hollywood chose to tweak it in the worst way. Also, characters were left out as well as all of the struggles in the relationships. The movie focused mainly on Anna, Sara, and Katie while the book walks you through the entire family's suffering. Do you think that if Hollywood captured the true beauty behind this novel instead of changing the ending, that it would not have been a box office success?
Do you think movies in general would be better if Hollywood stuck to the author's story?
Hollywood's 'excuse' - http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/02/prweb205661.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's true that a good book doesn't mean a good movie and vice versa. They're apples and oranges in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of which is better - God made a book not a movie.
I feel sorry for that girl in your class. She will find out very quickly that being a mother takes time, love, commitment, patience, selflessness, tenderheartedness.. the list goes on and on. NOTHING about being a mother is easy. She is a fool and if her so called 'plan' comes to pass, I feel so very sorry for that little life she WILL ruin.
ReplyDeletei don't really read a lot but what you say is true for the few movie/book condemnations that i have read and seen and personally i think the author had the idea that made the book a hit and if you change the idea when making it a movie you change the outcome of its popularity.
ReplyDelete