When a book is turned into a movie its because it was popular. It was made popular because people liked or loved the story line. Therefore it should be the same. As a bookworm a hate when the movies different because I like the story. Also no joke the only reason I like one movie was because the lead male characters were hot other wise it was really bad because it didn't follow the book.
Books are more detailed than the movie and it wouldn't fit in the movie. Also, if it was exactly the same, then what's the point of reading and watching the same story. If the book is very boring, then, the movie would also be very boring. For example, The Hobbit book is very boring to read and the movie is also boring.
What is the point of making a movie that is based off a book if you are not going to follow the book? You have everything you need to make a movie, just simply follow the book. Why is this so hard for movie directors to understand? I think that there needs to be a contract between the author of the book and whoever is going to make the movie, to ensure accuracy. The author should be the one that gets to say what goes in the movie and what should be left out. Simply because its their idea. Really, if one thinks about it, these movie directors are stealing somebody else's idea and declaring it as their own.
Movies should be exactly like their books. Books are written to tell a story and the author of the book wrote the book to tell a story, if directors and producers don’t make the movies like the books the story the author was trying to tell may fade away. Sometimes the movies can be better than the books but that is because the directors add things to the movie so it can be more affective. If directors do not make movies like their books the story will not be as affective and the viewer will not be able to feel all the emotions they felt reading the book.
The opposition may think that if movies are like their books they are not unique or intriguing, so viewers will not like them. Directors make movies for entertaining and if they make the movies like the books than the people that have read the books and see the movie may think the movie is not entertaining. If movies are based on books then the directors should not leave important parts out. Movies are made to bring the books to life, if directors leave parts out that are a part of the story, and then the movie will not make sense.
The Hunger Games left important parts out of the movies, so when readers saw the movie they may have not liked it as much as they thought they would have. In order for movies to tell the story of the book they should not leave important parts out that shape the story. Movies should be exactly like their books in order to tell the story.
Movies should be true to the books, as we're here to see the book leveled into glorious cinematic format, not this "where did THAT come from" that sometimes crops up. When I see a 40k movie, I want GRIM DARKNESS, not "Hey look at these guys being better than everyone else" I'm looking at you, Ultramarines.
I like books, but I always hate the movies if they miss important parts in the book, like in harry potter the first one the movie completely misses harry naming Hedwig and in the hunger games it completely missed a lot of things in the book more things than I can name. If this doesn't happen then we should stop making movies about books. Books are there to put a picture in your mind not to watch the movie
Whenever people make a movie based on book, it is just that, BASED on the book. Don't look at movies as a visualization of the book, look at it as a retelling. Movies are supposed to be another version of the story, equally valid, however different it may be. Watching is also quite different from reading. With reading, you can stop and continue anywhere and you aren't expected to read for 6 hours or so straight. With movies, you can't do that. Scenes need to be condensed and cut to fit time constraints. Plus, some scenes, when translated on screen, such as long dialogue, is frankly boring to watch. Movies need to be able to hold your attention, so reworking the plot is necessary.
Lastly, to refer back to my headline, I'd like to use one of my favorite authors as an example; Michael Crichton.
For those who've never heard of him, he is the author of Jurassic Park. What's interesting about this, is that he wrote the novel and the screenplay simultaneously. Those who have both read the novel and seen the movie know how different the two are. Even successful authors know that what works on paper doesn't always work well on screen. Therefore, movies and the books they are based on should be seen as two versions of the same story, and should not be exactly like each other.
Some of the books might be too long and if you change it to the movies, it might be really long. The second reason is some part of the books might be boring, so if it's in the movies, it would be even more boring. The last reason is some of the characters might not be important, so it shouldn't be in the movies.
Some parts of the books would have been boring to look at. For example when people are talking to each other for a long time in the book, it would have been boring to watch people talk to each other all the time. Also it will be more exiting when the movies has songs and music in it. Sometimes it would be good to remove some characters in the movie to make it funnier to watch
While I share the frustration with people when a movie's plot is NOTHING like the book and I think that the general plot and idea should be shared. However there are some necessary aspects for movies that do not apply to the book and some parts of books may not be practical for movies while putting other things in movies will make them more exciting, using and embracing creativity. Try making a movie without changing anything from the book and you will find that it is a lot more difficult than you think.
If a movie was exactly like its book then it would probably be a 5-6 hour long movie. Sometimes a movie may miss some parts of the book but that's only because the people who created the movie want to leave time for the important parts. Some people think that if the movie is not exactly like the book there is no reason to watch the movie but in my opinion if the movie has a twist I think its kind of cool to see a different scene put in.
If it were exactly the same as the book, it wouldn't be very unique or entertaining. In some cases, movies should be made exactly like books if they're intended for educational and learning purposes. In most cases, however, movies intended for entertainment should include some artistic flair from the director.
I am huge fan of books and when it comes to the point that the book I have read will have a movie adaptation, I get so excited but I really do not expect much. When we are reading books, it can take us about 1 day or less (for some) or more while when we watch movies, it can only take 2-3 hours. This could be a reason why film directors need to cut some scenes to fit the time frame for movies. Movies are just there to interpret visually what were written in books. We should not expect that every detail we read in books would be the same to what we can see in movies. Also, in some books turned to movies like the Percy Jackson and the Olympians: Lightning Thief, many book fans were reacting because the main characters in the film (Percy, Annabeth, Grover, etc.) looked like 16 year old teens instead of 12 year olds like in the book. This was done because of course, to make the movie more fascinating to audience who have not read the book because not everybody wanted to watch kids with their lame actings and such.
Im a huge book lover but i hate when people complain about the book and the movie not being the exact same. A movie is an adaptation of a book. Its a visual interpretation. Sometimes you can show the same idea in a different way thats better for a visual medium over a textual medium while keeping roughly the same story and essence the book had. An example is when they added the dam scene in Mockingjay part 1. A lot of people complained because it wasn't in the book but all you needed to know was that her propaganda tapes were affecting the people. The added scene got the message across in an effective manner and was a really good scene.