# What makes a good film adaption of a book?



## Mariner (Mar 12, 2013)

What makes an adaption good?


----------



## Robert_S (Mar 12, 2013)

Well, for my perspective, it needs to be true to the original, unless the original was lacking in depth. Case in point: LOTR vs DOOM. DOOM wasn't a book, but as a story it had little to make it stand out other than it was a forerunner to current RPGs and pretty much made the genre of games. I've read Fellowship and the movie adhered to the book very well, though time was compressed more.

I've also seen a lot of adaptations of HR Lovecraft's stories to film and perhaps the only ones I appreciated were "From Beyond" and "Re-Animator."  All others deviated so much as to be unrecognizable as Lovecraft. There was a silent b&w movie that adhered to "Call of Cthulhu" verbatim, but it was a silent and lost a lot in translation. They made it a silent b&w because at the time of the short story's release, silent movies were what was available. I think that is too much adherence. I've imagined that short made into a movie as well, but a talkie and in color, with Liam Neeson as the protagonist. His voice seems to fit just right.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 12, 2013)

For me it's simple, having the ability to bring to life a true representation of the world that was created in the book.  LOTR would have never been as popular a movie as it was, had not the movie company spent the money to build entire towns in the outback of New Zealand.


----------



## Angelwing (Mar 12, 2013)

I think I'd speak for everyone when I say that it needs to be faithful to the book(s). Not too much liberty-maybe some, like if the book is ambiguous in some parts. 

For example, I thought Tom Clancy's _The Hunt for Red October _was actually represented pretty well. If you keep your ears open, you'll catch mentions and explanations that you would expect they'd simply leave out in a movie adaptation. For example, you'd assume it'd be too much to mention the scrambling of the WHOLE Soviet Navy after the _Red October, _however you hear Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) mentioning the _Kirov, Moskva, _and _Kiev_ being put to sea. The only problem is that it didn't seem like they hit on Ramius' distaste with the Communist system perhaps as well as they could have. Still, overall it was a pretty faithful adaptation. 

It's been awhile since I saw the movie, or read the book, but I seem to remember that the movie _Black Hawk Down_ was also pretty faithful. Like the book, it introduced you to the men before the October 3rd, 1993 mission, and then on that mission, captured the chaos and all. All the same characters died, attitudes on the radio were made clear, etc. 

Of course, having certain actors could also compliment everything. Though, care should be taken for the well known actor to not detract from book-faithfulness.


----------



## vangoghsear (Mar 15, 2013)

I've written a stage play and screenplay adaptation of a friend's  novel.  The movie was never produced, but the play was.  The hardest  aspect to get worked out is the emotional journey of an audience verses  that of a reader.   In an average reader the journey takes a few days,  in an audience only a few hours.

In my adaptation, there was a  character that died in the book and I firmly believe that an audience  would not accept this character's death at the point it occurs if it  were to happen in a movie or play.  It is a character piece, a civil war  drama set in a house on the battlefield in Gettysburg.  In  screenwriting you have only a short time +- 2 hours to make your points  with an audience.  Death is a distraction.  If it happens at the wrong  time in a movie or play the audience may not be able to absorb it in  time to continue where you want/need them to go mentally.   For example,  if you are watching an action adventure movie and the hero dies in the  last ten minutes, before the villain is dealt with.  The audience will  be waiting for him to come back somehow and finish the job.  If that  doesn't happen, you better darn sight have set it up that his protege  does the job.  If it just ends with the villain winning the day, the  audience will be disappointed and will spend the entire last ten minutes  waiting for something that doesn't happen.   If that is not your point,  your point will be lost on the audience.

In the book I adapted, I  spent three days worrying over an aspect of the story as I read the  book.  One of the characters has to perform an amputation.  He is not a  doctor, but the situation calls for him to step up and cut off a man's  wounded leg.  I found it hard to sleep at night when I was reading the  book worrying over how an ordinary person could do such a thing.  The  writer's ability to draw that out in me as a reader was amazing to me.  I  WANTED that feeling in my audience, but I only had +- 2 hours to set it  up, develop it, and let it dwell in their thoughts, all while other  stuff is happening.  That to me is what makes a good adaptation.  If it  captures the mood and the essence of what makes the book interesting  then it succeeds.


----------



## movieman (Mar 18, 2013)

Angelwing said:


> I think I'd speak for everyone when I say that it needs to be faithful to the book(s). Not too much liberty-maybe some, like if the book is ambiguous in some parts.



So long as they are faithful to the book and not the words within it. Fight Club, for example, is one of the best novel adaptions I've seen, but has a different ending that, to me, works much better than the novel. American Psycho also benefited from throwing away about six hundred pages of the book.


----------



## Trilby (Mar 21, 2013)

Matching the right actors to the characters is important.


----------



## Edward Picot (Mar 22, 2013)

I think I'd have to disagree a bit about the virtues of faithfulness to the original. What works well in one medium may not work well in another, and slavish fidelity to the original text may produce something which is accurate but dull. By contrast, a really talented film-maker will take a book and reinvent it in his own way. There have been various adaptations of Alice in Wonderland which have played fast and loose with the original book in one way or another, but some of them have been really successful - I'm a particular fan of Jan Svankmeier's animated version. The War of the Worlds has also been adapted several times, and all the adaptations I can think of have jettisoned the original early-1900s setting and a lot of the original story, but kept the basic idea of invaders from outer space eventually being defeated not by human military might but by germs to which they have no immunity. Most Dracula and Frankenstein films have kept only the basic ideas from the original stories and played fast and loose with the rest, and the best ones have been none the worse for it. David Lean's adaptation of Oliver Twist dispenses with the more melodramatic parts of the book - Oliver's evil cousin Monks, who is trying to do him out of his inheritance - and has been followed in this by all the subsequent adaptations I can think of: and a good thing too, because the Monks sections of Dickens' novel are its least successful parts.


----------



## movieman (Mar 25, 2013)

Edward Picot said:


> The War of the Worlds has also been adapted several times, and all the adaptations I can think of have jettisoned the original early-1900s setting and a lot of the original story, but kept the basic idea of invaders from outer space eventually being defeated not by human military might but by germs to which they have no immunity.



I was going to mention War of the Worlds, because the low-budget version that tried to stick to the Wells story and time period is infamous for its scenes of people walking from place to place for no immediately apparent reason. I don't think it could ever have been a good movie with the budget they had, but the later cut that removed most of the walking certainly made it a better movie.


----------



## Keynine Lox (Jul 13, 2013)

*First step = Summarize*
Close 400 pages of book in 1:80 min is not so easy as we thought.
Putting the key moments. Strict on secondary stories. Cut a lot of dialogues.

*Second step = Affection*
If  the book is Famous, follow the plot with no distortion. (like mr potter  and LOTR). Remember the Eragon Movie?Total disaster, cause they change  the most important parts. If you change too mutch (for gaining time)  fans will be surely disappointed, and the movie never have a sequel (if  you know what i mean)
If the book is Not too famous, everytime change  the plot in better, covering what the original autor miss. Like Blade  Runner (Do androids dreams of electric sheep?). The book is  more..uf..religious of the movie. (but the movie don't mean nothing  without the last monologue of Roy, who doesn't even be said in the  book.) Even Shining (of stephen king) was different from the book. Even  if the author is disappointed, making a movie better than his book is  important, cause it have more audience of course.
(Luckly they cut a  lot of IT of SK. The entire production risked to go in jail if they had  followed the original book. I hate that man.)

*Third Step: Character/Cast*
Never  chose a character who's famous but don't fit the original one, only  because yuo make some other odience with that trick. You risk to ruin  his career and also the movie.
The casting is one of the hardest  point. Difficult to choose, if the author of the book never describe the  protagonist...like me.

That's all, i think. If I remember some else I'll edit the post. If not, well, hope I've helped


----------



## lightzonlycast (Jul 16, 2013)

I really think that you have to be faithful to the tone and the themes of the book, but you also have to really know how to pace the film version well. Some of the story stuff you can play around with. 

Many posters have mentioned LOTR here but I had the exact opposite reaction to the films. I thought a lot of what was shown in them was boring despite how much money you can tell was put into them. I'm not saying I want action all of the time, but I think the best films know how to build to numerous climatic scenes. The build up to me is more fascinating than the actual climax sometimes. 

Whoever mentioned _Fight Club _and _American Psycho_ was dead on. Two great examples of a movie telling a story better than a book. _American Psycho_ was to this day one of the hardest books I've ever trudged through simply because the pacing is so slow.


----------



## Sjonak (Jul 23, 2013)

I enjoy loose adaptations, those perceived and categorized more as strong inspirations transferred to the film medium. Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, Oil!/There will be Blood.


----------



## WatcherOfSky (Jul 27, 2013)

Indeed I have to agree with what has been mentioned the most here, it must stay true to the original book, especially if the book didn't need unnecessary changes.

I used to be a "Guardians of Ga'Hoole" fan, but when I saw the movie, I went into a a sort of depression that lasted a few days. It was so rushed, and many of my favorite parts had been changed, even a few things added. It didn't have the feel i got from the original books, and was a complete let down. It was really a film for people who hadn't read the books.

I can say the same thing for "Avatar: The Last Airbender" but that didn't adapt from a book, but rather an anime/manga, but it's the same concept.


----------



## Senserial (Aug 20, 2013)

As mentioned, making a 2 hours long movie based on a book with hunderds of pages is not an easy thing. Literature and cinema are different kinds of art, use different means of expression. Many people say: "The book is much better than the movie". 
What is needed for a good film adaption of a book? Maybe I will repeat what other members have already written, but first the movie needs to stay true to the original story, although some parts that are not critical for the story could be skipped. Of course, the casting is very important, as well. At least the main characters in the movie should be as close to the ones in the book as possible.
Example of a good movie adaption: "Jane Eyre"
example of a bed movie adaption: "Love in a time of cholera"
(This is just a personal opinion)


----------



## philistine (Aug 20, 2013)

The best film adaptations I've had the pleasure of seeing were all made by filmmakers who had, or took the following into consideration:

- Consulting the original author (if they're still alive), and working alongside them. Nobody can envision the _mise-en-scène_ better than the person who wrote the book. He or she can lend invaluable insight to constructing the entire film.

- Imagination. 

- Restraint, in the sense that an encroaching desire to Hollywood it up can essentially act as a cyanide pill to the entire project. The chief importance lies on how the information and dialogue in the book is translated to the screen, and not placing undue emphasis on 'making it look pretty'. 

- Having actually read the material. You'd be surprised how many hack filmmakers have been anxious to make a film adaptation without having even digested the book. 

- Faithfulness to the original work.

I don't feel this is necessary, though a personal affinity towards the sentiments of the novel, story, etc. For example, Nelson Pereira dos Santos filmed an exceptional version of his fellow countryman Graciliano Ramos de Oliveira's novel _Vidas Secas_, or _Barren Lives_ as it's known in English. He grew up in the same environment as both the author and the characters he created. The success of the project was practically assured.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 20, 2013)

Ask Terry Gilliam, cos you'll not see a more faithful adaptation than his _Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas_. I watched it within a matter of days of finishing the book and it was like watching a visual carbon copy.

Having said that, I don't much care for faithfulness, one way or the other. A film's primary function is to be entertaining. Take Spielberg's _Minority Report_, for instance. _Very_ loosely based on PKD's short of the same name, but still a great film, in my opinion. I think it's a bit silly not to like a film - that you would otherwise admit to having enjoyed - just because it doesn't stick faithfully to the source.


----------



## philistine (Aug 20, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I think it's a bit silly not to like a film - that you would otherwise admit to having enjoyed - just because it doesn't stick faithfully to the source.



I agree, though the reason for the prevalence of that belief is due to the overwhelming number of terrible adaptations, for many of the reasons I and others mentioned previously. It's something of a 'well, if they [the director] wanted to deviate so much from the source, why not just make a completely new movie?' thought.

And yeah, _Minority Report_ kicked the fattest arse, man. I love that scene which occurs shortly after the agency discovering the dog in the boot of his car, where he goes all Allan Quatermain on them.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 20, 2013)

Usually, it's non-existence (for me). Exceptions only crop up when the director understands the lifeblood running through the book and has the license and ability to expand or shrink the story with artistic prowess.

And good actors.


----------



## Robert_S (Aug 20, 2013)

I would also like to say, that film is a visual and auditory medium.  You'll not ever see a character's thoughts, so that cuts down on a lot of text in a book. Also, since a picture is worth a thousand words, you'll be able to compress a lot of description into a single scene of one minute or less.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 21, 2013)

philistine said:


> And yeah, _Minority Report_ kicked the fattest arse, man. I love that scene which occurs shortly after the agency discovering the dog in the boot of his car, where he goes all Allan Quatermain on them.



I can never tell when you're on a wind-up, philistine, so I'll risk it. _What_ scene where the agency discover the dog in the boot of his car?


----------



## philistine (Aug 21, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I can never tell when you're on a wind-up, philistine, so I'll risk it. _What_ scene where the agency discover the dog in the boot of his car?



I wasn't... though you've just made me realise it wasn't actually _Minority Report_ that I was thinking of, but _Equilibrium_. D'oh.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 21, 2013)

philistine said:


> I wasn't... though you've just made me realise it wasn't actually _Minority Report_ that I was thinking of, but _Equilibrium_. D'oh.


----------



## SVenus (Sep 2, 2013)

A good adaptation is something that takes the source material and makes it work in another medium. The first HP novel is somewhat different from the first HP movie but I'd still call it a good adaption simply because it's good. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a faithful adaptation isn't necessarily a good adaptation.


----------



## TheGreedyimp (Dec 31, 2013)

It really depends on what you're looking for.
If you're looking for a good adaptation MOVIE, then it's just as simple as asking what makes a good movie.
But, if you're looking for a good movie that stays true to the canon or source material, it's a bit more complex and biased. 

First off, the movie has to be well made. That goes without saying

Secondly, the movie has to stay true to the source material. This is the part that gets very difficult due to the audience.
This part depends on how popular the source material is. Take Harry Potter for example. Harry Potter has an incredibly large fan base and the director and script writers knew that. The movie series was practically the same as the book, with a few omissions. People liked(generally) it that way. Then there's Catch Me if You Can and Forrest Gump. You may not have known that these were originally books and the movie producers used this to their advantage and practiced their freedom while making the film.


----------



## Deleted member 54984 (Jan 14, 2014)

I'd say that is a very tricky answer as it really depends on your preference. For me I find being faithful to the materiel from the book really counts to making a good adaptation. Then again that doesn't mean it will be the greatest adaptation ever. An example for me is I really enjoy the novel Frankenstein. Now when we look at the classic Universal Frankenstein movie, it is almost not even close to the book, but it is still a very successful and cherished film and considered a classic film. Now we look at Mary Shelley's Frankenstein movie with Robert De Niro as the film and well I really enjoyed that film, it wasn't the most successful especially when comparing it to the Universal Boris Karloff version. So for me it depends on the audience.


----------



## DABS (Jan 16, 2014)

I think the director needs to have a vision.  They have an interpretation of the story that they want to bring to life.  That should incorporate some degree of faithfulness to the original, but really I think it should be more about the director's work maintaining some level of interaction with the source material and with audiences' notions of the source material.  The Lord of the Rings has been mentioned a few times, and while Peter Jackson did keep true to a lot of aspects to the book and the world of middle earth he also geared the story more towards action and violence, and to a great result. 

In other words, I don't think a book's details and plot should be compromised for the sake of, say, making the movie more digestible for mainstream audiences, but instead have some of it compromised to deliver's a director's message/ideas/whatever.


----------



## siliconpoetry (Mar 1, 2014)

I run a website that reviews Book to Film adaptations. I have worked with many reviewers and found that the best reviews came from people who were either scriptwriters or novelists themselves. They could go on and on about every nuance of the book or the film. Most of the time this included a lot of cast and director commentaries. There was one caveat that I had hoped the reviewers could keep: mention related works. Unfortunately, that seemed hard for almost all of them or they didn't try too:loyal:. Mostly, they compared the book with the movie.

The one book I both read and watched the movie was "The Wolf of Wall Street" a Scorsese flick. The book was full of coarse grammar and filthy words-even more drugs and sex. Most, if not all, of the main characters were in the movie which is always important to a adaptation. The movie retained all of these while including only a little of the books 1st person styling. In other, words the movie was narrated in only a few scenes. The rest played like a regular movie and stole certain scenes from the book.  One thing not mentioned in any of the reply's above is that the literary voice of the book can't be translated over very easily without forcing the director into creating his scenes in a certain way.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 1, 2014)

siliconpoetry said:


> I run a website that reviews Book to Film adaptations. I have worked with many reviewers and found that the best reviews came from people who were either scriptwriters or novelists themselves. They could go on and on about every nuance of the book or the film. Most of the time this included a lot of cast and director commentaries. There was one caveat that I had hoped the reviewers could keep: mention related works. Unfortunately, that seemed hard for almost all of them or they didn't try too:loyal:. Mostly, they compared the book with the movie.
> 
> The one book I both read and watched the movie was "The Wolf of Wall Street" a Scorsese flick. The book was full of coarse grammar and filthy words-even more drugs and sex. Most, if not all, of the main characters were in the movie which is always important to a adaptation. The movie retained all of these while including only a little of the books 1st person styling. In other, words the movie was narrated in only a few scenes. The rest played like a regular movie and stole certain scenes from the book.  One thing not mentioned in any of the reply's above is that the literary voice of the book can't be translated over very easily without forcing the director into creating his scenes in a certain way.



I think what you are saying is true, and only people that have read the books first will pick up on it.  Little things really do make a difference.  I think I may have alluded to it earlier in this thread, but I read "The Green Mile" series of books before the movie, and also the Stephen King book "Dream Catcher."  "The Green Mile" was pretty close to the books, while "Dream Catcher" was a much scarier book than movie.


----------



## Artemis (Mar 11, 2014)

I think what makes an adaption good is someone putting their own mark on the story while staying true to the original at the same time, Peter Jacksons Hobbit is a perfect example of this as I am a die hard Tolkien fan and the hobbit is my favourite book yet I still love that PJ added to the story


----------



## stevesh (Mar 11, 2014)

I think the time limitation makes some movies less interesting than the book. I like both the book and movie versions of the first _Hunger Games_, but there were a lot of good scenes in the book that there weren't time for in the movie. The book _Six Days of the Condor_ became _Three Days of the Condor_ as a movie.


----------



## John Reed (Mar 23, 2014)

Watch the entire several minutes of end credits to any movie.  See those hundreds of names?  All those people are responsible for the quality of a film, and there are far more not on that list who can ruin it.  

If you want a really enlightening look at how and why so many movies turn out awful, take part in a test-screening sometime.  Imagine seeing studio employees ask the guy in a Budweiser hat and "no fat chicks" t-shirt what he thought about "Cinema Paradiso"...and taking notes from him.


----------



## Yfig (Mar 26, 2014)

I don't have a ready made receipe for a good adaptation, but, I can tell you exactly what not to do ... *never *:

TROY

movie said inspired by Homère the Greek antique poet ... but the adaptator removed all gods from the scenar and this is a huge betrayal to evereabody the author, the readers, the spectators .... if you read the book and you see the movie ... you get a furious desire to kill them all !!!


----------



## connerm96 (Apr 7, 2014)

In my opinion, Stuff can't be made up for the sake of more generated interest. For example, in_The Hobbit_, Radaghasts appearance didn't hit me well. I felt it was unneeded and goofy. I thought the movie could have been better if his character was taken in a different way, or better yet, didn't appear at all.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Apr 12, 2014)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a good example.

Isn't it a matter of transforming the images and themes, as closely as possible, to the screen? Because you're not meant to take away from the story, you're meant to translate it (as you would a foreign language) to a different medium.

P.S. LOVED Cinema Paradiso".


----------



## Erik Fantasia (Apr 29, 2014)

Ok so keep the storyline but don't be unwilling to turn away, although hesitant, from it if better for the film. This would be in the interest of characterization. Also interact with the book fans, see what they have to think. And or course, good music! Don't have them writing for the movie but for the themes. Concept art also helps link the movie to the book. If there are icons you need to use them. If there is strong imagery then utilize it. And don't be afraid to put interpretation in, as long as it doesn't change the story. Take Hunger Games: adding the visuals of the people controling the games was cool and did not change anything. A movie is a written slate waiting to be three dimensional.


----------



## Ethan (May 1, 2014)

I think the Director has to be a genuine fan of the writer or the genre, if he has a true grasp of the subject matter coupled with ability , then no matter what the Movie is about , it will be a winner!


----------



## Elvenswordsman (May 1, 2014)

How readers see your books.

Tom Bombadil, anyone?


----------



## 19Ross (May 23, 2014)

I think with adaptions, you should always expect things to be changed.  Movies and books are just too different from each other: A movie lasts about 2 hours, but a book can last ten times that, spread out over several weeks.  In order to capture the "spirit"(for lack of a better term) of the original, changes are always going to have to be made.  Otherwise you end up with a bad movie that SOUNDS a lot a like the book when you describe the plot, but isn't nearly as enjoyable to watch as the book was to read.  

Basically, a good adaption captures the important, thematic parts of the original while still functioning as a movie.


----------



## Morkonan (May 23, 2014)

Mariner said:


> What makes an adaption good?



Something that faithfully recreates the intended experience within a new medium while meaningfully expanding upon it with that medium's capabilities.


----------



## twelvesoswald (Nov 30, 2014)

I think that it needs to remain as true to the original work ad it can, I am all for adapting and adding things to make it new of different but if you don't know what the original work is, or if you stray so much that a fan of the original work has no idea what the original work has to do with the adaption this is a no no. I also feel like having the creator of the work on the set, as a screen writer or an executive producer helps becasue they can say yes or no to things.


----------



## Optiluiz (Dec 3, 2014)

I guess it has to do with realizing that films and books are different mediums and what works in one will not work in the other.

Speeding up the pacing and condensing background information in visual details and dialogue helps, but it'll never be exactly the same information in both forms. If you think about it, novelizations of films are rarely as good as the films themselves, and for the same reason. That's why some books adapt better visually than others.

A good example of an adaptation that worked was Fight Club, a case where the author of the original book suggested that the finished film was superior to his novel, due to his ideas being better transmitted visually.


----------



## mrsT-rious (Jan 28, 2015)

in my opinion it has to remain  true to its original story. If not it's a very disappointing  film.


----------



## JamesR (Feb 6, 2015)

It has to be made solely for the fans of the book and thus appeal to a very particular audience. With that in mind, high profile actors, crazy antics and high-budget explosions, and other cool aesthetics of a summer blockbuster need to be sacrificed in favor of trueness to the book, a very well written script, and length.

For example, as a huge Richard Matheson fan, I was very disappointed by the 2007 _I am Legend_ film. That's not to detract from Will Smith's superb acting, but the movie was nothing like the book and it sacrificed accuracy for action, ratings, and a wider audience. I believe that Vincent Price's older, low-budget _The Last Man on Earth_ was a better film simply because it was a more faithful adaptation of the Matheson's _I am Legend_ book.


----------



## JamesR (Feb 6, 2015)

Trilby said:


> Matching the right actors to the characters is important.



This times 1,000,000+

Oftentimes film adaptations of a book will simply focus on getting a high-profile actor to draw in a larger audience, even if that actor is ill-equipped for the character he or she is portraying.


----------



## Doja (Feb 10, 2015)

It has to be true to the book.  If you have a novel that is anywhere in the 300-450 page range then you know there is a lot of content....and that needs to be translated to film. The movie has to be at least 2+ hours long to really deliver the content.

What I see a lot of the time is that they will take a book and butcher it to make it fit into the hour and a half range.  You end up with this butchered product that well...just sucks.


----------



## EricStevenJ. (Mar 17, 2015)

JamesR said:


> Trilby said:
> 
> 
> > Matching the right actors to the characters is important.
> ...



There seems to be quite a few on both sides of the fence here, but I would tend to agree with the above. I don't think there are any strict rules that make a film adaptation good; I think it depends on the audience, as it is with most artwork.

If you want to captivate the original audience, then, chances are, you'll need to replicate the book as closely as possible.

Regardless of the audience, however, I think the most important facet is to have the right actors for the characters.

When's the last time you started a movie and watched it all the way through even though you didn't enjoy a single one of the characters?

Conversely, when's the last time you started a book and read it all the way through, but didn't enjoy a single one of the characters?

Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I've done the latter more often than the former. In fact, I don't think I've ever watched a film without being hooked by one of the characters.


----------



## Justine (Sep 1, 2015)

I think that one of the most important things, if not THE most important things is casting the right actors. They're the one that will make our characters come to life. Best they do it right, no? Their acting styles must fit the character. 


It also has to be true the books, I can understand that sometimes some changes are needed because character's thoughts and all can obviously be shown on screen. I mean, they won't speak aloud what they're thinking about when they're alone. What i'm trying to say is that they must find a way to get their emotions right. Catch the spirit of the book. 


A thing that bother me with adaptations is... Either they cut too much (and the wrong scenes sometimes) or they stretch it like they did with the Hobbit movies and add unnecessary stories poorly written.


----------



## denmark423 (Jan 6, 2016)

For me, if a books is to be adopted as movie, it needs to have a very good content or story that will surely relate readers into watching the movie.


----------



## denmark423 (Feb 17, 2016)

I think it would be good if you stick with the original story. Just adjust with the adoption on some additions if necessary.


----------



## escorial (Feb 28, 2016)

the books always better but To Kill a Mocking Bird rocked as a book and film


----------



## denmark423 (Mar 1, 2016)

It is important that the film adaption of the book is what exactly is in the book. It should have limited additional scenes to maintain the true story.


----------



## Frankyette (Apr 18, 2016)

denmark423 said:


> It is important that the film adaption of the book is what exactly is in the book. It should have limited additional scenes to maintain the true story.



Why sacrifice the story of the film for accuracy to its source? As long as it's close in material and very close in ethos, there's no reason why the plot can't variate from what's already written. 

It's not always possible -- in fact, usually impossible -- to condense a novel's entire, exact plot into two hours. In fact, if it _were _easily done, it probably wouldn't be a novel. 

The film exists to tell a story, too. The story shouldn't be weighed down by every little detail from the novel. (While many details are nice in a novel, they're not possible in movies, you know.)


----------



## Zedten (Aug 29, 2017)

One day I really want to either make a film from 2 books that have inspired me, or at least write scripts or screenplays for them.

Definitely finding the right actors/actresses to play the parts. 
And to be as true to the book as possible I think is important. Though, adaptions from books are also good.


----------



## sas (Sep 1, 2017)

I am stupidly interjecting:

I just heard that movie theater attendance is way down. I'm sure not a surprise. But, I researched, looking for a reason, other than the obvious competition elsewhere. Take whatever you want from this:

During the last twelve years (1995-2017) every single top grossing film was classified as either: Super Hero; Sci Fi; Kids Fiction; or Fantasy....except for two years when Historical Fiction took top honors (1998-Titantic & 2006-Pirates of the Carribean...really?, Pirates, historical???). That's why I don't go.

Write away, folks. Few will see it, even if produced, as the target audience has been lowered. Intricate plot and interesting dialogue are left at theater curbs. Little clouds are above the actor's heads that say, "Bam! Kapow!"   

.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 13, 2017)

sas said:


> I am stupidly interjecting:
> 
> I just heard that movie theater attendance is way down. I'm sure not a surprise. But, I researched, looking for a reason, other than the obvious competition elsewhere. Take whatever you want from this:
> 
> ...


  attendance down? I'm gonna guess and say it has nothing to do with any of that:  vroom--Beep-beep, errrtch! screetch!--there's one! (sound effects folks) Kuh-ching!"thank you"- Ah... ehemm-ehh-hemmm- cough...sniffle- cough-cough, ehem-cough-sniffle(fart), crinkle, crinkle-crinkle, ehem, cough- "what did he say?""shh", cough cough, crinkle crinkle- ehem-cough. 
Now why in the hell would I go out and pay for any of that?


----------



## sas (Sep 13, 2017)

Exactly, Kevin.  Am I the only one who thinks the young only write fantasy & sci-fi stuff? It seems too many new writers in WF introduce themselves as writers of fantasy and sci-fi. Am I crazy wrong?  Is it a sign that writing & living in reality is way too difficult?  Hmmmm. Hmmmmm. I'm sure (and hope) someone will give me statistics to prove I'm wrong. Please, prove me wrong.


----------

