Sunday, 17 March 2013

The book versus the film

It happens to me all the time. I read the book, I love the book and then they decide to make a film out of it. 

I should be happy, right? Right?

Well, I usually am happy. I'm usually beyond happy. I'm usually the girl who pre-books her tickets and stands in the queue for the film for an hour before the screen opens just so I don't get rubbish seats (even longer in some cases - but the Twilight Saga was worth the extra wait!) 

Is it worth it? Is it actually worth all that trouble?

To be honest... not always. There is nothing worse than sitting through a two hour film that does not even remotely resemble the book. Or one that has a different ending. Or one that renames the characters. If the book has done well enough for them to want to make a film version of it... why do they change it? 

Now, I'm not talking about the little irrelevant changes or alterations that are necessary to make things cinematic, I'm talking major plot twists. Major adaptations to the outcome (I'm looking at the likes of you; The Other Boleyn girl). It's a serious question, and if anyone knows the answer - I'd like to know. 

Now, not all films are guilty of doing this - some of the film versions are amazing. Look at The Hunger Games; the differences between the film and the book were minimal. And the Twilight Saga - they didn't change things around too much there (I shall choose to ignore the battle scene at the end of Breaking Dawn, Part two - given that it wasn't real). But sometimes the film makers go all out and the book gets completely lost in translation. It makes me wonder if the screenwriter even read the book? Or did they flick through a few chapters and think, "That'll do!"

As a reader, it's utterly disappointing. 

So I applaud the films that stay true to the book. That stay true to the thing that made them successful in the first place. They are the reason I still bother.

As for the rest of 'em; Shame. On. You.

No comments:

Post a Comment