Years ago, it was standard practice to change the ending of a story. This is what many of us have come to think of as 'the Hollywood ending" and for the most part we pretty much hate that. LOL Then there is 'the book was so much better' belief which we pretty much all agree on. I'm not a screenwriter, but I think it must be very hard to take a much-loved story and translate it to the screen. How do you decide what's important to the story and what can be set aside?
I've been thinking about this because I just finished reading Poldark by Winston Graham and while I was reading it, I kept thinking of the changes that were made in the screenplay. (though some of the dialog is verbatim) I came to the conclusion that I liked the screen version better than the book (not because of Aidan, lol). Don't get me wrong, the book is well written and thoroughly enjoyable, but I could see where a little more drama would be necessary for the screen. Debbie Horsfield, who did the screenplay, had a big responsibility to take the first two books in the series and condense it into the first season, keeping true to the characters as well as getting the nuts and bolts of the story. I think she did a wonderful job!
Which brings me to the BTE list of a few books to movies, loved and unloved:
Cinderella ☺ - The Disney version...of course I was only around 5 or 6 when I saw it, but even today, it's my favorite Disney, with my favorite scene being where the birds and the mice make a ballgown for Cinderella - the movie is not true to the original story, but I don't care.
When Worlds Collide ☹ - Classic example of taking a brilliant sci-fi novel and turning it to trash! I loved the book so much, I wish someone would do a remake and give it the script and cast it deserves.
The Hunger Games ☺ - There were some changes in the first book that really stood out to me and I wondered why they did that, but overall, I think they stayed reasonably true to the story.
The Hobbit ☹/☺ - I really hated that they took an obscure character from the books (Radagast, the brown wizard) and gave him a bigger part in the story (and I hated that he had bird crap in his hair! ick!) Anyway, it kept me from being anxious to see the sequels! Once I got over that, I re-watched it and found I liked it much more than I did at first and subsequently enjoyed the rest of the trilogy. Casting Martin Freeman as Bilbo was genius!
The Lord of the Rings ☺- I wondered what happened to Tom Bombadil, but all in all, I enjoyed the theatrical version of this classic trilogy. I especially like the visualization of the Shire. It was just as I imagined.
Game of Thrones ☺- I've really enjoyed watching (well mostly watching as I closed my eyes a LOT ) the show despite the changes from the books. The good thing is, my memory sucks and I read the books so long ago, that I can't always remember what happened and therefore did not notice many changes. lol
The Midwich Cuckoos ☺ - this book written by John Wyndham was so good and I was pleased that the 1960 version of the story called Village of the Damned stayed true to the story very well. The kids in the film are creepy as they should be. The only complaint is the cheesy title they came up with for the film.
The Killer Angels ☺- I surprisingly loved this book by Michael Shaara and really loved Gettysburg, the film they made of it. The casting was excellent and I felt they followed the book and the history very well. I especially admired Richard Jordan in his final performance, playing General Armistead and Jeff Daniels as Joshua Chamberlain.
I know I could come up with more, but instead I'll ask you for your picks and pans - just put it in the comments below!! Don't be shy!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Step right up and spit it out!