The Pros and Cons of Movies Based on Books by Cameron McGill (Post 4 of Blog Week)
Hello All. Today's post will be a bit different than the previous posts of blog week and instead of focusing on a book I will be focusing on book movies. I have nothing else to say in this introduction, so let's just start.
The first adjective that comes to mind when I think of book movies is disappointing. In my opinion, most book movies are worse than the books. This is usually because of one of two things. Either the people who made the film had to fit a ten hour book into a two hour film which caused lots of pacing issues and issues with the plot, or the people making the film don't have a understanding of what made the books so great. A lot of book movies try really hard to look flashy to draw in an audience so they make money but the film itself doesn't have any substance and it's just a lot of pretty CGI. These films are often fun for the first twenty minutes or so with all of their flashy action, but become a drag shortly after those good first few minutes.
However, there are a few movies that are better than the books. This is usually because they are able to maintain the great storytelling and action of their source material without rushing the plot. These book movies are often based on shorter books since it means they don't have to rush scenes or mess with the plot. An example of this is classic film, Jurassic Park. The book is still amazing, but being able to see people being ripped apart into a screaming bloody decapitated mess is even better than reading about it. I think the visual aspect is a big part of what can make a book movie better than the book. (The other parts being the pacing and plot.)
So in conclusion, most book movies are pretty sloppy and bad but there are a few good ones. However, I do think that book movies are a good idea and I hope they continue to be filmed and produced because there is occasionally a book movie that makes it all worth it. Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope you have been enjoying Blog Week.
The first adjective that comes to mind when I think of book movies is disappointing. In my opinion, most book movies are worse than the books. This is usually because of one of two things. Either the people who made the film had to fit a ten hour book into a two hour film which caused lots of pacing issues and issues with the plot, or the people making the film don't have a understanding of what made the books so great. A lot of book movies try really hard to look flashy to draw in an audience so they make money but the film itself doesn't have any substance and it's just a lot of pretty CGI. These films are often fun for the first twenty minutes or so with all of their flashy action, but become a drag shortly after those good first few minutes.
However, there are a few movies that are better than the books. This is usually because they are able to maintain the great storytelling and action of their source material without rushing the plot. These book movies are often based on shorter books since it means they don't have to rush scenes or mess with the plot. An example of this is classic film, Jurassic Park. The book is still amazing, but being able to see people being ripped apart into a screaming bloody decapitated mess is even better than reading about it. I think the visual aspect is a big part of what can make a book movie better than the book. (The other parts being the pacing and plot.)
So in conclusion, most book movies are pretty sloppy and bad but there are a few good ones. However, I do think that book movies are a good idea and I hope they continue to be filmed and produced because there is occasionally a book movie that makes it all worth it. Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope you have been enjoying Blog Week.
Honestly, this is such a great topic and something that I often think about. When watching movies based on books, I usually just feel disappointed because the books were so amazing. I think you did a really good of explaining this and that movies often do not time the plot well. I found this comment really insightful as I have never thought about that before. But now, thinking back, I realize that movies often spend too long/short on certain parts of the book, which takes away from the storyline. Great review!
ReplyDeleteGreat post! In general, I agree that most movies that are based on books aren't as good as the actual books, but there are a few good ones. For example, I liked the Hunger Games movies, and I thought they were mostly accurate to the books. This is an interesting topic, and I enjoyed reading your post, so good job!
ReplyDeleteI've always been thinking about this topic when I see book movies. I'm usually pretty disappointed since I expect a plot that's put together well, but instead I just find a lot of flashy CGI and dumb characters. There are exceptions, like Jurassic Park, which was a great movie (I didn't even know there was a book), but most of these "book movies" are pretty bad. Awesome job giving this eye-opening review! I hope you do more on cool topics like this!
ReplyDeleteBook-movies range widely on a spectrum from horrible to really good. It really just depends. But again, it's subjective. I if you all want to see a specific example of a book vs. a movie (Hunger Games) with some more commentary about movies vs. books in general, go to : https://wesnaclama.blogspot.com/2020/03/is-book-actually-better-than-movie.html (shameless plug). But anyways... I agree that the pacing can so easily be screwed up in book-movies and that it can be a difficult art to master, but when it is done well it creates a spectacular result. Great review!
ReplyDeleteWhether or not book-movies are good or bad, we can all agree that books based on movies are the absolute WORST.
I like regularly reading your blog because it often reaches out beyond book reviews to explore interesting topics for discussion. I think that book movies in general are a hit and miss genre. I agree with you that capturing the feel of a long book in a movie is an art that is very difficult to master and also only works on certain types of books. From my experience of book movies the movie is usually only better because the book never provided a solid base in the first place and the empty gaps are filled by good screenwriters or if the book was less story-oriented and more, for example, action-oriented and the movie just presented the action better. Anyways, good job on this review.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fantastic post, and I am really glad someone has decided to delve into this topic. You raise a great point that the visual aspects of movies often allow for a more immersive experience for the viewer. However, books are able to pace their plot in a way specific to the author while movies are usually supposed to only be within a specific range (around 1 hour and 30 minutes to 2 hours). This is a great topic!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting topic, but I think nothing is set in stone. As you said, there are many great book movies, and many bad ones, however I think that movies are able to shine in places where books can't. For example, as you said, Jurassic Park is a much more exhilarating movie to watch, as it is a book to read. However, books also shine where movies can't. It is hard to convey exactly what a character is thinking in a movie, but it is very easy in a book. Overall, great post!
ReplyDelete