Last night, Kevin and I watched about half of the new Hobbit movie. We got it from the library so can keep it for a glorious week, though I hope we'll find time to finish it tonight.
So far, I'm quite pleased with it. The filmmakers have taken liberties with the plot and added some rather peculiar things, but the overall story is relatively true to the book. (I did think it was a bit lame that they dragged Galadriel into it. She is NOT in the original book. Yes, she's pretty, but it seemed so obvious they were just hauling her in because she looks attractive, not because she is needed for the plot. So far, at least...we've not seen the whole thing.)
I was chatting with a young friend yesterday about books and movies based on books. It is interesting to contemplate how well books translate into movies. At times, the movie is awesome. Fairly often, I'm just plain annoyed with how the makers have changed it. Of course, the filmmakers usually need to make a few changes. But sometimes they make SO many changes that the entire film is altered negatively. When the book is truly glorious to start with, that downright upsets me.
Then, VERY occasionally, a film is actually better than the movie it is based on. And that's cool.
We watch relatively few movies so I don't have a million examples to throw out, but thought I'd discuss a few book/film combos out there.
Book: The Princess Bride.
Ha, I bet you didn't even know there WAS a book called the Princess Bride. Yes, the book came before the cult classic film, the Princess Bride. And amazingly enough, this is one of those rare cases where I think the film is WAY better. The book is cynical and actually quite gloomy! The film follows the plot well, but there is so much humor and charm that is missing from the book. The narrator is much grumpier in the book (and isn't the grandfather and grandson.) So I don't recommend anyone run out and get the book unless you like cynical books.
Book: The Scarlet Pimpernel
I'm stacking the "movie is better than the book" movies near the front. The book is a bit overblown and the writing style has its tedious moments. It was written a long time ago, so perhaps that is why it palls on me. There are actually several movies based on the book, and I thoroughly enjoyed the black and white one with Merle Oberon, and a miniseries from 20+ years ago with Jane Seymour in the female title role. I checked out a more modern version a few years ago and it was really icky. I watched 20 minutes, gave up, and returned it.
Book: Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH
The movie is called The Secret of NIMH.
This is a case where the movie is almost a crime against humanity. OH MY. OH MY MY MY MY MY!!!! The movie is SO BAD. Ok, maybe it isn't. Maybe it is just that the book is SO SO SO SO GOOD. It is a brilliant and fun book (for kids) and the movie makers messed it up in a way that makes me want to roll around and scream and beat the ground. Ugh.
Book: Pride and Prejudice
There are many versions of Pride and Prejudice. My favorite is one from the 1980's, but there is a great one from the 1990's and even the Keira Knightley one from the 2000's (which compresses the plot a great deal) is charming. I haven't seen the black and white version, not sure about that one and how good it is. This is a case where I love the books and thoroughly enjoy the movies too.
Books: Agatha Christie Miss Marple and Hercule Poroit movies
I've usually thoroughly enjoyed the movies based on the books. We're currently watching some Hercule Poirot movies that are free on Amazon Prime. There are sometimes substantial plot changes, but I think not to the detriment of the movie. They do a good job of catching the atmosphere of the time, and David Suchet and Joan Dickson, who play Poroit and Miss Marple, respectively, do a fantastic job.
Book: Jurassic Park
Yep, this one was a book first too. I think...I prefer the movie more but perhaps that's because I saw the movie first. I think. The book is really complex and sometimes a tad difficult to follow. Another annoying thing is that Crichton, the author, is a rather aggessive atheist type and goes on and on and ON about evolution in this book and the sequal, the Lost World. In the latter, I remember being annoyed when the main character was talking about how the dinosaurs were miraculously "designed" to survive and do cool things, and then the same main character (a famous scientist) says (essentially), "Of course, there is no god who made it happen, because the idea of a god is unscientific." That is a common fallacy among some people, especially some scientists, that "good science" throws out the possibility of God existing. Um, why? If you can PROVE God doesn't exist, well and good. But to make that a basic assumption before you even evaluate the data is ridiculous. THAT is unscientific!
Caveat on Jurassic Park. Scary in some spots. Definitely not for younger children.
If I think of some more books and movies, I'll mention them.
No comments:
Post a Comment