Why are movies based on books always so goddamn rushed?

I've seen several movies based on books through the years, and I always thought most of them felt extremely hurried.
They basically compressed the dialogues from the books into very, very unpersonal conversations, and it's usually way too obvious that the actors are just reading from a script.

I know it's hard to make movies based on books, and I also know that books can afford much longer stories and whatnot, but why do the producers always make the same mistake?
They shouldn't just copy the dialogues straight off the book, they should look for the heart and soul in the books and let the movies progress more naturally.

Everything always feels more rushed because something that could take you 12+ hours to read is now compressed to a 2 hour movie.

really you think so?

How about...
Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
Die Hard
Forrest Gump
Hunt for Red October
Jaws
The Princess Bride
Silence of the Lambs
Under Siege


there are so many movies based on books, and not all of them are bad. In fact, many of them are very good. Now movies based on Video Games is another story....

THE JACKEL

Lone Wolf is right. Too much material to work with. In my opinion, the best movie based on a book is Contact. It didn't seem rushed at all, it flowed wondefully.

The Lord of the Rings definitely felt too rushed.
I mean, some characters just meet up and suddenly they are best friends, or something.
Aragorn strides into the hobbits' room, and a few seconds later he's helping them on their journey?
What the hell?
Not to mention the fact that the hobbits magically got swords all of a sudden, even though they never visited Tom Bombadil.

It's a good movie alright, but I really feel it was extremely hurried at some places.

The Butcher Boy and Preakfast on Pluto also spring to mind as good films based on books.

Now the Godfather film... the film omitted nearly half of the book, but I think that it was for the best. They left out a lot of interesting-but-unnecessary stuff. Had they kept that in, they would have had to shave bits off the film and compress it together. Then it would have been rushed and bloated.

EDIT: The Bourne Identity, anyone?

Wha? LotR rushed? If you think that, you've got the special extended editions - it takes a marathon viewing to watch any of them, but hey.

I cannot find much fault with that series of films. I thought they were nigh-perfect. If they were going to rush things, I doubt that they'd have had that 30 minutes of almost nothing vital to the story at the start of the first one - you could have done that in three minutes, tops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf Leonhart

Everything always feels more rushed because something that could take you 12+ hours to read is now compressed to a 2 hour movie.

---

i think the order in which you read the book/see the movie might have an effect on your opinion too...

to me, though most of the recent novel-film translations have been done pretty well...a lot of background and thought info has to be left out without making the film seem stupid, tired, or cliche..(DON'T USE VOICE OVER IF IT'S NOT FILM NOIR, etc.)

you have to remember it's a different medium, so of course it's going to have a different feel to it, not to mention it has to be interpreted by umpteen different people and then come together in one production.

The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile were both books. Tell me they aren't quality movies and you are a liar.

Also, some producers may want to cash in on the book's publicity, although this rarely, if ever, works.

Case in point: Eragon

Book PWNed!!

Movie sucked horrendously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Lord Sigma

Also, some producers may want to cash in on the book's publicity, although this rarely, if ever, works.

---

That's usually the case when a movie feels rushed. The author and film producers want the movie out as soon as possible so they can start selling book/movie related merchindise and also usually a new released version of the book that will have the movie poster as its cover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

really you think so?

How about...
Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
Die Hard
Forrest Gump
Hunt for Red October
Jaws
The Princess Bride
Silence of the Lambs
Under Siege


there are so many movies based on books, and not all of them are bad. In fact, many of them are very good. Now movies based on Video Games is another story....

THE JACKAL

---

Harry Potter shouldn't be on that list because the movies are far worse than the books, like the opening to the Goblet of Fire was sudden someone who hasn't read the book wouldn't know what's going on and they leave out some crucial things to the plot and add in some pointless kiddy stuff that they don't need like the talking shrunken head and candy that makes them sound like animals. Waiting to Exhale was as good as the book.

The Lord of the Rings tends to be rushed in very idiotic ways.
Here are a few examples:

*Aragorn walk into the hobbits' room, and befriends them AT ONCE!
*The hobbits suddenly have swords, but they never visited Tom Bombadil
*Frodo immediately finds out the secret word for the Doors of Moria

"I'm Strider, and I'll follow you RIGHT NOW!"
"Oh, swords? Dunno whence we got 'em, but they rock!"
"'Speak, friend, and enter'? I KNOW! It's 'mellon'!"