Why are movies based on books always so goddamn rushed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashley Schovitz

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.

---

Second that. You know, sometimes you remind me of a member of my family. Harry Potter suck ass, and Waiting to Exhale is VERY good. Your going on my Cool List (A.K.A Buddy List.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

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

---

:nod:

sometimes they make movies based on books very poorly, like 'everything is illuminated'. the movie was good, i saw it before i read the book and they left out A LOT. the book was soo much better.
and in 'blood and chocolate', what the hell? they changed the entire ending!

Books and film are two entirely different mediums and they don't really translate well. Long novels CANNOT be effectively condensed into a 2-hour movie and keep completely true to the storyline, it's impossible.

Film makers, when given the daunting task of turning a 300-600 page novel into a film need to cut the story to as much of the bare bones for it to work. Dialogue is trimmed, scenes taken out, it's not easy to condense a book into a 2-hour movie and I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to try (as my own style is novelization and not screenplay, I would likely do a terrible job of it anyway).

Yes, the movies are rushed. They have to be. They have 2 hours to tell an entire story that should be given much more time. And this isn't going to be changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_20

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'!"

---

mate if you think that was rushed then we would be sitting in a 6 hour movie instead of 3! Given the circumstances and i can only speak for myself (cause i havent read the book) i still think those three movies were beautiful, solid and held up well instead of story!

and check out the Special, extend cut of the movie....gosh that went for ages too! :S But the point is if the movie did the book justice (and i believe that in the case with LotR)

Because otherwise it would be too long and boring...

People age, especially kids. And when acting isn't so important you can make do with rubbish performances and spend more time perfecting special effects. That's just a comment from someone who knows nothing about the way things function behind the scenes

Most movies based on books are just made to cash in on a book's success. Everyone will go and see it no matter how bad it is because the book was so good.

In cases like Lord of the Rings, I think it works beautifully as a seperate series, if you aren't comparing it to the book, but the book will ultimately be superior, because the story was MEANT to be told as a book, not through film.

(ps. Harry Potter films are HATE. Books are LOVE.)

Harry Potter films were so bad i wanted to cry. I loved the books, i was one of those poeple who would finish the new book in a day because i just sit there reading. Then there were the movies. WTF?! Its was HORRIBLE! I tried SO HARD to love that movie, but i just couldn't. The one that plays Ron Weasly (forgot his name) was perfectly casted, but the other cast members either didn't suit the character, or were just plain awful (bar a couple who were actually quite good).

Anyway, some Book-Moives are crap, some are good. I can't complain, i'd probally rather read the book anyway.

EDIT: Another thing about HP, did anyone else noticed that after the first Movie JKR started writing differantly. It was if she was trying to write a book that would make a good movie. Juts look at No. 5, with all the Wand fights and stuff, which in the end all it added up to was a big mess.

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

---

You can add Fight Club to that list as well. As far as I remember the writer of the book thought the ending of the film was much better than the one in the book.

Anyway, I don't think they're more rushed than other movies.

I am writing what will potentially be a long series of fantasy novels, a lot like Dragonlance I hope. I also hope that one day I will have films made of them.
There is so much to fit into a couple of hours that a lot of it can't be included. Only the major parts can really be considered.

I tried to read Lord of the Rings. I got to the council of Elrond and gave up. Yes, it's considered to be the most epic fantasy book to date, but it takes so long to get into that I got bored and gave up. The films, I can watch. However, the book is so long that the Peter Jackson had to cut an awful lot out of the films, and even then each film is 3 or more hours long!