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'!"

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!