How To Turn A Book Into A Movie

[jasmine_tarkheena]

We sure talk a lot about turning a book into a movie, and what should we expect. This is especially if it is our favorite books. Now changes are accepted for the most part, but no changes for the wrong reasons.

Now this is not just about Narnia but any other movie based on a book. Adaptions do get close on occasion. We can't expect them to get it a 100% right (it probably wouldn't be a good movie if it was). But perhaps 75% right would still count for something.

Can you think of any examples of a good change or bad change from book to screen adaption?

[knightofnarnia]

I thought the hesitation of Mr.Tumnus when Lucy mentions, "You aren't going to do it are you?" To be gold and then her crying and saying, "I thought you were my friend." Then he looks at her with resolve in his eyes and you know he made his decision. I found the whole change to be excellent. (Plus the battle scene was better) But changes that are bad from a book are too many to name.

[jasmine_tarkheena]

I think for the most part, LWW stayed within the plot from the book and not took too far. Though I thought the melting river scene was too much like a cheap thrill. Plus, it lost the essence of the joy of Christmas and Father Christmas. In the book, it's very quiet and suspenseful, then in the movie, they had a chase scene.

I actually thought that when they had Edmund in the dungeon, it was a good way of showing of how he was coming to realize he made a wrong choice. It was also a way that he was seeing the consequences of his actions.

Another good change I thought was what they did with Glozelle in PC. I thought that having him feel conflicted about his loyalty to Miraz was a good way of showing that he wasn't all that loyal to him. In the book, he and Sospesian manipulated Miraz, and it turned out they were not all that loyal to him. But in the movie, they gave Glozelle a bit more character arch. Plus, in the movie, Glozelle was the first to volunteer to go through the door way.

[knightofnarnia]

Alright I'll find two things from two movies that was worse form the book to movie transition. First from Narnia PC that is when the trees wake up and start fighting the Talmarians the later run. While in the movie the fight continues for several minutes. To leave Narnia behind I thought the change of Ben Hur's loyal slave in the first Ben Hur movie compare to the book to be dissapointing. In the book he invests the money of his master and multiplies it. When his daughter argues that he should have a reward since he could have just returned the same amount back then he had years earlier he answers, "X number of years ago my master gave me intructions, 'Take this money and invest it.' Should I have stopped because my master was gone?"

[Ariel.of.Narnia]

I need to actually read Ben-Hur one of these days…. Clearly, Simonides was a more admirable figure in the original!

I’m generally of the opinion that “the book is always better”, but I have found three exceptions: How to Train Your Dragon, War Horse, and Anne of Green Gables.
The last one is most controversial, I understand, and maybe my opinion of the books will change upon another read; I just know that at the time I read three of them, I was more engaged by the film.
How to Train Your Dragon is an example of “great movie, bad adaptation”, but I did not like what I read of the books at all, whereas I fell in love hard with the first film. Compelling character with a strong arc, side characters with flavourful personalities, interesting plot, gorgeous soundtrack…. And even though I prefer the first of the trilogy, the other two films did progress the character of Hiccup into a man and leader, explore good themes, and actually focused on story rather than leaning into the cash grab.
War Horse changed the storytelling by focusing on the humans the horse interacts with, rather than going with the book’s Black-Beauty-in-WWI approach. Part of this is that the audience changed with the medium change: a children’s book was made into a PG general audience movie. Part of it is that it’s a whole lot harder to do an animal-pov movie without going with constant narration or talking animals. And, personally, the human perspective of WWI is more interesting than that of a horse, so it more than works for me that they changed the horse from the protagonist to the vehicle by which we meet all these humans living out different facets of the war.

The Lord of the Rings films are really good, in my opinion, and I’m content with most of the changes because they work for the movies and, for the most part, don’t ruin characters. (Frodo did get the short end of the stick, Faramir is very wrong in the second movie, Denethor lacks nobility, and Aragorn’s arc is definitely wrong.) There’s a good chance that I’m more lenient because I’d watched the films almost right after reading the books, so I didn’t have canon set firm in my mind.
Though I still generally enjoy The Hobbit, I’m not as charitable, mainly because of the bloat, the lack of centricity on Bilbo, the levels of ridiculous they put into action scenes, and the elf/dwarf romance that shouldn’t have happened for several reasons — from both a canon perspective and a storytelling perspective.

I’ve gone into my take on Prince Caspian elsewhere, but it basically boils down to “bad adaptation, but a solid movie”. I can’t perfectly separate it from the book, but I enjoy the film mainly because I like the still-Narnian themes and it works as a film.
VDT I’ve liked less and less over time. I like the temptation theme, but think it could have been stronger. I understand where the dealing-with-a-predecessor’s-legacy arcs come from, but Caspian’s wasn’t justified, Edmund’s was a re-tread of movie!Peter’s (even if an argument could be made for its being more accurate for Edmund to have, it doesn’t change the fact that it was already done in the movieverse), and Lucy’s was shallow (if believable enough, as far as Susan goes) and disjointed (as far as Gael goes: Gael admired Lucy’s character, presumably, which is not the lesson Lucy learned about admiring Susan’s beauty).
LWW I have basically no complaints about. Possibly because, like with LotR, I saw the movie shortly after reading the books and listening to the Focus on the Family recordings, but still I think much of the magic of Narnia is there.

[jasmine_tarkheena]

In Walden's PC, they made Prunaprismia more sympathetic. There's no indication on whether or not she was part of the plot, and she probably wasn't aware of what Miraz was capable of. But the scene where Caspian confronts Miraz about his father's murder, she felt the shock and horror. You actually felt for her.

I think another good change I can think of is that in Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, they made Phoebus a much nicer person. In the book by Victor Hugo, he's kind of a jerk. In the scene where Frollo tells Phoebus to burn down the miller's house, it made him realize what kind of person Frollo was. And of course, Phoebus chooses not to do it. So I think that would be a good change from a book to a movie.

[knightofnarnia]

quote=Ariel.of.Narnia post_id=88132 time=1681488464 user_id=71]
"I need to actually read Ben-Hur one of these days…. Clearly, Simonides was a more admirable figure in the original!"
You didn't read Ben-Hur? I didn't read the unabridged either (although the book I read was over 900 pages and the print was small). What is more Simonides was smarter in the book such as detecting almost right away the romance between his daughter and Ben-Hur(although Ben-Hur doesn't notice her at the beginning and so it is one way romance). Sorry Jasmine I rather disliked everything about PC Narnia film including the fact that Prunaprisimia is more sympathetic. I believe in the book she was more intent on killing Caspian then Miraz was. To change her like that was not my preferance.

[jasmine_tarkheena]

Sorry Jasmine I rather disliked everything about PC Narnia film including the fact that Prunaprisimia is more sympathetic. I believe in the book she was more intent on killing Caspian then Miraz was. To change her like that was not my preferance.

Well, given that in the book, not all Telmarines liked being under Miraz's rule. Hey, there were even some Telmarines that were happy that the old days are back. Sadly, though, in the movie, they cut out the romp with Bacchus and Silenus and Aslan freeing the school children. Though I will give credit how it was in depth about the sadness that the old days are gone.

Though I think we can all agree on that when turning a book into a movie, you have to draw the line somewhere. CS Lewis even wrote in an essay, giving the examples from King Solomon's Mines,

"Perhaps the scene in the original was not 'cinematic' and the man was right, by the canons of his own art, in altering it. But it would have been better not to have chosen in the first place a story which could be adapted to the screen only by being ruined. Ruined, at least, for me."

So in order to turn a book into a movie, you kind of have to draw the line somewhere. And there are times where film adaptions have crossed the line.

So filmmakers of future Narnia adaptions, if you are reading this, do what you can to make Narnian into good movies, if not great. But don't lose sight of what makes them unique and special in the first place.

[Ariel.of.Narnia]

@knight: No, not yet! I do have a little children’s abridged version of Ben-Hur, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t even read all of that.

@jasmine: What makes a “good” movie — and even more, a “good” adaptation — is going to vary across a broad spectrum. Unless a movie is objectively bad by just about every metric (*cough* Eragon *cough*), there’ll always be arguments for why something should or shouldn’t be. Always. That’s the subjective nature of art.

[jasmine_tarkheena]

@ariel: I agree! I understand that a movie would have to make changes in order to make it work for a movie.

The example I just gave about Disney’s The Hunchback of Norte Dame, I would say it’s better than the Victor Hugo novel. But who thought that a classic novel about corruption of church and abuse of power would be turn into a kids movie? I don’t think anyone would have. I do appreciate the effort they put into it.

I've enjoyed The Hobbit movies for what it is. Though I could have done without the elf/dwarf romance or even the love triangle (Legolas, Tauriel, and Kili). Though I did like how they started with the backstory of Smaug attacking Dale and the Lonely Mountains to steal the treasures from the dwarfs. And Gollum was spot on! Again, I appreciate the effort Peter Jackson put into it.

Even if a screen adaption turned out badly, hey, what could I do about it?