From the Book to the Screen - Page 3

Originally posted by: zephyr29

@blue, definitely agree on Mathew MacFadyen! He showed a really sensitive side to the usually haughty & proud portrayal of Darcy, which was just !

@green, I also want to watch it for Richard Armitage 😳 but was waiting to read the book first. Now heard such glowing reviews from you will definitely catch up on it.

@red, I guess your pleas have fallen on deaf ears, as they have already locked in on Sam Taylor-Wood (who made Nowhere Boy) to direct 🤢. I would have rather she be a bit more discerning while choosing projects.

@red ... i couldn't agree more ... plz stop the disaster ..

Untouched:

Originally posted by: epiphany.

What has been your favorite adaptation?

Pride and Prejudice Mini Series (1995) - it's frigging awesome, you know? There's Colin Firth as Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet. Their portrayals of their respective characters is by far the best I have seen. I have watched the 2005 movie and it's good. But what Firth and Ehle did is much more authentic. Very enjoyable six episodes, I daresay.

The movie adaptation of 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' is magnificent. It's probably the best adaptation I have watched. The actors in the movie, all of them are majestic. I owe the brilliance of the script to the fact that the writer of the book wrote the screenplay of the movie as well. It's got awesome music, might I add.

What was the worst?

Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince was a disastrous chick-flick. 😳 They neglected entirely Tonks' depression, Remus's struggle and Snape's finally being DADA teacher. They did not focus nearly enough on Harry's session's Dumbledore - that was the best frigging part of the book! They just made a very bad movie out of an excellent book, excellent.

Are adaptations able to do justice to the original texts?

Not entirely. They cannot depict the book word by word, phrase by phrase. They've gotta adjust it anyway and they miss out our favorite parts. The least I expect that they don't omit major junks of the original text. That they write 'on the lines' of the books is fine, sometimes they tend to forget that their 'lines' were simply not in the books. 🤔

Which ones have either exceeded or fallen below your expectations?

Breaking Dawn Part 2 exceeded my expectations. I had read the books in my hormonal days and did not bother to watch the movie until after a year of its release and I was pleasantly surprised by the script, I really was.

Which books do you want to see on screen and which ones do you think are better left untouched?

I don't think the good ones would ever be left untouched, I guess? I'm always fascinated by the visual depiction of any good product of literature. I'd like to see 'The Fault in Our Stars' by John Green on screen next.

Originally posted by: epiphany.

What has been your favorite adaptation?

Pride and Prejudice Mini Series (1995) - it's frigging awesome, you know? There's Colin Firth as Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet. Their portrayals of their respective characters is by far the best I have seen. I have watched the 2005 movie and it's good. But what Firth and Ehle did is much more authentic. Very enjoyable six episodes, I daresay.

The movie adaptation of 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' is magnificent. It's probably the best adaptation I have watched. The actors in the movie, all of them are majestic. I owe the brilliance of the script to the fact that the writer of the book wrote the screenplay of the movie as well. It's got awesome music, might I add.

What was the worst?

Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince was a disastrous chick-flick. 😳 They neglected entirely Tonks' depression, Remus's struggle and Snape's finally being DADA teacher. They did not focus nearly enough on Harry's session's Dumbledore - that was the best frigging part of the book! They just made a very bad movie out of an excellent book, excellent.

Are adaptations able to do justice to the original texts?

Not entirely. They cannot depict the book word by word, phrase by phrase. They've gotta adjust it anyway and they miss out our favorite parts. The least I expect that they don't omit major junks of the original text. That they write 'on the lines' of the books is fine, sometimes they tend to forget that their 'lines' were simply not in the books. 🤔

Which ones have either exceeded or fallen below your expectations?

Breaking Dawn Part 2 exceeded my expectations. I had read the books in my hormonal days and did not bother to watch the movie until after a year of its release and I was pleasantly surprised by the script, I really was.

Which books do you want to see on screen and which ones do you think are better left untouched?

I don't think the good ones would ever be left untouched, I guess? I'm always fascinated by the visual depiction of any good product of literature. I'd like to see 'The Fault in Our Stars' by John Green on screen next.

Originally posted by: angelirebelli

Classic literature has always been adapted first for the stage, then gradually as movies or TV shows for a very long time. Now with every other book, from Chick-lit to Young Adult, being turned into a movie, what are your opinions about them?

I don't mind watching adaptions after I have read the book s long as they stay true to the plot.. I find it difficult to go back to the books unless its absolutely smashing. Adaptations give me an opportunity to match the setup and the characters with my imagination.

What has been your favorite adaptation?

Most of BBCs adaptations.. the mini series.. I absolutely loves PnP with Firth n Ehle, North and South, Jane Eyre with Toby Stephens, Rebecca, Emma with Jonny Lee Miller- this was way better than the Gwyneth Paltrow version, Persuasion, Little Dorrit.. Then there is Bourne Series, The early HP films upto about part 4, The Godfather, LOTR, Schindlers list, Gone with the wind, Dr. Zhivago et al.. The list is decent..

The writers did well to capture the essence and the actors made it worth the time.

What was the worst?

Tess of D'urbervilles and many which include Twilight( I put the book down after a few pages and couldn't get myself to read it and after the first movie I just couldn't be bothered), The Dan Brown adaptations and many such .. The list is endless.. As someone mentioned casting is one main issue and a weak screenplay which fails to capture the essence,,.

Are adaptations able to do justice to the original texts?

If adaptations are able to capture the essence of the story and deliver without wavering too much or missing out on the key elements then yes. I think, successful adaptations are those which stay true to the plot. I would prefer reading a book first though.

Which ones have either exceeded or fallen below your expectations?

Exceeded - PnP(1995), Rebecca, North and South, Jane Eyre (Ruth Wilson), Persuasion, Wuthering Heights (Tom Hardy), LOTR, The Godfather

Fallen - Dan Brown adaptations, Game of Thrones (though the series is quite popular the books have more depth and characters and show wonderful emotion which is hard to guess if one hasnt read the books), The girl with the dragon tattoo

Which books do you want to see on screen and which ones do you think are better left untouched?

I don't mind adaptations. I would want to see a few Jeffrey Archer books adapted. He has a few which can make fab mini series.

Originally posted by: AshTara

what are your opinions about them?
Its nice to see visual depiction of what you've been reading. i personally am always interested when there is a big screen adaptation of a book that i've read and i sometimes find that the screen version is actually better than the book.

What has been your favorite adaptation?
harry potter part 1 and 2. these first two movies of the series were lovely, amazing!

What was the worst?
harry potter 3, 4 and 6. they failed to explain the events satisfactorily and made silly alterations.
also, twilight movies were not that good. the books i liked much more.
.

Are adaptations able to do justice to the original texts?
the original text is the imagination and perspective of only the author whereas the screen adaptations have many brains working on them. sometimes they produce excellent results but sometimes it turns out awful. mostly though, in my opinion, they are good enough.

Which ones have either exceeded or fallen below your expectations?
exceeded - the narnia movies (lion, witch and wardrobe and prince caspian) harry potter 5 was better than the book i felt.
fallen below - harry potter 3 and 6

Which books do you want to see on screen and which ones do you think are better left untouched?
i want to see some nancy drew books adapted on the big screen. also some agatha christie murder mysteries coz they are such thrillers..