Books to Films

Well, obviously you cannot take very single aspect of a 400-500 page movie and make it into a movie.... The movie would be like 5 hours long 😆

I feel all that the movies to are help us visualize the main aspects of the movie and bring the book on screen, basically. However, the original version, which is usually the book, is much better because of the small things that help us better understand the characters, their emotions, their mannerisms, the POV of the villain(if any) at a particular point in time, etc...

As for Hollywood filmakers producing better stuff, well they have more moolah 😉. They have dollars and pounds, we have rupees. I'm sure that Indian filmakers and actors could successfully make a HP or anything, but with added spice, a phenomenon much widely observed in the Indian film industry 😆 There are few Indian film-makers that would not bring in songs and what not to add to the EQ of the film.

Books any day, any time. You don't just read them, you experience them. When I watch a movie - no matter how well-made that is - I watch it from a third person's eyes. When I read a book, I get inside and immersed into its world. The line between fiction and the real life gets more and more blurry as I go through a book, but with films, I never feel that I've transgressed that boundary. Yes, spectacular and breathtaking visuals do count for something, and I am not going to deny that, but I've got a pretty good imagination, and movies adapted from books destroy them big time. No matter how well-made they are, they just can't surpass my imagination. Take Harry Potter for instance. Yes Daniel Radcliffe does look like Harry (or does he?), but would it have been so difficult to put a contact lens in his eyes and turn his blue eyes into green? 😆

There are some obvious advantages of authors over producers (and the whole movie-making team). For one, the author works alone and mostly alone, except for a few interruptions from the editor(s) and the publishing house. As such, the author is free to run his imagination wild and write whatever he wishes. On the contrary, the production team involved in moviemaking is huge, and the inefficiency of even one person can ruin the whole movie. Movies require a great deal of money, competent actors, proficient directors, and what not, whereas a book needs only a good author, and a good editor at the most. Then there is this issue with the length - audiences, in general, have very low patience, and since movies are meant to be watched in halls, they are trimmed down into a more manageable length - often by cutting down important scenes (when adapted from books). By the way, has there ever been cases where books had been adapted from movies or other form of media (like video games)?

I'd say Hollywood is a lot better at making movies from books, just as they are - generally speaking, of course - better at making any form of movies compared with Bollywood. That said, Hollywood should not be the benchmark for great cinemas because Hollywood too has/had its share of crappy films (Twilight, anyone? 😛) and there certainly are better films being produced outside the horizon of Hollywood, by other countries like Italy, France, Germany, etc. I'd actually go as far as to say that films like Omkara or even Devdas are much better movies adapted from books than the likes of Twilight. But since this topic isn't about Bollywood versus Hollywood, I won't delve into that.

Originally posted by: debayon

Well, obviously you cannot take very single aspect of a 400-500 page movie and make it into a movie.... The movie would be like 5 hours long 😆

Never knew movies had pages. 😆 JK.

Originally posted by: debayon

I feel all that the movies to are help us visualize the main aspects of the movie and bring the book on screen, basically. However, the original version, which is usually the book, is much better because of the small things that help us better understand the characters, their emotions, their mannerisms, the POV of the villain(if any) at a particular point in time, etc...

Yes, novels have obvious advantages over movies for things like being able to show character developments, psychological insights, or the thought processes of its central character more effectively than films can.

Originally posted by: debayon

As for Hollywood filmakers producing better stuff, well they have more moolah 😉. They have dollars and pounds, we have rupees. I'm sure that Indian filmakers and actors could successfully make a HP or anything, but with added spice, a phenomenon much widely observed in the Indian film industry 😆 There are few Indian film-makers that would not bring in songs and what not to add to the EQ of the film.

Money is a one reason, but it surely is not the only one. I think a big banner like YRF can risk a lot of money, but they won't take the risk of loosing their audiences. I said similar things on another forum, but to sum it up - problem with Bollywood is that it doesn't experiment much, and without experimenting, taking risks, and trying out new things, one can't achieve a masterpiece. If we look at Bollywood and Hollywood filmography side by side, then it is obvious that Hollywood had experimented with different genres and different styles (often with failed results) from a very early time, compared with Bollywood, which, even to this day, produces mostly romantic-comedies or family melodramas, for the simplest reason that most producers don't have the guts to loose their devoted audiences.

Most people have already touched on the advantages of books over movies. Books can be of any length, while a movie is limited to a few pages. Books have no constraints and the author can be wildly imaginative, while a movie is limited by realistic budgets and abilities. Personally to me the biggest advantage of a book is character development. Books delve into character personalities, thought processes, growth and changes in ways movies cannot do. A movie only can show action, not the thought process behind the action. Books also are full of numerous little moments and situations each which appeals to a different set of readers, movies can accommodate only a few of these diluting the experience for several readers.

Hollywood has been adept in adapting sci-fi/fantasy fiction into movies from books as well as independently due to various factors. Firstly their budget has been higher. The genre has also been more popular and well received there. Bollywood in contrast has had limited budget and until recent times there was no interest in diverse films. The problem with Bollywood attempting these genres has been that even production houses with good budgets tend to focus on romanticism, cheesiness that is out of place in a sci-fi film.

Although, I am not a fan of Jane Austen – I feel her books are highly adaptable to Bollywood. They are more softer and romantic which appeals to Indian audiences and also in tune with the filmmaking style. Moreover, the traditions and nuances of the regency era are similar to Indian society. The regency era had more conservative notions of courtship, women in society etc that makes it adaptable to Indian standards. Another author who set their books in similar styles and era is Georgette Heyer. Personally, I would love to make Dickens books into Indian movies (some may already have been) Dickens books had a sense of desperation and angst. His heroes were less than ordinary, complex and face struggles like unrequited love, poverty etc that resonates well with Indian audiences. Finally its all a matter of adaptability and adding ones own twist. Shakespeare has been well adapted into modern times in Hollywood and Bollywood.

It's like reading the Harry Potter books, they have more detail but when it comes to the films they always miss out the most important bits which is a shame even though I enjoy watching the film. Jane Austen films are really good but I haven't read the books, they are really good stories I loved Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Gaskell made a great book called North and South and they made a TV film and it was amazing, I would say that books are much better because they are in more detail whereas films don't always have the key points.

Originally posted by: shalini1323

"3 idiots" did very well and "Aisha" has recently been in the news as Sonam Kapoor's latest movie release.. Not sure if all of u are aware of it but it's apparently taken frm Jane Austen's "Emma" .. what did u think of the film?

If you were to make a bollywood movie, which is that one book you'd really make a movie out of?

I know about Aisha being from a Jane Austen book called Emma, I haven't read the book but I don't think it suits English books being made into a Bollywood movie sometimes it has worked sometimes it hasn't and I prefer the English movies that are being adapted from the books.

If a book is very good a famous, it becomes a movie. Readers demand a book to be a movie sometimes. But what sucks is they take things OUT that was in the book. That is not good. i get mad when they do that. i usually hear about good books like Dear John, My Sisters Keepers, The Last Song, and Twilight after seeing the trailers for them!

I would prefer the original stuff any day - the Book. I wasn't so sure till I read the Harry Potter series. In fact I saw the first 2 movies before I read the books. When I saw the movies, there was a lot of stuff I couldn't really understand. Everything seemed vague and hurried. It's only when I read the book that I understood and started appreciating the story and the characters.