Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

It Wasn't Like That in the Book... Book vs. Movie/TV adaptations


Bort
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Minneapple said:

Maybe Roger Ebert should have read the books. Hermione is not the "female lead" of Harry Potter. If she was then the books would have been called "Harry and Hermione." Harry is the lead and Ron and Hermione are his sidekicks. Another failure of the films.

Hermione is the female lead in that she is the one out of the female characters who has the most time and focus. And as I pointed out, in Hollywood films it's pretty traditional for the female lead to end up with the male lead rather than the male sidekick, hence Ebert's impression.

I've read all the books multiple times like any good Potter fan, and although Harry/Ginny were certainly telegraphed, I remain in my opinion that the character of Ginny and the romance of Harry/Ginny were not fleshed out in the books. The movies could have done better than the books in this regard (both in writing, and in avoiding the casting of Bonnie Wright, who is a cool person but has almost no screen presence), but didn't bother.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Minneapple said:

Maybe Roger Ebert should have read the books. Hermione is not the "female lead" of Harry Potter. If she was then the books would have been called "Harry and Hermione." Harry is the lead and Ron and Hermione are his sidekicks. Another failure of the films.

I thought Ginny as a book character was quite well-fleshed out, but again, the movies failed at that, and thus, at the Harry/Ginny relationship. Ron/Hermione was always telegraphed, but once it became smack-in-your-face clear that Harry/Ginny was to be a pairing, it's easy to go back in the books and see the subtler hints.

I think Hermione can be described as the "female lead", she's the major female character, & I think that's all "female lead" means.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Since I loved the movie so much, I've just started reading Crazy Rich Asians, the book.  I like that the book jumps from perspective to perspective so you're not just getting Rachel's perspective.  It's interesting because you get a very different vibe about Colin and Araminta's relationship. I'm not sure how I feel about how Peik Lin was portrayed in the book vs the movie.  Since we're getting the Lin perspective in the book it's very different than the way they were in the movie.  I'm almost (but not quite) getting a gold-digger like vibe from them in the book even though they're rich, they're not at the Young level and, at least so far, they want to break in to that upper echelon. 

I LOVE that the movie changed the bachelor party because the book bachelor party was horrifying, which is the point, but I don't think even the hint of the dog fighting would have played well for American viewers. 

Haven't gotten to the wedding yet or the big reveal about Rachel's family. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, joanne3482 said:

Since I loved the movie so much, I've just started reading Crazy Rich Asians, the book.  I like that the book jumps from perspective to perspective so you're not just getting Rachel's perspective.  It's interesting because you get a very different vibe about Colin and Araminta's relationship. I'm not sure how I feel about how Peik Lin was portrayed in the book vs the movie.  Since we're getting the Lin perspective in the book it's very different than the way they were in the movie.  I'm almost (but not quite) getting a gold-digger like vibe from them in the book even though they're rich, they're not at the Young level and, at least so far, they want to break in to that upper echelon. 

I LOVE that the movie changed the bachelor party because the book bachelor party was horrifying, which is the point, but I don't think even the hint of the dog fighting would have played well for American viewers. 

Haven't gotten to the wedding yet or the big reveal about Rachel's family. 

My experience with Crazy Rich Asians is that you have to look at the the entire trilogy as one entity, which is kind of a disconnect as the movie is only the first book (I haven't heard if they are going to try a sequel.  The way they ended the movie makes me think going into the second and third books would be problematic).

I made a point of reading the first book before seeing the movie, which worked for me.  However I think, like you, I would have been a little unsettled if I had done it the other way around.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

My experience with Crazy Rich Asians is that you have to look at the the entire trilogy as one entity, which is kind of a disconnect as the movie is only the first book (I haven't heard if they are going to try a sequel.  The way they ended the movie makes me think going into the second and third books would be problematic).

I made a point of reading the first book before seeing the movie, which worked for me.  However I think, like you, I would have been a little unsettled if I had done it the other way around.

I started the second book and put it down, unable to finish.

Spoiler

A woman died in the car wreck in the beginning and...no one cared. It was a blip on the radar and I just couldn't stomach it. I loathed all of them. I just can't start off a comedy with, "An idiot gets into a car wreck, killing one woman and dramatically injuring another and the big deal is making sure he gets his plastic surgery." Ugh NO. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I started the second book and put it down, unable to finish.

  Hide contents

A woman died in the car wreck in the beginning and...no one cared. It was a blip on the radar and I just couldn't stomach it. I loathed all of them. I just can't start off a comedy with, "An idiot gets into a car wreck, killing one woman and dramatically injuring another and the big deal is making sure he gets his plastic surgery." Ugh NO. 

I get where you are coming from but I will say that it comes into play later in the book and in the 3rd book.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

I get where you are coming from but I will say that it comes into play later in the book and in the 3rd book.

Spoiler

Does he end up in prison? For a very long time? And his family is horribly disgusted by his actions?

Because that might make me pick up the book again.

Link to comment

I did not enjoy the second book China Rich Girlfriend as much as the first book, but I agree that things pick up in book 3 Rich People Problems. It also showed Kwan did progress a bit as a writer through the trilogy but his themes of family and heritage are consistent. I really wonder if they will try to adapt the two other books since there is a lot to mine from them.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
11 hours ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

(I haven't heard if they are going to try a sequel.  The way they ended the movie makes me think going into the second and third books would be problematic).

2 hours ago, Athena said:

I really wonder if they will try to adapt the two other books since there is a lot to mine from them.

The sequels were green-lit quickly, since the first movie was such a big hit. They'll be filmed back-to-back next year. Here's one article about it.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On ‎07‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 2:33 PM, peacheslatour said:

If that was supposed to be a Haley Mills vehicle to catapult her into adult stardom, why did they have her travelling with an aunt who wasn't in the book?

There was an older cousin in the book, but the main character was definitely an adult capable on travelling on her own.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
(edited)
9 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

There was an older cousin in the book, but the main character was definitely an adult capable on travelling on her own.

The main character, Nicola,  was also working in Greece and living on her own before her cousin comes over for a visit.  She is certainly much older - somewhat a mother figure in some ways if memory serves - but definitely not Nicola's guardian or someone in any authority over her.

Edited by Homily
  • Love 2
Link to comment

A bit off topic, but...is the book worth reading? I loved the other Mary Stewart books when I read them years ago, but I don't remember reading this one. I did try watching the movie not long ago when I was on a nostalgic Hayley Mills movie kick, but I got too bored to finish it.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
(edited)
On 7/13/2019 at 7:55 PM, Black Knight said:

Hermione is the female lead in that she is the one out of the female characters who has the most time and focus. And as I pointed out, in Hollywood films it's pretty traditional for the female lead to end up with the male lead rather than the male sidekick, hence Ebert's impression.

I've read all the books multiple times like any good Potter fan, and although Harry/Ginny were certainly telegraphed, I remain in my opinion that the character of Ginny and the romance of Harry/Ginny were not fleshed out in the books. The movies could have done better than the books in this regard (both in writing, and in avoiding the casting of Bonnie Wright, who is a cool person but has almost no screen presence), but didn't bother.

As a non-fan of both Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny on the page, I was sort of confused by their portrayals on screen, while also kind of pleased that neither pairing came off as well as it should have. From the first book, I could guess what the pairings would be, but let myself hope JKR would swerve and do something else. Alas, she did not (and proved to be...not great at writing teen romance), so that the movies half-assed the portrayal of both couples in entirely different ways was pretty amusing to me.

Ginny ultimately turned out to be a difficult role to cast because they had to pick someone very young, and before her "feisty" personality was revealed in the later books, which might have changed the sort of person they initially sought out. A truly gifted child actress would have been wasted in the first movie, and the second movie for some odd reason gave short shrift to her role in the Chamber of Secrets storyline. You would think JKR could have given them a heads-up about Ginny being very important to the story later (...but was she really? I digress),  though they should have been able to figure that out on their own. At a certain point, I think the filmmakers concluded that Bonnie Wright was not up to playing Book Ginny as written, so they decided to go a completely different way with her for the movies. On the page, the "new" Ginny actively irritated me, while on screen, I merely found her rather dull, a major improvement for *my* personal viewing experience, but maybe not the best thing for a movie hero's love interest. No wonder movie-only viewers thought/hoped Harry would end up with somebody else.

Even in the books, I found it strange for Rowling to give Harry a major love interest, yet the overall story naturally caused the audience to be more invested in his two best friends pairing off.  I know Harry Potter is not primarily a romance, but it's like if Star Wars had put Luke with Han Solo's sister who'd spent half the series in the background, and expected fans to care about them as a couple as much as they liked Han and Leia. The HP movies could have overcome the relative lack of investment in Harry's love interest to some degree with a more dynamic actress as Ginny, or if the movies have been allowed to go off canon just enough to put him with Luna instead. Or, they could have gone the Lone Hero route, then you don't have the issue of the central character being in the story's secondary romance.

When JKR said years later that she didn't think Ron and Hermione were a good match (fine time for her to come to that realization), and there were all the headlines that Harry/Hermione should have gotten together, you know Kloves was somewhere raging at the sky at what could have been! It's so what WB would have done if they'd been able to get away with it. Still, unless Kloves was operating the cameras for Deathly Hallows Part 2 and was in the editing room as well, he can't be blamed for how rushed Ron and Hermione's climactic getting together scene was. Even as someone who couldn't stand them as a couple, I remember thinking, "That's the best take they had? Huh."

Edited by Dejana
  • Love 7
Link to comment

I never thought Bonnie Wright was right for Ginny. Even if they had used a different actor for her as a young girl and an older actor for her as a young adult, it wouldn't have bothered me as much as in weak, insipid performance Wright turned in. I think Harry should have ended up with Luna but they had to stick to the books. They got some a dynamic actor to play Luna when in the book she was kind of a nutjob, no one could have predicted that turn of events. Such a shame. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
1 minute ago, peacheslatour said:

I think Harry should have ended up with Luna 

No, no, no, I can not stand Luna's voice. I have no idea why Evanna Lynch chose to use that voice, or why the director let her, but nobody should have to spend the rest of their life listening to it.

Link to comment
On ‎07‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 10:14 PM, Starleigh said:

A bit off topic, but...is the book worth reading? I loved the other Mary Stewart books when I read them years ago, but I don't remember reading this one. I did try watching the movie not long ago when I was on a nostalgic Hayley Mills movie kick, but I got too bored to finish it.

I think it is.  In fact, it's one of my favorites of hers.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
On 7/25/2019 at 7:14 PM, Starleigh said:

A bit off topic, but...is the book worth reading? I loved the other Mary Stewart books when I read them years ago, but I don't remember reading this one. I did try watching the movie not long ago when I was on a nostalgic Hayley Mills movie kick, but I got too bored to finish it.

Have you read Touch Not The Cat? I really liked that one.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
On 7/25/2019 at 10:14 PM, Starleigh said:

A bit off topic, but...is the book worth reading? I loved the other Mary Stewart books when I read them years ago, but I don't remember reading this one. I did try watching the movie not long ago when I was on a nostalgic Hayley Mills movie kick, but I got too bored to finish it.

I may be biased because The Moonspinners was the first Mary Stewart I read but I loved it and it has stood up to repeated re-reading.  It's somewhat dated now, of course, as are all her romantic suspense (romantic adventure?) novels but still well worth reading in my not so humble opinion 🙋‍♀️

  • Love 3
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Haleth said:

I recently reread her Merlin/Arthur/Mordred series and really enjoyed it.  It wasn't dated at all.

The fantasy elements keep them from dating, I think.  A lot of her other books are set in non-fantasy settings, which make them more vulnerable to seeming dated.  But they're still wonderful to read.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

A lot of her other books are set in non-fantasy settings, which make them more vulnerable to seeming dated.  But they're still wonderful to read.

Yep, those are the titles I was referencing.  Airs Above the Ground which is one of my favourite Stewart novels features as the main character a woman who qualifies as a veterinarian but never works because - hey she got married.   In Wildfire at Midnight the main character reconciles with her ex because SHE realizes that his infidelities were her fault.  UGH.  But dammit I still like those books 😄!

  • Love 3
Link to comment
On 5/30/2019 at 12:26 PM, HazelEyes4325 said:

I could never get into the Hunger Games movies because they were so, so off with Peeta.  He was supposed to be a big bulky guy and, instead, they had 5'7" Josh Hutcherson--who was two inches SHORTER than his Katniss.

Hutcherson is a good actor, but he was just terribly miscast here.

I thought Hutcherson okay, though he seemed really wimpy in the movie.

I liked the Hunger Games movies overall, but they never packed the emotional punch that the books did. Partly because so much of the books were Katniss’s internal monologues. That can be hard to translate to the screen. 

The books were also scarier. I remember the scene with the Muttations. In the book, the hybrid dogs had the faces of the candidates who died. That scene scared the crap out of me when I read it. But the movie didn’t do this, and I wonder why. The technology was certainly there. The movie scene was not scary at all. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
12 hours ago, topanga said:

I remember the scene with the Muttations. In the book, the hybrid dogs had the faces of the candidates who died. That scene scared the crap out of me when I read it. But the movie didn’t do this, and I wonder why. The technology was certainly there. The movie scene was not scary at all. 

I was listening to a podcast yesterday that mentioned the Hunger Games. The hosts were talking about if anyone takes reality tv seriously or if people watch it knowing that it's all fake. Then one of the hosts mentioned going to see the first movie and said that his theater had people applauding when the kids from the other districts died and he realized that a lot of the people who saw the movies weren't watching a tragic story about a dystopian society forcing children to die for their amusement but were watching the Hunger Games as the Capitol envisioned them. So that makes me wonder if the filmmakers, in the rush to get the movie rights and make some quick cash on a beloved property, also missed the point. Not putting any effort into the mutts would certainly imply that.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, scarynikki12 said:

I was listening to a podcast yesterday that mentioned the Hunger Games. The hosts were talking about if anyone takes reality tv seriously or if people watch it knowing that it's all fake. Then one of the hosts mentioned going to see the first movie and said that his theater had people applauding when the kids from the other districts died and he realized that a lot of the people who saw the movies weren't watching a tragic story about a dystopian society forcing children to die for their amusement but were watching the Hunger Games as the Capitol envisioned them. So that makes me wonder if the filmmakers, in the rush to get the movie rights and make some quick cash on a beloved property, also missed the point. Not putting any effort into the mutts would certainly imply that.

Yes, The tragedy of children being forced to participate in this barbaric battle royale was completely lost in the movie. 

I realized this when I started seeing Hunger GamesTM-themed birthday party decorations and games in craft stores. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
8 hours ago, topanga said:

I realized this when I started seeing Hunger GamesTM-themed birthday party decorations and games in craft stores. 

To be fair, I'd totally do that myself. But then I am the one who gave Edward Gorey's The Gashlycrumb Times to a good friend for her baby shower. (She loved it, as I knew she would, and she was amused by the appalled reaction of some of her other friends.)

  • Love 4
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

To be fair, I'd totally do that myself. But then I am the one who gave Edward Gorey's The Gashlycrumb Times to a good friend for her baby shower. (She loved it, as I knew she would, and she was amused by the appalled reaction of some of her other friends.)

And to me, that’s okay. You knew what you were doing, and you gave your friend a laugh. 

What bugged was that for the general public, the movie’s legacy became solely about Katniss being a badass, which she was. But the socially commentary was forgotten. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I don't know. I know quite a few non-readers who saw the movie and talked about how wrenching they found the scenes of the children being killed, especially in the beginning with the cornucopia. And yes, I'm sure there were others who were just caught up as if it were a sporting event in which they root for their "team," Katniss/Peeta, even though for the other teams that means death. But the first thing anyone who studies art of whatever kind (literature, painting, film, etc.) learns is that people will have varying takes on an artwork. A creator can aim for a particular reaction, and some can be more skilled at it, but no creator is going to be able to get 100% of people to feel the same way. It's just too subjective. We all bring our own experiences and viewpoints in.

  • Love 8
Link to comment

Do any of you watch the Aurora Teagarden mysteries on Hallmark Movies & Mysteries? If so, have you read the books?

I thoroughly enjoy both. Even though the TV movies are each based on a book, they are so loosely based that I have no trouble keeping the books and movies separate and enjoying them on their own merits.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, rainsmom said:

Do any of you watch the Aurora Teagarden mysteries on Hallmark Movies & Mysteries? If so, have you read the books?

I thoroughly enjoy both. Even though the TV movies are each based on a book, they are so loosely based that I have no trouble keeping the books and movies separate and enjoying them on their own merits.

I've read the books, although the most recent one..maybe two? written since the movies began are just horrifically bad and needed a good hard edit. 

The movies, well, the lack of sex on HM&M is always tough for me. Not that I want sex in everything, but 30 year olds dating and never having sex, making sure just to kiss or have one sleep on the couch, bugs me. The movies would be just fine if they didn't make a point of the "our characters are not having premarital sex, newp, not happening, see this person is on the couch, oh and just assume married people sleep in twin beds."

I love the cozy mystery genre, it's like the unlimited soup and salad of the literary world. Not high end or memorable, but totally tasty and filling. I haven't watched the Murder She Baked series either because again, grown adults not even considering premarital sex seems just silly. 

I enjoy the Gourmet Detective series because they just skip over that bit with the leads, never saying they do, but not making a huge deal of saying they don't. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

The movies, well, the lack of sex on HM&M is always tough for me. Not that I want sex in everything, but 30 year olds dating and never having sex, making sure just to kiss or have one sleep on the couch, bugs me.

ME TOO! Funny, because I was ranting about this just the other day. I can still watch the movies, though. 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, rainsmom said:

ME TOO! Funny, because I was ranting about this just the other day. I can still watch the movies, though. 

Oh it's NOT just me. When I wrote the post, I thought I might be coming off like a perv.

I don't mind a 'clean' book/movie that has no swearing and no violence, but the idea that these people never do more than share a closed mouth kiss is ridiculous. You can keep it clean without putting in silly, extraneous stuff to show the characters aren't banging.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

Hahah. I write "cozy" (actually not entirely cozy) mysteries (as Victoria Gilbert) and my 30 something main couple definitely has sex. NOT on the page, of course, and I can't be too blatant about it but it's heavily implied and pretty darn obvious. 

My editor did make me change one scene in one book, where she said I went "too far." But I can definitely indicate that a couple had sex -- just not show it.  So not all "cozies" are that tame. (But Hallmark definitely would not film my books because of that, probably).

  • Love 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, LucidDreamer said:

Hahah. I write "cozy" (actually not entirely cozy) mysteries (as Victoria Gilbert) and my 30 something main couple definitely has sex. NOT on the page, of course, and I can't be too blatant about it but it's heavily implied and pretty darn obvious. 

My editor did make me change one scene in one book, where she said I went "too far." But I can definitely indicate that a couple had sex -- just not show it.  So not all "cozies" are that tame. (But Hallmark definitely would not film my books because of that, probably).

Actually in the books Aurora Teagarden has sex with many different men, and she does so very quickly. She and Martin basically pulled off the road into a cheap motel on the way to their first real date and had sex.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 7/31/2019 at 11:36 PM, topanga said:

The books were also scarier. I remember the scene with the Muttations. In the book, the hybrid dogs had the faces of the candidates who died. That scene scared the crap out of me when I read it. But the movie didn’t do this, and I wonder why. The technology was certainly there. The movie scene was not scary at all. 

So true. I immediately thought of the book's version of Mutations when I saw the CATS trailer. Although the context is very different, they're unsettling in similar ways.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
15 hours ago, rainsmom said:

Actually in the books Aurora Teagarden has sex with many different men, and she does so very quickly. She and Martin basically pulled off the road into a cheap motel on the way to their first real date and had sex.

Right, it’s been a while since I read any of the Aurora Teagarden series, but in general Charlaine Harris doesn’t shy away from her single female characters having a healthy sex drive and having sex both outside of and within marriage. I remember reading somewhere in the last few years that Harris had confirmed that she was raped when she was younger, and I thought at the time that her writing about normal sexual behavior was possibly a coping mechanism for her, and obviously having a lead character in another series who was a rape survivor was more or less therapy. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I haven't seen it discussed here but I've always thought it lacking in retrospect that the 1939 movie of GWTW did NOT depict Scarlett's first two children. I know they weren't fleshed out in the book as much as the doomed Bonnie Blue Butler. However; since the movie was already quite long, it might have made Scarlett's post Sherman plight more poignant had it depicted her not just having to keep alive  herself, Melanie, Melanie's newborn and Prissy but also her young son Wade Hampton (Melanie's nephew). Moreover, it would have helped the non-book reading movie-viewer understand WHY Melanie wasn't as eager to believe the worst about Scarlett  as others were since the latter her late brother's posthumous son's mother (despite the child's mother disdaining him for being his father's son). Also, her daughter by Frank Kennedy named Ella seemed to Scarlett to be a dull wallflower compared to her lastborn gorgeous lookalike Bonnie and that would have been an interesting dynamic to have seen. Lastly, it would have gotten movie viewers to have considered Scarlett to have been more vain had she insisted on there being no more children due to her not perfectly fitting into her corset after the 3rd  instead of the 1st one! 

Edited by Blergh
  • Love 5
Link to comment

Jason Momoa is set to play Duncan. In fact, the entire casting of the film looks great, Chalamet, Zendaya, Stellan Skarsgard, Oscar Isaac, Javier Bardem, Charlotte Rampling. 

I have been so ...bored by other Duncans. They’ve all been so flat. Duncan, especially the Duncan of the last few novels, has been dynamic, sexy, powerful and compelling. Richard Jordan was none of those things. Edward Atterton was...nicely emotionally struggling, but I had no idea why Alia wanted him.

But Stellan as the Baron Harkonnen is everything I ever wanted.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
8 hours ago, jennifer6973 said:

Nobody yet has mentioned The Firm.  The book was awesome and the ending was awesome but the movie was terrible.

I guess The Firm falls into the same bucket as Jurassic Park for me. I enjoyed both the books and the movies, but they weren't the SAME. I can't go right from one to the other.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
On 10/19/2019 at 10:10 PM, jennifer6973 said:

Nobody yet has mentioned The Firm.  The book was awesome and the ending was awesome but the movie was terrible.

This is the movie that always comes to mind when I discussed this topic.  My friend is a huge Grisham fan.  We went to see the movie in the theater. Since she read the book, she felt it was 'safe' to make a run to the concession stand.  She said she felt as if she had returned to the wrong theater because nothing on the screen matched what happened in the book.

Edited by elle
clarity
  • LOL 1
Link to comment

I'm not sure that I would say the movie was better per se - it's just that given events, it made sense to update the premise. The book was in 1996 and the movie in 2003. In 1998 there was a massive settlement agreement between nearly all of the entities comprising the United States (states, territories, DC) and the five largest cigarette companies to settle state lawsuits regarding Medicaid costs brought about by smoking, and in 1999 the Department of Justice also sued the cigarette companies and that litigation was ongoing. So if the film had stuck to the book, it would have been quite dated. It was no longer pushing the envelope to say that cigarette manufacturers should be held responsible for their products, so the filmmakers had to shift to a new target.

Link to comment
On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 12:10 AM, jennifer6973 said:

Nobody yet has mentioned The Firm.  The book was awesome and the ending was awesome but the movie was terrible.

It had a couple of great performances (Holly Hunter & Gary Busey in particular) but yes, it was terrible.

Link to comment

 

This video gets to the core of "Adaptational Attractiveness" which is not merely casting Hollywood attractive actors for book characters. It is making them too perfect, white washed, and in many cases, less relatable or less complex. It's why I was bothered by the Harry Potter movies; I disliked Kloves penchant of making Hermione perfect.

  • Useful 3
  • Love 3
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...