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

[DearEvette]

My thinking on this is unless the physical appearance is directly impacts the plot or character action/motivation I am not going to sweat it too much.    Kinda like his take on Ready Player One where the female character's issues about her appearance are a part of her entire character's motivations.  He's right, if you are going to keep those as part of the plot then cast a person whose physical appearance makes sense or else remove those elements from the plot of your movie.

As for Hermione, in the movies, Emma Watson's looks would have been of no issue if they had chosen to excise the catty comments she got about her teeth/hair from the books.  But then the Yule ball is pretty problematic because they chose to keep in the "*GASP* Hermione is PRETTY!  scene to make  it seem like Hermione was a troll who suddenly became a supermodel, when in reality she only tied her hair back and put on a nice dress.

I disagree with him a bit about Tyrion.  My overall impression is that it is Tyrion's dwarfism that has the biggest impact on how his character is viewed and reviled esp. by Cersei, not his 'rougher' looks.   It is also not an good example to illustrate plot discrepancies because GOT jettisoned, coalesced and made expedient plot changes from the book to fit the show all over the place  For GOT, imo, it would have been Brienne of Tarth who got the Glow Up in the show, not Tyrion.  Brienne is described as being super plain even downright ugly.  Gwendolyn Christie on her worst day, even in character was not homely.  She is simply tall.

But overall, his argument is dead on. 

[MeloraH]

3 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

In Little Women I thought it was distracting that Meg (Emma Stone) had jet black hair when in the book she takes great pride in having curly blond hair, and Jo is a brunette.

I haven't seen the film but I've felt, since it was announced, that the casting seemed totally wrong for just about every part, physically and like in essence... Eliza Scanlan basically already played a psycho version of Amy in Sharp Objects... I have no desire to see it and feel like I'm the only person in the world that feels that way.

I watched the 1990's version recently and it just reinforced my feelings because that one was pretty much perfectly cast (Even though Meg is also brunette in that one). And I also liked the BBC/PBS one with Maya Hawke so it's not just being precious about my childhood version.

[proserpina65]

3 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I disagree with him a bit about Tyrion.  My overall impression is that it is Tyrion's dwarfism that has the biggest impact on how his character is viewed and reviled esp. by Cersei, not his 'rougher' looks.  

Exactly.  He could've been the most beautiful dwarf in the kingdom, and he'd still be a monster to Cersei and Tywin.  And an object of ridicule to a lot of Westerosi.

[peacheslatour]

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

In Little Women I thought it was distracting that Meg (Emma Stone) had jet black hair when in the book she takes great pride in having curly blond hair, and Jo is a brunette.

Meg  had "plenty of soft brown hair". Beth had "smooth, dark hair". Jo's was chestnut and Amy was described with "golden curls".

[Browncoat]

On 1/15/2020 at 11:01 AM, Growsonwalls said:

In Little Women I thought it was distracting that Meg (Emma Stone) had jet black hair when in the book she takes great pride in having curly blond hair, and Jo is a brunette.

Minor nitpick -- it was Emma Watson in the movie, not Emma Stone.

[Irlandesa]

19 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Minor nitpick -- it was Emma Watson in the movie, not Emma Stone.

Minor interesting fact: It was originally supposed to be Emma Stone but she dropped out.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Irlandesa

[Spartan Girl]

I finally got around to reading Election by Tom Perrota and it's really different from how the story was done in the movie. The characters are more complex and nuanced, and the ending was different. And the movie had an alternate ending that was more faithful to the one in the book: Tracy and Mr. McAllister meeting again before she leaves for college and him apologizing to her. And it was so well done that I'm almost sorry the filmmakers cut that in favor of the darker satirical ending. Not that the movie ending wasn't good too.

[Black Knight]

On 1/15/2020 at 9:24 AM, DearEvette said:

Brienne is described as being super plain even downright ugly.  Gwendolyn Christie on her worst day, even in character was not homely.  She is simply tall.

Christie doesn't fit conventional standards of beauty for women and as such she will have her looks put down. I remember her commenting after she was cast as Brienne that it's the first time she has ever heard that she is too attractive.

All of GoT was told from characters' inner POVs, and the world was hardly enlightened, so I'm completely fine with the thinking that Brienne was being judged by everyone on conventional standards of beauty and she herself had internalized that.

Much like how Tyrion really isn't treated any worse after his face was mutilated in battle - his face was fine before, but he was a dwarf and that was enough in itself to make him undesirable. Brienne's got the same issue, just in reverse - he's too small, she's too big.

[peacheslatour]

Quote

I remember her commenting after she was cast as Brienne that it's the first time she has ever heard that she is too attractive.

Same with Sarah Parish who played Lady Hamleigh in Pillars of the Earth. In the book she was described as hideous, her face covered in boils which she kept touching with her emaciated hands. In the movie she was a beautiful woman with a couple of owies on her cheek.

[Dejana]

On 1/15/2020 at 11:01 AM, Growsonwalls said:

In Little Women I thought it was distracting that Meg (Emma Stone) had jet black hair when in the book she takes great pride in having curly blond hair, and Jo is a brunette.

Emma Watson played Meg and in the movie her hair looked brown to me.

On 1/15/2020 at 12:24 PM, DearEvette said:

My thinking on this is unless the physical appearance is directly impacts the plot or character action/motivation I am not going to sweat it too much.    Kinda like his take on Ready Player One where the female character's issues about her appearance are a part of her entire character's motivations.  He's right, if you are going to keep those as part of the plot then cast a person whose physical appearance makes sense or else remove those elements from the plot of your movie.

As for Hermione, in the movies, Emma Watson's looks would have been of no issue if they had chosen to excise the catty comments she got about her teeth/hair from the books.  But then the Yule ball is pretty problematic because they chose to keep in the "*GASP* Hermione is PRETTY!  scene to make  it seem like Hermione was a troll who suddenly became a supermodel, when in reality she only tied her hair back and put on a nice dress.

Book Hermione fixes her teeth, straightens her hair and blows everyone away with her appearance. This is a 15 year old at a British wizard school in 1994, not someone living in an age of contouring videos on Youtube. IMO anyone who can become stunningly attractive by throwing on some lipstick and blush and maybe tweezing her eyebrows a bit, was probably above average looking to begin with. If a person is going to have an awkward phase, it typically happens during the middle schoool years, exactly Hermione was first introduced. In their limited group, she quickly got categorized as a "nerd" and went years without having her place in the hierarchy reassessed. Start the story when they're all 16 and the books likely convey a very different sense of Hermione's attractiveness. Even in the later books, she did not lack for male attention (not that this is an actual measure of a person's beauty, of course,  but JKR used developments like that to put across the point).

I agree that the movies should have omitted the references to Hermione's "before" phase if they were just going to leave Emma Watson looking like herself the whole time. Still, fans complained about how Harry looked at Hermione in the movie when she appears at the Yule Ball, that it was too romantic for the characters. It was more "Evil Kloves ships Harry and Hermione" criticism, when it's really not so dissimilar to the passage from Goblet of Fire and more deviation from the book might have been appreciated.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Dejana

[Spartan Girl]

I saw the new Call of the Wild movie, and it was pretty good. The CGI dog was the best part of the movie -- where were these expressive animal faces in the Lion King remake?! But the ending was tweaked a bit because in the novel

 

Thornton was killed by a Native American tribe, which doesn't age well and God knows social media would have thrown a bitchfit over that, so the movie added a greedy gold searcher villain instead.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Spartan Girl

[peacheslatour]

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I saw the new Call of the Wild movie, and it was pretty good. The CGI dog was the best part of the movie -- where were these expressive animal faces in the Lion King remake?! But the ending was tweaked a bit because in the novel

  Hide contents

Thornton was killed by a Native American tribe, which doesn't age well and God knows social media would have thrown a bitchfit over that, so the movie added a greedy gold searcher villain instead.

I'm surprised you would say that. Even from the trailers I think the CGI dog looks silly. Also, all of the snowy scenery is CGI. I'm surprised they didn't get Andy Serkis to play the Harrison Ford role in motion capture. I was so disappointed when I read about how much of the movie is fakery. I adored the book growing up and was really looking forward to this movie.

[Spartan Girl]

5 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

I'm surprised you would say that. Even from the trailers I think the CGI dog looks silly. Also, all of the snowy scenery is CGI. I'm surprised they didn't get Andy Serkis to play the Harrison Ford role in motion capture. I was so disappointed when I read about how much of the movie is fakery. I adored the book growing up and was really looking forward to this movie.

Trust me, the CGI might be unrealistic with the dogs but it's better than the trailers led you to believe. Or maybe it seems that way once you get used to it. JMO.

[Katy M]

On 7/13/2019 at 8:49 AM, 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.

Roger Ebert was a movie critic.  So, there's really no need for him to have read the books.  You shouldn't have to read the book that a movie is based on to be able to enjoy or understand the movie.

[Blergh]

Although the 1939 movie version  of Wuthering Heights was quite the potboiler starring the always intense Lawrence Olivier as Heathcliff and the passionate stunning beauty Merle Oberon as Catherine Earnshaw with David Niven as Edgar Linton, virtually skips the entire 2nd half of the book. Catherine suddenly dies for virtually no reason. While Heathcliff stays bitterly wed to Isabella (Edgar Linton's sister) who does NOT flee his abuse and none of the  Lintons or Earnshaws have any offspring. Thus Heathcliff is supposed to brood about for roughly 20 years until finally he heeds Catherine's Ghost's pleas to run off with him  and, of course, the audience is expected to be enthralled with the two selfish ones being reunited at last. However, with his death it's possible that maybe his widow Isabella herself wound up the Mistress of Wuthering Heights after all those years of ashes and him openly rejecting her for Catherine.

Sadly, not only does this movie ignore Isabella having run away to London  after fleeing his abuse in dancing shoes and having conceived their son Linton, but it also ignores how she was able to mysteriously comfortably provide for her ailing son on her own without either Heathcliff's or even her brother Edgar's support.

 This version also ignores the nobility of Isabella's brother Edgar who, in spite of having caught Catherine confessing her passion for Heathcliff right before her death does NOT dishonor her memory but is a dedicated single father to their surviving daughter Cathy who never says a word against her late mother (possibly for Cathy's sake rather than for sheer love for the fickle Catherine's memory) and, despite his only child being a girl (which the story would demonstrate how much more vulnerable an heiress was to her fortune being legally taken from her than an heir would have been) , he never considers remarriage even for the sake of siring a legit male heir. 

Also, with no second generation depicted, no Cathy who was a far more loyal and dedicated daughter to her father than Catherine had been to any member of her birth family  to the degree that she ONLY agreed to marry Linton due to it being the only chance for her to see her dying father one last time. And Cathy proved to be far more attentive to her dying husband Linton's  comfort than Catherine had Edgar's  despite Cathy having been forced into the marriage (unlike Catherine who had been completely a free agent when she eagerly accepted   Edgar's proposal for the riches). Lastly, no depiction of the REAL hero of this book Hareton who was the innocent child who'd been cruelly deprived of his birthright to be an unpaid, illiterate,crude  laborer on what would have been his own estate by Heathcliff- and yet loved Heathcliff  and would be the one person who genuinely mourned Heathcliff-  despite actually being aware of what Heathcliff had done (and whose tiny mercy in allowing Hareton to flirt with his widowed daughter-in-law Cathy was what it took to stop Heathcliff from living to avenge against the innocent 2nd generation - and deciding to put up no more resistance to join Catherine in the next world). 

[kathyk2]

11 hours ago, Katy M said:

Roger Ebert was a movie critic.  So, there's really no need for him to have read the books.  You shouldn't have to read the book that a movie is based on to be able to enjoy or understand the movie.

I disagree if you are reviewing a movie based on a book it's useful to compare and contrast them both. The book Forrest Gump is nothing like the movie while the movie version of Misery follows the book closely. I hated the movie Order of the Phoenix because it omitted so many scenes from the book that made me cry.

[Bort]

Depends on what kind of critic someone is. Ebert’s job was to critique a movie at face value and not take the source material into account.

Ultimately, that is the job of an adaptation: to tell the story well enough that someone can watch it without having read the book. 

[Blergh]

18 hours ago, kariyaki said:

 

Ultimately, that is the job of an adaptation: to tell the story well enough that someone can watch it without having read the book. 

True! So it wouldn't have hurt the 1939 Wuthering Heights movie had there been  a begining/end title reading 'This Movie Only Covers The First Half Of the Book. If You Want the Whole Story: Read the Book Yourself!'

Edited June 3, 2020 by Blergh

[Irlandesa]

I think it depends on what the creators of the movie have as a goal. Is their goal to be a faithful adaption or are they using a source material to create something new?

A critic can critique the book on its own, the movie on its own or compare and contract the two.  There's room for all types of critiques. In fact, there needs to be all types of critiques because not everyone who goes to see the movie will take the time to read the book.  Does the movie stand on its own?  Will people watching the movie even care if the movie leaves out some of the things the book has?  Would covering all aspects of the book make for a movie that becomes too long and convoluted for ideal movie watching?

[Spartan Girl]

I rewatched and am now rereading The Hate U Give and several big differences between the book and movie struck me. One was that Hailey was way worse than she was in the movie. Seriously. 

The other was that Carlos was much more conflicted in the book. The movie completely cut out how he got put on leave when he attacked the cop that shot Khalil when he found out he pulled a gun on Starr. They also cut out his guilt over not doing more to help Khalil before he died. It's a shame the movie left those out, since his story arc parallels how Starr felt caught between Garden Heights and Williamson.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Spartan Girl

[Snow Apple]

I was thinking about rereading Howl's Moving Castle which reminded me of how the animated movie is really different. The main plot is not recognizable and the characters of Michael and the Witch of the Waste are completely different than the book. 

You need to have the will to separate the two formats to enjoy them both.

[auntlada]

I watched "Tara Road" on Amazon the other day, and now I have to go back and read the book again. I'm pretty sure that it's very different in ways I don't like, but it's been so long since I read the book I"m not sure.

It may just be the casting. The mistresses were not at all how I pictured them. Both seemed more unattractive than described in the book, and one seemed downright stupid. Also, although I've liked Andie Macdowell in other things, I did not like her here. She seemed like she was just phoning it in and borrowing mannerisms from her other movies. Or maybe she plays essentially the same person in every movie, and I never noticed it before.

And the men who were supposed to be such good salesmen and so charming really weren't at all. Again, I don't know if that's the writing or the acting. I think the movie skipped the part where they were supposed to be charming and went straight to the part where the audience is supposed to see through them and dislike them.

[Constant Viewer]

11 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I rewatched and am now rereading The Hate U Give and several big differences between the book and movie struck me.

 I loved the book and have not seen the movie. there was so much I was hoping they would turn it into a series instead.

[Spartan Girl]

9 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

 I loved the book and have not seen the movie. there was so much I was hoping they would turn it into a series instead.

The movie is great, you should definitely check it out. Angie Thomas is also writing a prequel about Starr's dad, Concrete Rose, I won't be surprised if that winds up a movie too.

Khalil's death is even more horrifically done in the movie: the cop handcuffs Starr, so she can't do anything but watch while Khalil bleeds out right in front of her.

[proserpina65]

On ‎06‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 2:08 AM, kathyk2 said:

I disagree if you are reviewing a movie based on a book it's useful to compare and contrast them both. The book Forrest Gump is nothing like the movie while the movie version of Misery follows the book closely. I hated the movie Order of the Phoenix because it omitted so many scenes from the book that made me cry.

I think a movie critic should review the movie, and only the movie.  Because quite often I haven't read the book and thus don't care where it differs from the movie.

On ‎06‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 4:26 PM, Irlandesa said:

I think it depends on what the creators of the movie have as a goal. Is their goal to be a faithful adaption or are they using a source material to create something new?

A critic can critique the book on its own, the movie on its own or compare and contract the two.  There's room for all types of critiques. In fact, there needs to be all types of critiques because not everyone who goes to see the movie will take the time to read the book.  Does the movie stand on its own?  Will people watching the movie even care if the movie leaves out some of the things the book has?  Would covering all aspects of the book make for a movie that becomes too long and convoluted for ideal movie watching?

Doesn't matter to me.  A movie critic isn't a book critic.  They should review the movie on its own merits.

Arguing about how it was adapted is what the internet's for, lol.

[OtterMommy]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I think a movie critic should review the movie, and only the movie.  Because quite often I haven't read the book and thus don't care where it differs from the movie.

Doesn't matter to me.  A movie critic isn't a book critic.  They should review the movie on its own merits.

Arguing about how it was adapted is what the internet's for, lol.

I sort of agree, if that makes sense?  I guess it depends what kind of review we're talking about.  If it something like what you would find People Magazine, which is a "what to watch now" and pretty limited in scope, they very much need to stick to just the movie/show.  However, I do think that there is merit for a deeper review, such as what one might find in the NYT or such, to refer back to the source material, especially if any changes positively or negatively impact the quality of the movie or show.  For example: (spoiler for Hulu's Little Fires Everywhere)

Spoiler

The ending of the story was changed so that instead of Izzy burning down the house, her 3 siblings did so after Izzy had left.  Not only did this not make sense, but it betrayed much of the framework both the show and the book had laid.

In that particular case, a change was made from the source material that had a negative effect on the overall work, which I think reflects on the creative team and is something that a more in-depth review should cover.

 

[DearEvette]

On 6/2/2020 at 6:58 AM, kariyaki said:

Ultimately, that is the job of an adaptation: to tell the story well enough that someone can watch it without having read the book.

I agree with this.  Also the sad reality is , in most cases, way more people will see a movie than will end up reading the book anyway so the critique almsot exclusively of what is on screen is going to resonate more with the viewer than some comparison of what was left out from the book, something they will have no knowledge or expectation of. 

But I also think it depends on individual critics' approach and how they critique film.

 

On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, Irlandesa said:

A critic can critique the book on its own, the movie on its own or compare and contract the two.  There's room for all types of critiques.

This.  Some movie critics depend a lot of their critique on their deep knowledge of cinema and will use cinematic themes and history as a basis of their critiques. Some will use the source work as a jumping off point and can illustrate very well how the work either benefited or failed from the adaptation.

I actually enjoy both.  One of the reasons I loved reading Ebert's reviews is because he did mostly the former, but when he wanted to he also did the latter.  His writing was so witty and incisive that is was fun to read his reviews even if you haven't even seen the movie!

[Athena]

On 6/15/2020 at 5:57 PM, Snow Apple said:

I was thinking about rereading Howl's Moving Castle which reminded me of how the animated movie is really different. The main plot is not recognizable and the characters of Michael and the Witch of the Waste are completely different than the book. 

You need to have the will to separate the two formats to enjoy them both.

They are different and I like them both. I don't really watch book adaptations expecting the same thing anymore especially with animated movies. Disney always diverges in its adaptations. I listened to a lot of the How to Train a Dragon books (all delightfully narrated by David Tennant) and the movies are different or at least the first one or two that I saw. 

 

15 hours ago, DearEvette said:

This.  Some movie critics depend a lot of their critique on their deep knowledge of cinema and will use cinematic themes and history as a basis of their critiques. Some will use the source work as a jumping off point and can illustrate very well how the work either benefited or failed from the adaptation.

I actually enjoy both.  One of the reasons I loved reading Ebert's reviews is because he did mostly the former, but when he wanted to he also did the latter.  His writing was so witty and incisive that is was fun to read his reviews even if you haven't even seen the movie!

I loved Ebert's writing and have read most of the Great Movies books. I liked that his view on movies was not only focussed on cinema history and technical aspects, but there is a lot of appreciation for characters and history overall. Watching movies is an emotional experience and he often wrote his reviews from that point of view. To be fair, I don't really read movie reviews or critiques anymore but Ebert ruined a lot of others for me. 

[Spartan Girl]

The 2003 adaptation of Peter Pan is very well done, and might be the only version where Peter is given a bit more complexity. In most versions, including the Disney cartoon, he comes off as a jackass. But this version hints that he might have deeper feelings for Wendy and maybe deep down he might not mind having being in a family again, but can't, not only because he doesn't want to grow up, but also because he is physically tied to Neverland (the weather changes with his moods). If he leaves and grows up, Neverland wouldn't exist anymore. So not only does he not want to grow up, he can't grow up.

[Katy M]

34 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

but also because he is physically tied to Neverland (the weather changes with his moods). If he leaves and grows up, Neverland wouldn't exist anymore. So not only does he not want to grow up, he can't grow up.

That's so sad.  That's a lot of responsibility for one kid/not kid.

[Athena]

5 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

The 2003 adaptation of Peter Pan is very well done, and might be the only version where Peter is given a bit more complexity. In most versions, including the Disney cartoon, he comes off as a jackass. But this version hints that he might have deeper feelings for Wendy and maybe deep down he might not mind having being in a family again, but can't, not only because he doesn't want to grow up, but also because he is physically tied to Neverland (the weather changes with his moods). If he leaves and grows up, Neverland wouldn't exist anymore. So not only does he not want to grow up, he can't grow up.

Yes! I loved this adaptation too and it was gorgeously done as well, but not sure if the CGI holds up now. The young actors weren't bad either; it's too bad none of the leads seem to have done anything prominent since. 

A lot of the themes in the movie were also explored in my other Peter Pan adaptation: Fox's Peter Pan & The Pirates. While not the best animation, it had some decent writing for a kids show and explored the Peter Pan/Neverland relationship more fully.

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

That's so sad.  That's a lot of responsibility for one kid/not kid.

Yeah, and it really shows in the last scene when he's watching the Darlings from outside. There's such this look of sadness on his face when he says "to live would be an awfully big adventure" before he acting like he's ok. It's easier for him to be afraid of growing up than to admit that he might not even have a choice in the matter anymore, just like it's also a cover for his heartache that his parents just had another baby rather than actually look for him...

Oh wow, this Peter Pan really I see  tragedy. No wonder the music leaves me a sobbing mess every time it's on Movieplex.

[JustHereForFood]

My favorite adaptations of a book are the 1935 and 1958 versions of A Tale of Two Cities. I strongly prefer both of them to the book, even though the 1958 version in particular made some big changes. While I liked the book, my main criticism is that most of it felt like just a setup for the ending and not that much happened and this is somehow fixed in those movies, by cutting some of those chunks of nothing out.

Another adaptations that I prefer to the book are the 1995 version of Sense and Sensibility and the TV adaptation of Good Omens, but in those cases, I saw the adaptations first, so that may have an influence.

On the other end, I have not yet been satisfied by any adaptation of either The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo. The most tolerable for me were the 1961 version of The Three Musketeers with Gérard Barray and the 1975 version of The Count of Monte Cristo with Richard Chamberlain, but I had a lot of nitpicking in those as well.

[blackwing]

Tom Clancy's Without Remorse is one of my favourite books of his.  It tells the origin story of John Clark, a recurring character in the Jack Ryan books.

I finally got around to watching the movie on Amazon Prime with Michael B. Jordan as John Kelly.  Apart from his name, and where he got a new identity... the movie pretty much had nothing to do with the book.  I mean, they didn't even try to follow it.  The basic overall plot where Kelly seeks revenge is still there... but the rest of it?  Entire plots/characters disappear and replaced by entirely new plots and characters.

I get that the book was set during the Vietnam War so needed some updating, but they didn't even try to follow the book.  The movie was enjoyable but I wish they had just released it under a different name.

[peacheslatour]

Quote

On the other end, I have not yet been satisfied by any adaptation of either The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo. The most tolerable for me were the 1961 version of The Three Musketeers with Gérard Barray and the 1975 version of The Count of Monte Cristo with Richard Chamberlain, but I had a lot of nitpicking in those as well.

I've seen the Richard Chamberlain one and while it's good, I don't think it conveyed the depth of feeling as well as the Jim Caviezel one did. YMMV, of course.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, peacheslatour said:

I've seen the Richard Chamberlain one and while it's good, I don't think it conveyed the depth of feeling as well as the Jim Caviezel one did. YMMV, of course.

While Caviezel did a great job, that whole movie was a fucking insult. Making Valentine, Villefort's WIFE? When she was his daughter in the book? And also changing the paternity of Albert to be Edmond's? And the director didn't give a fuck. He said so in the dvd special features, that he didn't care and changed what he did because he wanted to, and who cares if it deviated from the book?

But I still watch it for the yummiliciousness of Caviezel and a very young Henry Cavill (Albert).

[peacheslatour]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

While Caviezel did a great job, that whole movie was a fucking insult. Making Valentine, Villefort's WIFE? When she was his daughter in the book? And also changing the paternity of Albert to be Edmond's? And the director didn't give a fuck. He said so in the dvd special features, that he didn't care and changed what he did because he wanted to, and who cares if it deviated from the book?

But I still watch it for the yummiliciousness of Caviezel and a very young Henry Cavill (Albert).

I hadn't read the book yet at that point, I was just so mesmerized by Caviezal. If the director did that, then there is a special place in hell for him.

[GHScorpiosRule]

54 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

I hadn't read the book yet at that point, I was just so mesmerized by Caviezal. If the director did that, then there is a special place in hell for him.

Neither had I. I watched the movie first, knowing it wouldn't be exactly like the book, because hello! That book is HUGE. But some basic things that should have remained the same, should have. Then I read the book, later got the dvd, watched the special effects (Caviezel and Pearce did most of the stunts/sword fighting), and that's where I learned the direction didn't give a fuck. If he wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, go for it. Don't say you're going to do one about the novel and only pick and choose. Just do a fucking "inspired by" and I wouldn't have been so pissed.

[peacheslatour]

12 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Neither had I. I watched the movie first, knowing it wouldn't be exactly like the book, because hello! That book is HUGE. But some basic things that should have remained the same, should have. Then I read the book, later got the dvd, watched the special effects (Caviezel and Pearce did most of the stunts/sword fighting), and that's where I learned the direction didn't give a fuck. If he wanted to make a swashbuckling movie, go for it. Don't say you're going to do one about the novel and only pick and choose. Just do a fucking "inspired by" and I wouldn't have been so pissed.

That's fucking criminal. Damn, I'll never look at that movie the same way again.

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

That's fucking criminal. Damn, I'll never look at that movie the same way again.

Like I said---yummilicious eye-candy! And I'll just ignore, go lalalalalalaaaa every time I see Valentine and Villefort onscreen together. Because I also like James Frain.

[JustHereForFood]

6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

While Caviezel did a great job, that whole movie was a fucking insult. Making Valentine, Villefort's WIFE? When she was his daughter in the book? And also changing the paternity of Albert to be Edmond's? And the director didn't give a fuck. He said so in the dvd special features, that he didn't care and changed what he did because he wanted to, and who cares if it deviated from the book?

But I still watch it for the yummiliciousness of Caviezel and a very young Henry Cavill (Albert).

Honestly, I couldn't even finish that one. A fucking tragedy of an attempt.

[Spartan Girl]

Honestly the thing that annoyed me about the movie was that they changed Albert’s paternity just to get Edmund and Mercedes get back together. Like that’s the one thing about the book ending is that they don’t end up together: yes, the only thing Mercedes was guilty of was for being weak and unwittingly marrying the guy who framed him, but some things you just can’t get past. And Edmund was pretty much over her and moved on with his life. I was fine with that ending, they didn’t need to Hollywood it up.

[JustHereForFood]

And speaking of getting back together with Mercedes, the four part miniseries with the ugly Gérard Depardieu did that too...

[peacheslatour]

2 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

And speaking of getting back together with Mercedes, the four part miniseries with the ugly Gérard Depardieu did that too...

Bleh. It didn't even come close to ending that way. And Gerard Butler?.. .yeah, no. At least it wasn't Gerard Depardieu.

[Spartan Girl]

Let’s not forget another small saving grace of the 2002 Count of Monte Cristo: the final performance of Richard Harris. I’ll always feel robbed that he didn’t get to finish playing Dumbledore.

[peacheslatour]

On 6/30/2021 at 2:53 PM, peacheslatour said:

Bleh. It didn't even come close to ending that way. And Gerard Butler?.. .yeah, no. At least it wasn't Gerard Depardieu.

WTF Peaches? 

[JustHereForFood]

I try not to get too excited about this, but a TV series based on Myron Bolitar books is something I've wanted since I started reading the series.

Myron Bolitar Series In Works At Netflix As Harlan Coben Extends Overall Deal At Streamer

Quote

The new deal, believed to be for four years, adds 12 more Coben titles including his signature 11-book Myron Bolitar series as well as 2021’s Win.

A Myron Bolitar TV series is in early development at Netflix. It will keep the novels’ U.S. setting to possibly become the streamer’s first American-produced show based on Coben’s novels. The books’ title character is a former top basketball player-turned-owner of agency representing sports stars and celebrities.

I hope it happens and it would be great if they kept it in the US. I liked the British adaptations, but I agree that Myron books are more tied to the location and would probably benefit from keeping the setting.

Quote

DEADLINE: Will you be writing the Myron Bolitar series adaptation or will you bring in another writer?

COBEN: It’s early, so we haven’t made a final decision yet or who’s going. I am involved always in some capacity but I don’t know if I’ll be the one who’s going to write the pilot or just be an executive producer on it — depends on who we ended up with and how it’s going to work. Part of the great joy with Netflix is that everybody I’ve worked with there has been extraordinarily open, and my role is bigger or smaller depending on the situation, who we have, what they think they need from me; it’s on a case-by-case basis.

Certainly Myron Bolitar is dear to my heart. I’ve written 34 books, a third of them involved Myron Bolitar; he is my most prized possession, and I’m really happy now that it’s in the Netflix camp, so that we can work hard on making it right. It’s one of the properties I’ve probably been a little bit more precious about. It’s easier to move a story like The Stranger or Stay Close to another country. Myron being a series character that people read over and over again, takes a little bit more care and has to be in the USA. So I’m very excited about getting started on that.

I recommend the whole interview if you're a fan, they talk about previous Netflix adaptations as well.

[partofme]

I was hoping they’d do more of his stand alone books.   I love those.  Not a fan of the Bolitar books.

[JustHereForFood]

11 hours ago, partofme said:

I was hoping they’d do more of his stand alone books.   I love those.  Not a fan of the Bolitar books.

I'm the opposite. I love the series but I haven't been much impressed by the standalone novels and only read about half of them.

But he said they will keep adapting more of them into limited series as well.

[GaT]

If they do a Bolitar series & it's not in Livingston, not a chance I'm watching.