Truth is they can go horribly wrong or surpass exceptions. I think we can all agree that certain movies like Harry Potter, Hunger Games and Lord of the Rings (Yes I'm a millennial) are the ones that surpassed expectation. Not all fall under that category unfortunately. Books to movies have really picked up in the last twenty years thanks to special effects. We can all admit that some movies fall short of the novel, painfully. I do want to point out to people that complain about the fact that things in the book were not included in the movie I dislike you. That's right I dislike you. It's impossible to include everything and grumbling about it doesn't change it. For me whether a film is successful is based on three things: 1.)Did the movie encompass the general outline and concept of book? (Did the plot lines hit enough of the book to make sense?) 2.) Actors portrayal of character, this is a big for me, because although the movie may fall short the characters can always be a redeemer. 3.) Actors and Casting. Just because someone is in everything and is popular at the time doesn't mean they should be cast. If a character is black and you cast someone white you win automatic negatives from me. There are few exceptions were this works and the fans are okay with it. Here are my list of best and worst books to movies adaptions.
Best:
1.) Harry Potter
2.) Lord of the Rings (Amazing special effects, a few characters were off and was obviously a book that really had to be cut down from the book it would have been insanely confusing otherwise)
3.)Hunger Games (Casting and characters were spot on. Perhaps the most talked about in terms of not including parts of book in film).
In the middle:
1.) Maze Runner Series: Perhaps one of the most edited book to movie adaptations. From casting to including actual book content into the film. And it got the short end of the stick hitting the end of the fans wanting book to film adaptations. There are mixed feeling regarding this series in regards to the lack of connections to the books. You can find it on some sites as a best or worst adaptation to book because of this.
Differences between the book to movie:
-Newt was to be strong and intimating instead Thomas Brodie-Sangster was cast.
-Thomas and Teresa could communicate through telepathy. Not exactly a concept that can be translated into a movie and make senses so they removed it from the film.
-Characters were left out and series of events were out of order. For example Vince and The Right Arm were not actually introduced until the third book, but were a big factor in the second book. Also characters like George were left out. He played a big part in the third book with Brenda, but never appeared the film. And people like Jorge weren't even in the book but were in the film.
-There weren't as few immune s as the movie made it seem in fact there were thousands in the book
-There was a city, but it was open to everyone. Checks were done on the way in and if you weren't infected you could go in. The movie the city would not allow anyone to come in.
-Newt's death, the movie handled this much better then the book. The novel put your heart through more pain then you could handle in a regards to a character death. Newt in the book was a long drawn out dramatic death.
-In the movie they got their memories back or act least had the option to, in which most people took advantage of. The movie no one other than Teresa gets her memory back.
-Teresa died in the basement not the roof in the book, and the city was never attacked.
-And perhaps the biggest kicker in the book you never figure out if Thomas is actually immune! So I loved that the movie gave us closure on that front.
2.) American Assassin: Starting at a book that is the fourteenth in the series rather than number one and casting characters that were half the age of the those in the book. Mitch Rapp was in his forties and they cast a twenty six year old. All things aside this movie did pretty well at the positive and was met with positive reviews. The movie was a great introduction to Mitch Rapp, the drive and why he was doing what he was doing. And dang everyone got the characters on point despite the age issue. Besides that it was hard to find much of a fault in this movie. I mean it had Michael Keaton how could it fail?
Worst:
1.) Twilight: Between the cheesy and bad acting this book never stood a chance. And that painful awkwardness of Bella Swan was nearly impossible to stomach. Whether it was the script or cast it didn't matter it failed.
2.) The Giver: Whoever thought this was a great idea was insane. Besides being hard to understand even in book form the movie made it even worse. Even Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges couldn't save this film
3.) Series of unfortunate events: Perfect example of perfect casting that couldn't save the script. Where did they go wrong? Trying to combine three books into one movie which didn't allow character development or allow audience a chance to connect to characters.
Please share and let me know what you think of my lists. Did I miss a movie that should have made the list?
