Two books Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and The Lord of the Rings — The Fellowship of the Ring have just been converted into movies. These books have a lot in common, but most importantly they are admired and cherished by their reading audiences.
After having read both books recently and having seen both movies recently I am left with this paradox. I think that The Fellowship of the Ring is a better movie in its own right, yet The Philosopher’s Stone is a better adaptation of the book.
9 thoughts on “The whole book to movie thing!”
Comments are closed.
That’s not a paradox — you’re just saying that good adaptions don’t have to be good films!
A lot of my friends think that Andrew Lee committed the ultimate heresy by only talking about LOTR as a film, and not as an adaption of a book.
Favourite usenet flames:
1) “Tolkien Taliban”
2) “This book has an unhealthy hold on you, like the ring did on Gollum. Precioussss.”
But please — talk about Harry Potter, the book and the film (with reference to one another if you feel you need to), tell us what you thought of LOTR. The audience demands more!
The audience!!! Well, I guess you can say that with some authority, as your the only member of the audience that bothers to make comments.
On some forums I worry that the silent majority are silent ’cause they’re frightened of me. I should probably resolve to harrass your software less in 2002 and stick to my own site. 🙂
Perhaps if you actually said something about the subject to comment about. At the moment you’ve only demonstrated little understanding of the subject.
To DG — feel free to harrass my blog as much as you like, don’t worry about me, I can take it.
To Richard — Thinly vailed attempts at provocation are not going to get you anywhere, nor is stating opinion as fact. I’m a little flummoxed as to how a difference of point of view can be called a lack of understanding?
I think my dissatisfaction with the Rings thing, is that the film didn’t hang together as a piece of drama in itself. It doesn’t work as the first part of a trilogy, although it works as the first part of the story. It just lacks climax (oo err missus)
It’s interesting to note that the “books” *aren’t* a trilogy. It’s a single novel that is most commonly published in three volumes.
I was thinking before I saw it that advertising it as a trilogy might be a bad idea… it’s really the first (cut down) part of a 12 hour film.
Of course, that might not be the best way to advertise it either…
Indeed, The Lord of the Rings is one novel, comprised of six books and an appendix, most often printed in three volumes.
It is one story, and does not survive being told only in part.
It will be two years before we can truely gauge if these films have been successful in their self stated goals (that is, to re-tell the story).
If the film were a trilogy in production, I might agree. But the three films have been made in one go, with only limited possibilities for change in the next two years. I think it is quite possible to gauge what what the trilogy entire will be like.
I think they have made a good trilogy, that successfully re-tells *a* story from the novel. I think they have worked only in translation and so have lost what makes the novel very good. I think that if discussion of the films is primarily focussed on their relation to the novel, then it won’t be able to breathe, won’t even be a good trilogy.
(Apropos of nothing: I dreamt I was reading HP last night, and gave up after a chapter and a half of crushing pain.)