Books VS Films.

This is an ongoing debate in my mind that I have yet to come to a conclusion on. So I put together all my best points and decided to ask your opinions. The mooks (movies + books. trying to find a word that encompasses both was impossible, and I didn't know which one to say out of the two words, so I combined them. Therefore, mooks.) I have chosen to pick on are- "The Twilight Saga", "Harry Potter", three Nicholas Sparks mooks, "The Last Song", "The Notebook" and "Dear John". The final mook I have chosen to talk about is a modern film, War Horse.

I fully understand everyone's bad conceptions of Twilight- it can be construed as being slightly creepy, a bit too cautious with all the blood sucking and it might make girls look subservient to their boyfriends. I, however, see it a different way. I think it's a cute love story, giving young teenage girls (who the story is very clearly aimed at, look at the age of the heartthrobs.) hope and more faith in boys that other stories might not promote as much. *cough* Jackie Wilson Girls in Love. The transition from the written form to the big screen is a very smooth one- the films have remained immensely faithful to the original storyline, which is often a fault I find with adaptations, and the actors have portrayed their characters very accurately to the book. I think the faithfulness to the story is to do with the audience it is aimed at- I have already said the story is aimed at young teenage girls, therefore I think it has been made simpler, therefore leaving less room for misinterpretation, as is the case with some films aimed at more mature audiences (e.g. PS I Love You.). I think because of the similarities between the book and the film, I enjoyed them about the same, probably favouring the book slightly because the female actress annoyed me slightly... however that might just be because I imagined her different in my head, and I can't really blame that on her. She still annoyed me though.

The next series of mooks I have chosen to talk about is the Harry Potter series. My opinion on these mooks vary depending on the individual one- however I think the point I made about Twilight can also be made about the Harry Potter series, that the producers have kept the films fairly faithful to their books- minus some minor details that were left out. I think this, again, has been done because of the target audience. The books are not massively complicated and there is not a lot of room for interpretation. I thought the first film did not do the book justice, largely because the primary three actors were very young in this film and weren't very good- I think the same about the second film really. The third film, in my opinion, was the best of the lot. The performances of Gary Oldman and David Thewlis stole the show- plus the acting skills of the three young children are seriously developing, Emma Watson made a particular impact on me in this film. I finally believed that she was more than just a little girl being told to read these lines. Also the dark moment's that the film incorporates- particularly concerning the dementor's- seemed a lot more successful than the dark moments that the previous films have attempted- these successfully chilled me to the bone whereas the ones in the philosopher's stone and chamber of secrets just entertained me really. Along with the development of the actor's came my connection to the characters- I cared more about them in this film than I had previously because it seemed to me that they were becoming real. With the fourth and fifth films, I preferred the books by a long way- both of the finales in these films didn't really do much for me... I didn't think the setting was as creepy as it had been in the book. The deaths in these books also moved me an awful lot, whereas in the film I either thought they were a bit downplayed or they were just done a bit too cheesily. In the films defence, these films really show the development of the actors well. I preferred the 6th film, as I thought the book was written a little bit simply, although I think this is because when the 6th book was released I was getting older and the books were maybe not aimed at me so much anymore. I also thought the finale of the 6th film was very moving indeed, and I have yet to watch the film without breaking down in tears. The three primary actors are also much older than they were when they started out in this film, and are now becoming good actors. I thought the makers of the films made a good choice in splitting the last book into two films, as I think had they been put together, it might have been a bit much for the younger audience. I thought the first film in the pair was the better of the two, although I still think the book was better- everything just seemed a bit downplayed. I won't use any spoilers in case anyone still hasn't read or seen this mook, but the deaths in these two films didn't have half as much effect on me as the books did.

The next group of mooks I have chosen to talk about is books by Nicholas Sparks, that have been adapted into films. I have chosen these because although they are certainly not children's books- the issues dealt with are far too sensitive for children- their films do not deviate massively from the books either. However, I always prefer the books of this group because I think although the issues dealt with are important and need to be dealt with, so as to raise awareness, I think the films just try too hard to pull at the audience's heartstrings. I mean its a given that some heartstrings are going to be pulled at- "The Notebook" deals with dementia, "The Last Song" deals with injustice and loss of a loved one, "Dear John" deals with the effect of war on young couples. However I think the film's overdo them slightly- with the use of music, the types of shots, the cuts, they just seem to be trying too hard to get into the audiences hearts. The stories and the character's are very well written, they do not needed added extras to make the character's loved- we already love them from the stories. Another fault with the film is the actor's seem a bit disconnected, and I've already made it quite clear how I feel on this issue. I particularly felt it with Rachel McAdams in "The Notebook", her performance just seemed so forced, it ruined the film for me. The actors in "The Last Song" (Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth) also seemed a bit immature, and didn't seem to fully grasp the extent of the heartbreak that the book got across. I thought the actors in "Dear John" were better than the other examples I have given, but they still did not seem to fully grasp everything their character's had gone through, which is understandable really as they had been put through the mill quite a lot, but I think this made them unbelievable as characters.

A more up-to-date film I've seen that has been adapted from a book is "War Horse". This was directed by Steven Spielberg, and the book written by Michael Morpurgo. For me this was a very very close call- they were both good, but not phenomenal. I thought the book was possibly a little bit young for me, which was why i did not enjoy it as much as I might have done- I thought it was a bit simple, a very quick read, and a bit too fairytale-like for me- happy start, massive struggle, everyone lives happily ever after. The story was nice though, it cheered me up. I did not like the film as much as the book for the same reason as the Nicholas Sparks mooks really- it tried too hard to pull at my heartstrings. To be fair, it worked, I sobbed- but all the arty shots and the slow music and the lighting were really not necessary. Neither was the shooting of two German soldiers that had abandoned- that did not happen in the book and wasn't necesary, it was there to evoke sympathhy from the audience. The story sold itself, it did not need all these extra's, I still thought it was relatively good though, however still not phenomenal.

I am aware that I have talked largely about films that are fairly faithful to the books, so I have chosen to end it on a more sour note. "PS I Love You" ruins the book. I know alot of people that have refused to read the book, on the basis that they didn't like the film. This saddens me alot, because the book is really really good, and the film really doesn't do it justice. They change the country (which angers me a great deal because Ireland is a beautiful country and this detail has been changed purely for commercialism), they also change a massive detail within the plot and by doing this really lose the whole feel of the book, which again angers me. The book touches me, moves me, and makes me adore the characters. The film does none of the above. Someone needs to make a film of the actual book.

Other films that have been grossly unfaithful to their books are "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "Captain Corelli's Mandolin". I myself haven't read these books, but people that have tell me that the ending has been changed completely. As in, the complete opposite. It is believed that this has been done to make the film a more marketable product, but it annoys me that they do not trust the audience enough to put a less happy ending in, therefore they patronise them by making them live happily ever after. It is mooks like this that give adaptation's a bad name. It is for this reason, that I am going to agree with this picture.