Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: book adaptations, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 4 of 4
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: book adaptations in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
A lot of people feel that The Hunger Games is too brutal. They say the book is nothing more than glorified violence, that real people would never let something that horrific happen.
I respectfully agree. And disagree. Here’s why.
In the early 1960s, the United States increased their support of a war that was already in progress halfway across the globe. We didn’t have nearly enough soldiers to make a difference in that war, so in 1969a televised lottery was held. The draft. (Reaping, anyone?) Many of the young men sent to fight in Vietnam were poor; they had no means to avoid the draft. And according to a popular song from the 80s, the average age of those soldiers was 19.
The Vietnam War was the first televised war. Unlike the newsreels sent home from previous wars, the government didn’t get to edit the footage that was released to the American public. Technology had advanced too far and a growing mistrust of our elected leaders made news services all too eager to exercise their freedom of speech.
But here’s where we differ from the people of Panem. Those nightly images served up with a thawed out tray of mystery meat got to be more than Americans could tolerate. Rather than accept that this was our fate, that we had to send more of our children to die, people started protesting the war and demanding that our soldiers come home. It didn’t take twenty-four years for people to start a Rue Riot. Thank goodness.
I know the parallels aren’t exactly the same. But when people say the Hunger Games is too violent, I wonder if they’ve watched the nightly news. Because those smiling hosts are always happy to dish from the scene of the crime and replay the carnage until we’re numb. When people say that we would never let that happen, I say we already did.
And we still do.
Only these days, no one’s forcing us to watch. And I’m not sure if that’s a good thing, or not.
11 Comments on Living with a Peeta-file, Part II, last added: 4/27/2012
One of the points Jennifer made during an interview was that the story reflects how we now view the news and reality shows. We've become numb to what's going on since it's nothing new, so both have to sensationalize it more to get our attention. I thought that was well put.
Very well said. I have no problem with fiction portraying real life or an exaggerated life. My issues with the series had less to do with the violence but in set up expectations and the author veering from them. Or that's what it seemed like to me. But I've let go of my feelings toward the last book and moved on. :)
I personally think that kids under 13 probably shouldn't watch the evening news OR read the Hunger Games. Each parent has to decide this on their own, but my 8yo asked yesterday when he would be old enough to read the HG and I said 13, just like his big brother. I figure they have their whole teen years to learn about the carnage the world is capable of.
I third the BRILLIANT and add bloody brilliant. Sherrie, your analogy is accurate and breath-taking. And we've all heard more recently about very young child soldiers in other countries. Human beings can be brutal, can avert their eyes and pretend they don't see, but history shows again and again what we're capable of. The real danger of televised violence is the numbing effect.
One thing that annoys me about all the uproar about The Hunger Games is that people often make a judgement about the book/movie before reading it or seeing it themselves.
The story isn't about the glorification of violence. It's about taking stand against tyranny.
I think the concept of these books (for if they are not high-concept, I have no idea what is) sometimes overshadows the message, but mostly by those who have not yet read the book or seen the movie. It's pretty obvious once you do that that the violence is not being glorified, at least, not by the character through whose pov we experience the story.
I agree with you completely, and thank you for making the point. (I had no idea the Vietnam War draft was televised, actually.)
However, I will say that one minor problem I had with the concept in HG was that SEVENTY-FOUR years (not 24, btw) would have gone by before anyone disrupted the games like Katniss did. I find that hard to believe. As you said, it didn't take long for Americans to protest Vietnam.
My 7th grader just read Hunger Games and my 4th grade daughter is so sad she has to wait three years to read it. But I do think a child needs to be mature enough to read it due to the violence. I did love the series. I still need to see the movie!
Also, if you think about it, much worst things have been done to humans in the past. Like the MK-Ultra mid programming experiment. Some say it's still going on. But as you said, most people decide not to dig in to things like these.
Excellent point! I think that's why the books are so popular; they really resonate with aspects of our lives right now. Suzanne Collins has said herself that part of the inspiration for the concept of the book was from watching reality TV and the news.
While the books were violent, I never felt it was being glorified. It was there to make a point. It's there to be brutal, so that readers can really see how wrong that society has gone.
I don't think HG is glorified violence. I think that actually Collins is making a lot of statements, and violence is used in an effective way to show the brutality of her deeper message. Luckily, it's fiction. What's on TV is not.
I took my son to the midnight showing of The Hunger Games the day it opened. So many people were wrapped around the building that they had to show it on two screens. In my small community, that’s pretty amazing. But I guess we’re just a reflection of what was going on in the big cities.
A group of smiling girls dragged my son into their part of the line. And while he still claims to hold to the belief that girls are strange, he didn’t fight them too hard.
I was ambivalent going into the movie. Most adaptations fail, in my opinion, to capture the essence of a book. And this book was so very good that the thought of seeing it ruined before my eyes, larger than life, left me with butterflies in my stomach.
When the lights finally went down, people cheered. The spectacle we’d waited so long to see was finally here. As the opening frames lit up the screen, their screams got louder, then died away. And the further we got into the story, the more I felt embarrassed by our exuberance. This wasn’t a rom-com, lighthearted flick. Children die on the screen. It’s not the sort of film you can walk away from without being moved.
Over spring break, Drew tore through the next two books. I warned him that I was depressed for a week after reading Mockingjay. But of course that didn’t stop him. Some things you just have to discover for yourself.
I don’t know if I’ll watch the sequels. I LOVE The Hunger Games. And I think they did an incredible job making it into a movie. I highly recommend it. I enjoyed Catching Fire, though I still have a major hang-up with them returning to the games. But Mockingjay? I don’t know if I could ever read it again, let alone watch it unfold in all its horror onscreen. Though maybe a watered-down theatrical version would leave me less disturbed.
My son and I have had some pretty in-depth conversations because of these stories, about right and wrong, choice and sacrifice. That, I think, is what sets this trilogy apart. All those layers to chew on.
And once we’re done discussing the “heavy” stuff, there’s always the endless debate: Team Gale or Team Peeta? I loved Gale from the opening pages, had my heart torn out by him in the final chapters. My son thinks Peeta is a much better character, (though that might have more to do with projecting himself into Peeta’s role since, y’ know, he winds up with the kick-ass heroine).
13 Comments on Living with a Peeta-file, Part I, last added: 4/20/2012
Yes, the idea of watching a movie about kids who fight to the death for entertainment is very meta, and I'm glad that the significance of that wasn't lost on all the viewers.
I loved Catching Fire, but like you, I found Mockingjay very difficult -- important but not exactly enjoyable. I haven't been able to reread it, though I don't think I'll be able to resist seeing the film/s.
The irony that a book about violence as entertainment is turned into a movie, and here we are cheering it on...Capitol, anyone?
I saw it and found it very well done. I loved the series because it is provoking and disturbing and don't want to lose sight of this. Entertaining, yes, at the price of a commentary on our own weird ways.
I haven't seen it yet but will eventually. I won't reread the books but I liked Hunger Games the best. And I was disappointed in Mockingjay for a lot of reasons. I forced myself to finish it. I'm glad to hear the movie was good!
Isn't it interesting how the movie sparked so many fires of debate? I think a lot of uninformed people had the idea that it was some sort of Running Man for kids. I adore the book, and not really because it was "entertaining," but because it is an amazing story. I agree that they did a good job with the movie.
I have to disagree with you about Mockingjay. I loved it, and think the ending is perfect.
I totally agree with you about the layers in this trilogy. The movie actually got me thinking about many of those themes with a lot more depth because I was comparing and contrasting the two mediums - book and movie. I liked the movie and think they did an admirable job, but it also, in many ways, fell just short for me. I'm not going to get into that in your comments because it'd be longer than your post, and I already wrote 2 Walls of Text on the subject on my blog, haha.
But yeah, I'm grateful to the movie for adding another layer to the discussion. I also loved much of Catching Fire, but I didn't like Mockingjay. It was difficult, and I appreciated many of the themes and commentary in it, but in the end, it left me feeling both incredibly drained and kind of disappointed. But I'll probably see whatever movie-version they make out of curiosity, and like you said, a watered-down commercialized version of MJ might make it okay. :P
Oh and I have to add, yeah, totally Team Gale (BOOK version, MOVIE version wasn't as interesting). I love Peeta too and think he's wonderfully nuanced in the books, but there's just something about Gale that gets me.
Kristan: I'm sure I'll see the other movies, if only because my son will "gently encourage" me :)
Caroline: We are very like the Capitol in so many ways. But more about that in Part II...
Shannon: I liked seeing what was happening with Seneca and in the game room. But I love knowing more about Katniss' motivations in the book.
Laura: I've read Hunger Games four times. I think it's brilliant. I'm honestly scared to go near Mockingjay again, but I think I need to, if only to have a better conversation with my son about it.
Rebecca: It's definitely the type of book that sparks debate. The subject matter kind of warrants it.
Krispy: Now I need to go read what you wrote on your blog! And yes for Gale! They shared so much before she left, in their care for their families, surviving their fathers. They really knew and respected each other. It broke my heart to see that blown to shreds.
I reread the trilogy before the movie came out, then was worried that was a mistake. It wasn't. I loved the movie and felt they did an amazing job dealing with some of the issues that arose with the book being from Katniss's pov and that we were often in her inner thoughts. I loved the behind the scenes stuff in the control room. That and the Games commentary solved a lot of the potential problems.
I'm curious how old your son is? My ten-year-old grandson is reading Hunger Games and wants to see the movie. I never would have given him the book, but a friend of his did. He's a very solid, thoughtful kid. But I really wonder about the movie. What do you think?
Stina: I reread The Hunger Games after I saw the movie and it thrilled my geeky heart to see that entire passages had been used in the movie, almost word for word. :-) They did a really amazing job bringing this book to life and staying as true to the story as they could.
Rosi: My son is 12. I read the book out loud to him when he was 11 because a lot of kids in his class were reading it and he was curious. I wanted us to be able to discuss it and not have him just tear through it and forget to ask questions as they came to him. He read the other two on his own. I think the book and movie are fine for a mature kid. My daughter is 9-and-a-half but she isn't nearly as mature as my son was at that age. It varies with each child.
This comes out three days after my son turns eleven. He's already made me promise to take him the day it opens.
There are no words to describe the excitement these books and movies have brought to so many kids, including my own. Considering how long the final book was, I'm kind of glad the movie is in two parts.
What about you? Do you think they're milking this cash cow for all it's worth, or are they just trying to get the final episode right?
14 Comments on The End -- in Two Parts, last added: 10/10/2010
Ditto what Tamara said. And frankly, it's fine by me. I think each movie has gotten better (probably also because the actors have gotten older and thus aren't just kids walking around saying lines and looking cute :P).
This is an amazing book, you can't possibly do it justice in two hours. I (maybe naively) think they are just trying to make sure it lives up to the book. I can't wait to see it. I wonder where they will end part one too.
Oh, that's a tough question. I agree that it's probably a little big of column A, a little bit of column B. I noticed a lot of people are complaining about books "selling out" to the movies, but I personally am ecstatic to see so many of my favorite stories on the big screen (provided they're done right, of course). Plus, book writers spend infinitely more time crafting their stories than most blockbuster movies which makes for stronger character development and better plot lines. At least, I think so :).
No way - I'm THRILLED they decided to do it in two parts. there is now way one movie could have done it justice. The world would have been left disappointed! :-)
I can't wait for this. As far as milking it or getting it right. I think it's a little of both. It keeps the hype up esp. for the park that just opened in Florida, but because it's such an epic tale and there is so much to the ending, it makes a lot of sense to break it into 2 parts.
hi miss sherri! wow that trailer is sooooo cool. for me it doesnt much matter why the end is gonna be in 2 parts. for me i just love those books and the movies and going to 2 for the ending is gonna make it lots more exciting. i cant wait for it to get at the movies. ...hugs from lenny
I can distinctly remember as a senior in high school being asked what I planned to do with my life. I had lots of plans, big plans. And number one on the list: write the great American novel and then the screenplay for the movie. I figured I'd be scooping up my Oscar by 30 at the latest.
Oh, the audacity of youth.
Now that I'm older (and one would assume wiser!) I'm not so sure that's still a goal. Yes, I'd still like to write the great American novel, but I don't know that I want Hollywood to come calling.
Arrogant words for someone who has yet to publish a book? Maybe. But how many book have you seen turned into movies that you actually thought were as good as the book? I've seen two: Presumed Innocent and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (NOT the BBC version, the Walden version that came out in 2005). They were practically perfect in my (not so humble) opinion. I couldn't have done a better job if I'd written the script and directed the movies myself. There are probably five or six more that I could watch more than once without complaining (although don't blame me if I alert everyone around me to how much better the book was, what the movie makers left out, and the parts they should have left in).
Don't get me wrong. I'd be incredibly flattered if someone wanted to make a movie out of my book. But most authors don't get to write the screenplays. (Suzanne Collins already had a background in film or television so she's been given the opportunity to adapt The Hunger Games. I'm excited to see how it turns out!)
The rest of us aren't usually so lucky. So how do you let go of the baby you've spent so much time working on and stand to the side as someone else tears it apart piece by piece? How do you hold on to your artistic integrity if they completely misinterpret your writing? How do you keep your mouth shut when people ask your opinion of the big screen version and you hate it?
My husband says if anyone wants to make a movie out of my books, take the money and run. I can laugh all the way to the bank. Easy for him to say. If the book has been a huge bestseller, and the need to pay off bills is no longer part of the equation, would I sell it off without a backward glance? I don't think so.
Maybe it's just further proof that I am a control freak.
What would you do? What books do you think made a good transition from page to screen?
23 Comments on Books and Hollywood, last added: 3/10/2010
I understand your concerns! Our books are our babies and in the hands of a screenwriter and director, they are no longer ours. I KNOW they would dump more drama and salacious content into my stories just to jazz them up, and that would just destroy the spirit of my books.
I also think the movie versions of LOTR were spot-on. Peter Jackson did a great job presenting the story. My husband said Watchmen was the most literal translation he's ever seen from book to movie.
That's a tough one. I have seen a couple of books slaughtered by the movies made. The author's whole intent was mushed into a formula. So I would fear that happening, because many people will never read the book and think that's the story. But your husband has a point about taking the money...
I don't think it would bother me. Once I started seeing movies as not being a replica of the book but a different art form, not meant to imitate the book - I'm no longer as disappointed in movies. But I much prefer the book. Which is why I make my kids read the book before they watch the movie of it.
If ever Hollywood comes a calling, I think I may just do what your husband suggested: take and money and don't try to have a say because, really, even if I retain some rights, do I really think my suggestions will be taken? Just do a bunch of interviews to make sure people who read the book know that I have no say in the movie.
(I know, I don't have a book yet, so all this is mere talk. I can dream, can't I?)
I did like the movie adaptation of To Kill A Mocking Bird (Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch) and the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (Colin Firth as Darcy.) Among the John Grisham takes, The Firm was very good, except for the wimpy ending, of course.
I saw Presumed Innocent before I read the book. My thought in the theatre was "this plays like a book". Then I read the book and saw how true they were to it.
Color Purple - the book ruined the movie for me. It took a long time before I could allow that the movie was very good in its own right, but not nearly as good as the book.
I see my books as movies and then write them, so to see someone adapt it for the big screen would be interesting. Very different, I'm sure. And yes - every step of the way to the bank!
Oh, I feel you here. I think the best movies from books are those that are fantasy. Because it's not supposed to be real anyway. A long time ago, I simply stopped caring if the movie followed the book. I just want to be entertained in both areas. So that's what I do now. And I'm much happier this way.
Pain, pain, I so feel your pain. Isn't it the truth? I haven't gone far and I would have never guessed that back in high school. The future still feels bright though. *sigh* I've got way too much hope.
You know, I was just thinking about this when I was watching the Oscars last night. I saw an interview with Jodi Picoult about My Sister's Keeper. She was not too happy about the changes Hollywood made to her story. I can't say that I blame her, and I'm like you--if money was no longer an issue, I don't think I'd sell unless I had a little say in what they did to MY story.
and, I really thought I was going to be the next Broadway star back in High School. Then I learned the directors are all picky about you being on key ALL the time. Sheesh!
I think you'd have to weigh the added exposure your book will receive against the possibility that the director might not share your vision (all points being considered while you're sipping margaritas in the Mexican Riviera with the movie sale proceeds, of course). ;-)
Presumed Innocent was an excellent movie. I also really like A Time to Kill, I thought it was as good as the book, but Matthew McConaughey may have just charmed me to think that way... Wouldn't it be lovely to have that quandary? Hmmm,should I sell the movie rights or not?
I used to think I couldn't stomach it, but then Scott Bailey kept telling me - it will mean more sales for your book, and then when people say the book is better, that makes you look even better, and then even more sales. So don't diss the movie, for sure. If the book is fantastic, the movie can only make it look better, even if it's bad. Maybe...or maybe I'm living in a dream world. :)
Great post. As I get older I think I'd take the money and run. :) BTW, I just wanted to let you koow that I was over here following you from Laurel's blog.
Your husband & mine need to get together--mine's mantra is "Screenplay...screenplay...!"
Honestly, I think I could do it. (Not that Hollywood is pounding at the door.) Not to sell my soul, but if it meant I could keep writing and not think about earning other money...cool! And, the other, is I would TRY to respect someone else's creative vision, even if it wasn't completely true to what I'd written. I heard that Maurice Sendak told the writer (or producer or director--I can't keep them straight!) for the Wild Things movie to make sure the movie showed HIS version, not what he thought Sendak's would be. Whoops! How in the world did I ever get to a paragraph that sounds like I'm comparing myself with Sendak? NOT!
Oh, such a good question. It would be tuffy to let someone else take my novel to film. But maybe we'd get lucky, like Sapphire who wrote the book Push, that Precious was based on.
Now, I'm way too chicken to see that movie or read that book, but from what I understand, she had a lot of input. Or like S.E. Hinton. She was on-set a lot during the filming of The Outsiders and also had creative input.
In that case, sure. Or if I was still broke and the book wasn't a best seller (But how could THAT happen?) I'd take the money and run, just like your husband.
I can't think of any movies I liked more than the book. How sad. Definitely a control freak too. Somehow, I don't think Hollywood's gonna come knocking on my door about a little rat who loves pickles, so I guess I just better keep writing!
Kelly: It would be a lovely quandry. And Matthew McConaughey can charm me without even trying :)
Michelle: That's a good way to look at it!
SarahJayne: Glad you stopped by to visit :)
Becky: I was the only one in my family who even came close to liking WTWTA, but I already knew it would be nothing like the book.
Megan: Me too! But my expectations are a lot higher, too, knowing that she's doing the screenplay!
Suzanne: I hope you're not still broke after your book becomes a best seller!
Rena: Lots of PBs have been made into movies: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Where the Wild Things Are, Jumanji, Polar Express -- there's hope for Dilly!
It happens occasionally! John Green is writing his screenplay for Paper Towns with no background in screenwriting.
But I agree, generally adaptations aren't as good as their books. I do think they draw a lot more readers to the books though, if they're done decently.
If you haven’t seen Sweet Liberty, you really should. A non-fiction writer and the making of the movie about his book – he has consultation rights. Very funny movie.
I also heard recently that Suzanne Collins is writing her own screenplay. That is so rare, and I really wonder how she managed it (having good representation and a best seller help, of course). Without that kind of control, I'd be very uncomfortable releasing my book to Hollywood.
Screenplays seem to hard, but I think that's because I have no experience with them. I'm looking forward to seeing what Suzanne Collins does since it will be insight into what she views as key to the movie.
.jpeg?picon=2450)
This is a brilliant observation, Sherrie.
One of the points Jennifer made during an interview was that the story reflects how we now view the news and reality shows. We've become numb to what's going on since it's nothing new, so both have to sensationalize it more to get our attention. I thought that was well put.
Very well said. I have no problem with fiction portraying real life or an exaggerated life. My issues with the series had less to do with the violence but in set up expectations and the author veering from them. Or that's what it seemed like to me. But I've let go of my feelings toward the last book and moved on. :)
Agree with Stina - brilliant!
I personally think that kids under 13 probably shouldn't watch the evening news OR read the Hunger Games. Each parent has to decide this on their own, but my 8yo asked yesterday when he would be old enough to read the HG and I said 13, just like his big brother. I figure they have their whole teen years to learn about the carnage the world is capable of.
I third the BRILLIANT and add bloody brilliant. Sherrie, your analogy is accurate and breath-taking.
And we've all heard more recently about very young child soldiers in other countries. Human beings can be brutal, can avert their eyes and pretend they don't see, but history shows again and again what we're capable of.
The real danger of televised violence is the numbing effect.
Ditto about the brilliance.
One thing that annoys me about all the uproar about The Hunger Games is that people often make a judgement about the book/movie before reading it or seeing it themselves.
The story isn't about the glorification of violence. It's about taking stand against tyranny.
All great points so far, I totally agree!
I think the concept of these books (for if they are not high-concept, I have no idea what is) sometimes overshadows the message, but mostly by those who have not yet read the book or seen the movie. It's pretty obvious once you do that that the violence is not being glorified, at least, not by the character through whose pov we experience the story.
Thanks for this, Sherrie!
I agree with you completely, and thank you for making the point. (I had no idea the Vietnam War draft was televised, actually.)
However, I will say that one minor problem I had with the concept in HG was that SEVENTY-FOUR years (not 24, btw) would have gone by before anyone disrupted the games like Katniss did. I find that hard to believe. As you said, it didn't take long for Americans to protest Vietnam.
Well written, Sherrie! Good points.
My 7th grader just read Hunger Games and my 4th grade daughter is so sad she has to wait three years to read it. But I do think a child needs to be mature enough to read it due to the violence.
I did love the series. I still need to see the movie!
This is just brilliant.
Also, if you think about it, much worst things have been done to humans in the past. Like the MK-Ultra mid programming experiment.
Some say it's still going on.
But as you said, most people decide not to dig in to things like these.
Excellent point! I think that's why the books are so popular; they really resonate with aspects of our lives right now. Suzanne Collins has said herself that part of the inspiration for the concept of the book was from watching reality TV and the news.
While the books were violent, I never felt it was being glorified. It was there to make a point. It's there to be brutal, so that readers can really see how wrong that society has gone.
I don't think HG is glorified violence. I think that actually Collins is making a lot of statements, and violence is used in an effective way to show the brutality of her deeper message.
Luckily, it's fiction. What's on TV is not.