Fifty Shades of Grey (Fifty Shades, #1) Fifty Shades of Grey discussion

Books vs Movies?

Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Lucy Edwards Is it just me that thinks that with the majority of titles made into movies these days, that the movies never does the book justice?
(Ps..only chose the fifty shade book as discussion book as it was the first that popped into my head)

Ilana i think that it's REALLY hard to make a good book to move adaptation - and while some aren't hat great - there are a few that aren't that awful. i think that with FSOG though my issue is going to be that they are combining all 3 books into 1 movie - so i honestly don't know what they are going to lose from the story to make it work on the big screen.

there def have been a lot of liberties taken with stories, characters and events so that there could be a faster flow in a movie - and that's just a gamble that screenwriters have to take

Lucy Edwards I agree, although I did read somewhere that there's going to be a movie for each book. I don't think they'd be able to cram three books worth into one movie without rushing through it. Well I hope they don't anyway :/

message 4: by Grantos (new)

Grantos It seems that every book turned into movie always turns out flawed in some way, so yes, I totally agree with you.
The Hunger Games is a great example of a book being turned into a mediocre movie.
I also had no idea that they were planning on putting all FSOG books into 1 movie. If they are going to put them all into one then the movie is going to be terrible due to lack of detail when it comes to character development.

Lucy Edwards Well I'm looking forward to watching it but I hope they go ahead with the plan of filming a movie for each book. I think when you read any book you get your own idea of what the characters look like and in the movie they're just plonked in front of you, like it or lump it. Time will tell ladies

message 6: by Grantos (new)

Grantos Also, the movie Christian looks nothing the book Christian that I imagined. I don't know why but that bothers me a lot.

Lucy Edwards He looks absolutely nothing like I imagined but, he's grown on me so much that he just fits now

message 8: by [deleted user] (last edited Oct 31, 2014 03:51AM) (new)

The pictures in your head are nearly always better than those on the screen! With the honourable exception of Lord of the Rings. I think that is because you usually get to hear the main characters' inner monologues so you know what they are thinking.

I reckon FSOG has a reasonable chance of making a better movie than the book actually. It just depends how the director decides to approach it. Jamie Dornan is a good actor - check out the recent British TV series The Fall. I should imagine his performance and character in that is partly why he got the FSOG job.

Lucy Edwards I do think Jamie Dornan will do a good job as Christian Grey. He's got me hooked by the trailer alone. I will check out The Fall, I've been meaning to watch it

Jesper Well it's business. Popular books gets adapted to movies because they are popular, not because their stories happen to translate well to movies.

I find that those books that make for good adaptations tend to have a lot of focus on visuals and action. That's a lot easier to translate into a movie than inner monologue, feelings, and thoughts.

For example, The Da Vinci Mystery has a lot of fast-paced action which translates perfectly to a movie. The book itself basically reads like a film manuscript. Tons of different scenes, a decently-sized character lineup, characters driven by actions instead of thoughts and feelings. Stuff like that makes for good movie material.

On the other hand, then the Twilight movies really suffer from the inability to somehow cram all of Bella's thoughts and feelings into a script that is otherwise fairly void of a plot driven by actions. And the solution always seems to be to have the main character narrate throughout the movie (was the case with the recent The Fault in Our Stars as well). It just doesn't work very well.
American Psycho managed to make such an adaptation really well I think, but it's also the exception to the rule I'd say.

But books like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are just made for movie adaptations, because when you're reading the books, then it's page upon page of descriptions about how a particular forest or lake or castle looks like. Movies just show it to you in 3 seconds. And with today's technology they can often deliver a visual that's beynd what your mind came up with.

As far as Fifty Shades goes, then I think it'll be mediocre. The chapters in the books translate well to a film manuscript I think, i.e. first in his office, then in her apartment, then in the hotel, at the coffeeshop, at the bar, at the hotel, and so on. It's simply a plot driven by events - events that visually show even.
The dialogue should also work out okay, because it's simple spoken dialogue.
I think the challenge is going to be whether the movie can show how Ana feels about everything, because in the book we learn that through her thoughts, not through words or actions. For example, we know she's in love with him far before she says it out aloud. How you translate that to a movie elequently is probably a bit of a challenge.

message 11: by J.B. (new) - rated it 5 stars

J.B. Vample I think it is very hard to put every single thing from a book into a two hour movie. Books will always have more detail in my opinion. But I always enjoy a good movie adaptation, no matter what they leave out from the book. Just seeing the pages come to life on screen is pretty cool :-)

back to top