Yahoo!7 Answers Australia

Reading all the comments from our recent Harry Potter vs Twilight post made me think of other book to movie adaptations and how they compare. Judging by the highest grossing films of the past 10 years, we certainly love a good adaptation or remake. Even looking at the current list of films in cinemas gives you a sense of déjà vu: Angels and Demons, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Hannah Montana, Ice Age 3, Night at the Museum 2, Star Trek 11, Terminator Salvation, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. What do they all have in common? Each one is a sequel or remake of an old movie, book or TV show.

One adaptation coming out soon is My Sister’s Keeper, a movie based on the best selling Jodi Picoult novel. Like all of her books, it’s a family based drama with a  legal predicament, this time a daughter who wants to claim medical emancipation from her parents. Only problem is, she was created using genetic engineering with the intention of saving her critically ill sister and without her kidney, her sister might die.

It’s a fascinating topic and the book was definitely a tear jerker however I’m fearful: will the movie live up to the book? In my opinion, a lot of movie adaptations aren’t anywhere near as good as the book. Think about The Da Vinci Code, Hitchiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, even the old favourite Harry Potter. None of those movies managed the capture the magic of the books. Fairly unsurprising considering they’re condensing 300 odd pages into a 2 hour flick.

Of course not all book to film adaptations are flops. Personally I loved the original 1971 adaptation of Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory starring Gene Wilder. Even though I read the book first, with its chocolate river and lick-able wallpaper, the movie brought a whole new dimension to the story. However, although I enjoyed the altered version, the original author didn’t. According to Peach, the reason why the film was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is because “Roald Dahl didn’t like the direction they were taking with the movie and he refused to allow them to call it Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.”

I also really enjoy Jane Austen books on screen. I’ve always found the books to be incredibly slow and boring however when they’re condensed into film format, they’re actually quite entertaining. And let’s face it, although they may not be historically accurate, the pretty dresses and eye candy of Colin Firth doesn’t hurt either.

How about you? Are there any book to movie adaptations that make you cringe? Or are there any films that improve the experience of the book?

Caitlin
Community Manager

Last week, the sixth “Harry Potter” film hit theatres. Anyone who read J.K. Rowling’s books knows how the story ends. However, that absence of suspense hasn’t stopped the overwhelming excitement. But Harry isn’t the undisputed king of teen lit anymore. Twilight is big and only getting bigger. Over the past several weeks, I’ve noticed a surge in questions on “Harry Potter” vs. “Twilight.”

By my count, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of questions asking which franchise is “better.” Of course, there is no right answer, but that hasn’t stopped many in the Yahoo!7 Answers community from giving passionate responses.

Alex, a Top Contributor to Yahoo!7 Answers writes that Twilight is the “worst book” he or she has ever read and compares the novel’s hunky vampire Edward to a “creepy stalker.” Ouch. Additionally, Alex argues that the characters in Harry Potter have a backstory and a unique personality in contrast to the stars of Twilight, who are “one dimensional.”

Of course, not everyone agrees with Alex’s assessment. For example, Yahoo!7 Answers member “Doctor Orange!” feels that Twilight is “more realistic” (presumably, that’s a good thing). Another responder writes that while it may be true that many readers enjoy the Twilight books because Edward is an amazingly handsome fella, the real reason for Twilight’s popularity has to do with the way the author lets readers into the mind of the narrator, a conflicted young woman.

Most literature experts, including Stephen King, argue that J.K. Rowling is far and away the superior writer. What do you guys think? Do you prefer one franchise to the other? Or is the whole debate like comparing apples and bowling balls (i.e, totally pointless)? Leave a comment below.

Mike