Pen to Film

Something to look for in a book to movie adaptation is the ratio of things added to things dropped altogether. An accurate adaption has a 1:2 ratio for every two things dropped one thing is added. “Hoot” is one of the most accurate book to movie adaptions, along with “Holes” and exhibits the above principle. While there are a few scenes changed, for obvious reasons, such as how Officer Delinko’s punishment is made more interesting and comical. In the book he was simply put on desk duty and given back his Crown Victoria to only drive to and from work with. In the movie he was taken off the case and given a small three wheeled truck. Only a few flashbacks that would be hard to tactfully convey are left out. And the amazing power of Beatrice’s teeth are diminished. But over all Hoot is definitely a Minor movie.

Things are looking grim. There are three points in the official first wave of casting that I must argue. One, the smallest problem, is the shorted and inaccurate summery of the first book “ Descended from a long line of criminal masterminds, 12-year-old genius Artemis Fowl finds himself in a battle of strength and cunning against a powerful, hidden race of fairies who may be behind his father’s disappearance.” this is from Entertainment website’s online post on casting. Okay close, but actually Artemis is searching for the fairies because they are an untapped wealth of legends that has the books put it “ He still retained a childlike belief in magic tempered by an adult determination to exploit it.” He needs the money to search for his long missing father who disappeared after a dispute with the Russian mafia over smuggled pop. But perhaps this simplified bit about the series is just that and no indicator of the movie plot.   Two, Mulch Diggums to be played by Josh Gad. From the ...

There are quite a few books I'd like to see as movies that is not what this post is about. This is about books are in post production to become movies. First is Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfner. I saw an ad for a movie in an old copy of the first book, but considering it was years later and I hadn't seen anything else I figured it hadn't gotten any farther then a thought. Last month though I saw a post on Oh My Disney blog  about upcoming movies and Artemis Fowl was on it. I was ecstatic. Also The False Prince by Jennifer Nielsen is actually in a bit of a rights dispute at the moment. Paramount Pictures had originally bought the rights to it, but after hiring a screen writer let the rights expire. Another company (the name escapes me) wants to buy the rights and even let Nielsen work on a screen play, but that old screen writer doesn’t want to let go. In my opinion I’d rather have a screen play by the author then some Hollywood guy who worked on Game of Thrones. Finally I am ...

Considered by many as the greatest book to movie adaptations is the Lord of the Rings. The first movie, The Fellowship of the Ring, takes care to follow the books, but I must note that a few things had to be cut short and I really did miss them. Yup I'm one of those who miss Ol' Tom, Goldberry, the Whites, Old Man Willow, and Glorfindal. I also miss Merry and Pippin's complex plan to convince Frodo to let them come along and the Reckoning of the Shire. But more on that when we get there. Other then that it is great. Aragon is perfect, Butterbur is funny, and the story moves at a fairly accurate pace. Other then that I have no complaints and think it definitely lives up to its reputation. Especially extended edition.

It has come to my attention that you can preemptively surmise the rank of a movie before it comes out by who produces it. If it is by Warner Brothers or some collaboration of big name companies it is most likely to be a Minor category movie (to see how my rating works in depth see my earlier post). If it is by Disney it is probably going to be in the Medium category and perhaps a Minor if your lucky. If it is by Nickelodeon, Dreamworks, or please forbid both you'll be lucky if the keep the characters names the same. I guess my point is every movie company has a track record and you better hope your book is in good hands.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a medium. And while it may have about as many changes as Prince Caspian it did not do the unthinkable sin of changing the character's personality. That's beside the point, in this movie they keep the main story arc ( Caspian searching for the seven lost lords) and exaggerated or shortened details about each island visited. Eustace was perfect, the whiny brat who doesn't even call his parents mum and dad. They expanded on the island of nightmares and Lucy's wish for beauty like Susan's. I didn't really get why they so explosively changed the way they found out Eustace was a dragon. I do think Reepicheep and Eustace's relationship was well done, all in all it was a good movie even if it doesn't quite measure up to The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

This is probably the hardest movie to place. While they added a whole new story, it merges new perfectly with the actual tale in the book. Let me elaborate, the movie seems to focus on the journey of an unnamed girl who's life has already been planned to the letter by her overprotective mother. She meets the pilot from the book, who lives next door. He then proceeds to tell her his story. The story in the book with very little change, Although I did miss the Prince talking to the lamp post lighter. As the movie progresses it has the little girl learning how to accept loss (a theme in the book), make her own plans, and to grow up without loosing her childlike wonder. The story, and ending really just extend the themes of the book while making it to relatable to modern kids. I loved the music, there were even a few songs in French! Relalisticly I will put this movie under medium, but I want to call it a half minor/half major movie.

The second movie moves even farther from the book. Bringing in scenes that don't occur in the book itself, but in other notes by Tolkien if at all. I like Beorn and think he was portrayed well, but only the extended edition saves how the party of Thorin meets him for the first time. I'm not going to touch much on Tauriel let's just say she should have stayed in the woods. Same with Legolas, but I did love the banter between him and Gloin father of Gimli. The whole trying to take down Smaug scene was interesting to watch, but still a major change. I also didn't like how Smaug saw Bilbo for their conversation. In the book Bilbo is never seen by Smaug, but I'm assuming they had Bilbo be visable to help viewers follow and avoid other complications. Finally when did the ring wraiths make morgal arrows? And why give them to an order, albeit it was Bolg, but still it seemed much to akin to the Lord of the Rings. In the end though as I like to think if you consider the Hobb...

This is my least favorite out of all the Narnia movies. Honestly it's very hard to place, but I think it can be put in the medium category. Because while you regconize the story despite all the changes, they did something I consider unforgivable. They changed a character's personality. There are times in movies where the storyline must change to better fit movie format. Also you might not get to know a character in a movie as well as in the book because the book was in first person. But in Prince Caspian they made Peter do the exact opposite from what he did in the books. I know that it is reasonable to usume that after years of being the high king going back to boyhood would be degrading, but when Peter gets back to Narnia there was no power struggle between him and Caspian. In the books Peter understood that it was not his Narnia anymore and he actually says to Caspian, "I haven't come to take your place, you know, but to put you into it." An essential part of P...

The Hobbit movie trilogy is literally a sliding scale. The Unexpected Journey is not very different from the book, only with a few  (in my humble opinion) a not so great plot changes that get worse as the trilogy goes on. Such as in the battle of the mines of Moira they have a big fight between Azog and Thorin. But in the actual history of that battle Dain ( who comes in the third movie) cut off Azog's head in that battle. It seems a bit shallow for Azog to be holding a grudge against Thorin for cutting off his arm when it could have been Blog avenging the death of his father. Also Azog backing down after loosing his arm seem lame considering Lurtz had both his arms cut off was stabbed through and still dragged the sword deeper trying to bit Aragon's head. Ok, so as you can see anything with Azog in it isn't cannon for the rest of the movie. Him aside I love the beginning with Frodo (a cameo done right) and while I'll miss seeing Thorin at the bottom of the pile, I won...

The BFG is definitely in the medium category. It keeps the general storyline and certain details, but also adds senses and characters that weren't in the book. Such as when BFG first takes Sophie to his home in giant country he gives her a nightmare so she doesn't run away. This is added for dramatic effect I think and to tye in a posthumous character that defiantly wasn't in the books. There are some other added senses like where the other giants are playing with cars and poor Sophie is in one. The ending and what happens to the other giants is altered as well as where Sophie and BFG live. The other giants in the book are dropped in a pit in England and only fed from a patch of "Snozzcumbers". The book even says that officials had to put a sign up saying "Don't feed the giants!" after some drunk men fall in on accident. I think that the men Sophie yells at in the first part of the movie are a nod towards those men who fell in the hole. In the book...

How to Train Your Dragon movie is a classic example of the Major category. There are Vikings, there are dragons and that's about where the similarities end. Don't get me wrong I love the movies, but I think I love the books just a little bit more ( I'm a bookworm, can't help it). Other differences: Toothless: Movie, Dark, large, and mysterious "night fury". Books, small, green, and mischievous. Snotlout is Hiccup's cousin is the books. Astrid in the main girl protagonist in the movie seems based off of Camicazi, a clever if not too boastful heir to the big burgler tribe. Here's the big difference int the books dragons are everywhere, with all sizes, and they are the quite literal slaves to the Vikings. Hiccup can speak to dragons in Dragonese and wants to convince the tribes of the archipelago to free the dragons (and some human slaves of a certain uncouth tribe). I could keep going, but the differences are too many for just one review. Some im...

I'm going to start with the first (and in my opinion the best) of the Chronicles of Narnia movies. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe very few changes were made, something I value highly. The scene where the Pevensie children follow the robin through the woods to Mr. Beaver was so greatly shortened that in the movie the kids simply hear the robin, step outside of Mr. Tumnus's house and run into Mr. Beaver. This eliminates a conversation between Peter and Edmund which has Ed putting doubts of the Narnians into Pete's mind. In the story the conversation's point was to show how Edmund was already going to betray his siblings. In the movie though I think the acting of Skander Keynes, and dialogue show this well enough without the long trek and conversation. Other details omitted for time were the three maid servants that worked in the Professor's house, they did little past the first chapter, and that the house was toured frequently. In fact Mrs. Macready is leadi...

Welcome to Pen to Film! This blog is, as the name suggests, about book to movie adaptations. While each post will independently go over the pros and cons of each adaption, a scale will be used so that at a glance you can tell how close the film is to the book. Major: This is the most disappointing kind of adaption for a bookworm. Perhaps it's a great movie, but it seems the screenwriters took the characters names and the setting then threw out the rest. Major plots are different, characters are added and/or subtracted, bottom line you can barely recognize the book it came from. Medium: This is the movie that does a few changes here and there. They might add/subtract some important plot points/characters, but for the most part you can really see the story it came from. Minor: This is the gold of book to movie adaptations. Little to no changes have been made and if any it's only rearranging/subtracting scences to fit movie formats. Consider yourself lucky if your favorite bo...