Last Friday I watched Ender's Game and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It must be noted that I never read the book.
But should that matter? Does my opinion of the movie not carry much weight because I haven't yet read what is considered one of the greatest sci-fi books ever written?
It's a tricky question.
When it comes to film adaptations of books, the results vary. You have great books made into dreadful movies (2010); you have so-so books made into fantastic movies (Jaws); and you have cases where both the movie and book were great (The Silence of the Lambs, The Hunger Games).
I understand the frustration of the book-fan who cries, "the movie is nowhere near as good as the book!" It's the same frustration I felt when Nirvana went on to world fame...I loved the band but I was upset that Pixies weren't getting credit as the creators of the genre. The anger that fans of the book feel is based more on the perceived snubbing of the book than the merits of the film, I think.
Another common complaint from the book fan is that the movie left out passages from the book, or made some changes to the plot.
This is where the title of this article comes in: the movie is the movie, the book is the book. Books are not movies and vice versa.
A recent example of this dilemma is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Hardcore fans want to see every tidbit from the books on the screen. Trouble is, this would necessitate a 7-hour movie (as it is, the uncut version of Return of the King gets close to that running time.) If your desire as the book-fan is that more people will read the book you love, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you end up with a movie considered unwatchable by the masses.
I have to admit, however, that I get frustrated when plot points are changed for no apparent reason. For example: in The Hunger Games, how Katniss acquires the Mockingjay pin was altered for the movie. I can't imagine how the movie benefited from that variation.
But then again, someone who enjoyed the movie and hasn't read the books might accuse me of being a crybaby. And he might be right.
I do think, though, that some stories should not be rushed. A perfect example of this is Pride and Prejudice. Jane Austen crafted some of the finest dialogue ever conceived in her masterpiece, and a two-hour movie simply does not give that novel the time and breathing room necessary to develop properly. Which is why the Colin Firth miniseries will always be definitive.
Books That Should Not Be Filmed
Then there is a different category - books that should never be turned into movies.
These are typically books that are heavy on narrative and writing style. One of my favorite authors is Kurt Vonnegut. But every adaptation of one his books is a disaster. What makes a Vonnegut novel great isn't so much the story, but the unique way that the author expresses himself.
I guess, conversely, you could say the same thing about highly visual directors. Who wants to read The Tree of Life: The Novel?
Other books that have failed in this regard: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy; anything written by Hunter S. Thompson.
In conclusion, I guess it's best to view movies and books as two entirely different art forms that should stand on their own merits.
If you loved a book you might love the movie, but I wouldn't count on it.
Jeffrey Dale Starr is a world traveler, oil painter, and owner of mobile software company Purple Falcon.
