Fantasy Novels Turned Movies

[Viera Champion]

Through the years fantasy novels have been a hit when it comes to movie making. Some great pieces of literature have been turned into amazing big screen phenomenons. While other amazing novels were completely ruined *cough* Harry Potter Five *cough*. Some books were so bad nobody even knows why they were turned into a movie in the first place.

Anyway, this thread isfor the general discussion of such novels. Did you think. They were good or bad? What could have been done differently? Debate what was wrong with it in the first place or if there even was anything wrong.

[Dr.Epic]

Through the years fantasy novels have been a hit when it comes to movie making. Some great pieces of literature have been turned into amazing big screen phenomenons. While other amazing novels were completely ruined *cough* Harry Potter Five *cough*. Some books were so bad nobody even knows why they were turned into a movie in the first place.

Guess what I'm going to say. DISCUSS!!

Discuss what? Fantasy novels that have become movies? The fifth Harry Potter installment? You're kind of vague on the point of this thread.

[Viera Champion]

Better?

I'll start off with The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring. It kinda left a lot out that I found interesting about the book. Like, my favorite example, Tom Bombadil! (or however it's spelled.) Why would they ever get rid of the lovable singing dwarf?

[CDR_Doom]

Because if they included everything from the book into the movie, it would have been like 8 hours long. Also because Tom, while adding a lot to the deeper themes and undercurrents of the world Tolkien created, just didn't fit in as well with the more action oriented telling PJ went with to make it less boring on screen.

[SmartAlec]

Like, my favorite example, Tom Bombadil! (or however it's spelled.) Why would they ever get rid of the lovable singing dwarf?

I think they just thought they couldn't do Bombadil justice. Which is fair enough, I guess.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

I personally have no qualms with them leaving Tom Bombadil out of the movie. While he may be important to the Tolkien Universe as a whole, I don't think having him in the War of the Ring trilogy served good to the story, and that part of the book could easily have been cut out without affecting the overall tale at all. My real gripe in regards to LOTR book to movie is leaving Saurman's takeover of the Shire out of the movie. In my mind, it is clearly the most important part of the whole story as it shows how the hobbits, who left essentially scared little children, have grown over the course of the adventures of the previous year.

[Makensha]

My real gripe in regards to LOTR book to movie is leaving Saurman's takeover of the Shire out of the movie. In my mind, it is clearly the most important part of the whole story as it shows how the hobbits, who left essentially scared little children, have grown over the course of the adventures of the previous year.

Amen.

For the most part the books I hear about becoming movies are still kinda floating in the "Sold the rights to blah blah blah but still working on the script after seven years." The exceptions are obviously LotR, HP, and Eragon. In fact, those are the only two I can think of getting finished in recent history. Most seem to have come out during the 80s and early 90s. Unless of course you include Disney movies.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Better?

I'll start off with The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring. It kinda left a lot out that I found interesting about the book. Like, my favorite example, Tom Bombadil! (or however it's spelled.) Why would they ever get rid of the lovable singing dwarf?

He is NOT a dwarf. He's a Maiar spirit who is the ultimate authority in the Old Forest! There's a big difference there. /fanwank

[Lupy]

The Discworld movies are pretty good.

[Axolotl]

Better?

I'll start off with The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring. It kinda left a lot out that I found interesting about the book. Like, my favorite example, Tom Bombadil! (or however it's spelled.) Why would they ever get rid of the lovable singing dwarf?They probably realized that if they did include him most of the audience would have walked out of the film as soon as he arrived.

Also for turning fantasy novels into films, when are we going to get an Elric film?

[Lioness]

In general, I don't like it. Most of the movies fail to be what the book was. I'm too loving of the books to really be able to enjoy the movie separately.

However, the only book to movies I've really liked have been Neil Gaiman books - Stardust and Coraline. I just don't like his writing style, so the movies come across as much more interesting.

[Dr.Epic]

My real gripe in regards to LOTR book to movie is leaving Saurman's takeover of the Shire out of the movie. In my mind, it is clearly the most important part of the whole story as it shows how the hobbits, who left essentially scared little children, have grown over the course of the adventures of the previous year.

I think they left it out because (a) the Return of the king was already like four hours long and (b) after the battle at Minas Tirith, the battle at the gates of Mordor, and the destruction of the Ring of Power I think anything else no matter how epic wouldn't live up to what preceded it.

[Athaniar]

As much as I would have liked to see the Scouring of the Shire in the movie, Jackson does have a point: the movie's great, dramatic ending was at Mount Doom, and the audience would have reacted negatively to another story after the defeat of the titular villain and destruction of the evil artifact. However, I won't forgive him for making Sauron into a giant eye through all the trilogy.

Also, speaking of Harry Potter, I don't really have anything against the fifth film, but the sixth was a real disappointment.


He is NOT a dwarf. He's a Maiar spirit who is the ultimate authority in the Old Forest! There's a big difference there. /fanwank
Did Tolkien ever state that he was a Maia, though? I thought Tolkien deliberately kept it a secret, and most think he was Eru Iluvatar or something.

[Jallorn]

All I want to say is that Eragon was not so good that it should have been made into a movie, and the movie was ten thousand times worse.

Don't get me wrong, I rather like the books, they're a fun story, but the movie was Horrid.


As much as I would have liked to see the Scouring of the Shire in the movie, Jackson does have a point: the movie's great, dramatic ending was at Mount Doom, and the audience would have reacted negatively to another story after the defeat of the titular villain and destruction of the evil artifact. However, I won't forgive him for making Sauron into a giant eye through all the trilogy.

Also, speaking of Harry Potter, I don't really have anything against the fifth film, but the sixth was a real disappointment.


Did Tolkien ever state that he was a Maia, though? I thought Tolkien deliberately kept it a secret, and most think he was Eru Iluvatar or something.

Sauron was a flaming eye in the books too...

And all I know about Bombadil is that he is The Eldest, and I think he's older than the Maia.

[Athaniar]

Sauron was a flaming eye in the books too...


The same Sauron who is mentioned to have a physical form several times during the trilogy?

[warty goblin]

The same Sauron who is mentioned to have a physical form several times during the trilogy?
A giant flaming eyeball is a physical form. :smallwink:

To be fair, I always figured the references to Sauron having a physical form could easily be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally.

[Arcanoi]

However, I won't forgive him for making Sauron into a giant eye through all the trilogy.


To be fair, a gross majority of the symbolism used to describe Sauron is that of a gigantic eye of fire....




Did Tolkien ever state that he was a Maia, though? I thought Tolkien deliberately kept it a secret, and most think he was Eru Iluvatar or something.


That's what I had thought. Illuvatar either renouncing or forgetting his powers.

[Athaniar]

A giant flaming eyeball is a physical form. :smallwink:

To be fair, I always figured the references to Sauron having a physical form could easily be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally.

Because Gollum saying he has four fingers on his hand is metaphorical, as is Aragorn's challenge to Sauron to come and face him in battle...

[factotum]

Did the movies actually imply that Sauron was just a giant flaming eye? There was a flaming eye at the top of Barad-Dur, true, but I'm not sure they ever said that was Sauron's physical manifestation in the world; in fact, in earlier versions of the script I believe Sauron actually responded to Aragorn's challenge and came out to fight him, which would have been hard if he were just a giant eye stuck on top of a tower!

However, we never see Sauron himself in the books, apart from as a giant shadowy cloud near the end. We do hear a lot about the Eye of Sauron, though, so it seems sort of reasonable to represent him that way in the movies.

[Weiser_Cain]

I'd like to see a CG Drizzt movie ala Avatar. It'll spark some race discussions I bet.

[warty goblin]

Because Gollum saying he has four fingers on his hand is metaphorical, as is Aragorn's challenge to Sauron to come and face him in battle...

Honestly Gollum's comment is a bit hard to take at face value. I mean this is Gollum we're talking about. He also calls the Moon the 'white face.' Does that mean that the Moon is actually a giant head that everybody else just doesn't notice?

I'm not saying I think Sauron didn't have a physical body. I'm saying that I think the evidence is unclear enough it could be interpreted either way. Nor am I going to be petty enough to deprive myself of nine hours of entertainment because Peter Jackson decided something else. It worked in the movie, that's about all I need.

[Jallorn]

Honestly Gollum's comment is a bit hard to take at face value. I mean this is Gollum we're talking about. He also calls the Moon the 'white face.' Does that mean that the Moon is actually a giant head that everybody else just doesn't notice?

I'm not saying I think Sauron didn't have a physical body. I'm saying that I think the evidence is unclear enough it could be interpreted either way. Nor am I going to be petty enough to deprive myself of nine hours of entertainment because Peter Jackson decided something else. It worked in the movie, that's about all I need.

I was under the impression that in order to have a solid physical form, he had to reacquire the ring.

Of course, I'm not sure whether the Necromancer from The Hobbit (mentioned only) was the Witch King of Angmar, or Sauron.

[Cyrion]

I enjoyed the job they did turning Orson Scott Card's short story into The Lost Boys. They made some significant changes- in the story the issue is with ghosts instead of vampires and the movie adds some extra stuff, but the basic chassis of the story is still the same.

[Serpentine]

The Princess Bride. The epitome of a book adaptation done right. The book was great, but the writer just knew what the strengths of a film, as opposed to a book, were, and used them admirably.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Did Tolkien ever state that he was a Maia, though? I thought Tolkien deliberately kept it a secret, and most think he was Eru Iluvatar or something.

I'm not certain. However, David Day's popular companion to Tolkien's work, A Tolkien Bestiary or Characters from Tolkien (depending on the version), places its description of both Tom Bombadil and Goldberry as part of its entry on the Maiar.

[Dienekes]

I was under the impression that in order to have a solid physical form, he had to reacquire the ring.

Of course, I'm not sure whether the Necromancer from The Hobbit (mentioned only) was the Witch King of Angmar, or Sauron.

Sauron was stated as the Necromancer.


He is NOT a dwarf. He's a Maiar spirit who is the ultimate authority in the Old Forest! There's a big difference there. /fanwank

Nope, he's the enigma. His story doesn't match up as anything in the Sil, claiming he was around before even the Valar. There are several theories, some claiming that he was lying, some that he's Eru, some that he is like the Void outside of Eru's creation, or that he is an author insert. A quick look at Tolkien's letters and notes shows him saying that he was purposefully placed as a mystery.

Now to the OP, yeah, fantasy movies based on books. There good, in theory anyway. Personally I'm waiting patiently for a tv show to start up based on ASOIAF, but that may lie outside the reach of the thread.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

As I said, David Day's book places both Tom Bombadil and Goldberry as Maiar.

[factotum]

As I said, David Day's book places both Tom Bombadil and Goldberry as Maiar.

And what relevance does that have? David Day is not Tolkien, and he wrote his books after Tolkien died (the Bestiary first came out in 1979). Therefore whatever they have to say about what various characters are is entirely non-canonical; they're about on the same level as fan fiction.

[Athaniar]

Of course, I'm not sure whether the Necromancer from The Hobbit (mentioned only) was the Witch King of Angmar, or Sauron.

Definitely Sauron. It is clearly stated in, among other works, the Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age part of the Silmarillion.

Also, while we're talking about Tolkien: how could Silmarillion best be made into a movie (if you ignore the legal disputes and other such boring things)?

[Eddums]

Tolkien never actually says what Bombadil is. A Maia is a reasonable assumption, as is Eru Illuvatar, but it's one of those things that will never be answered conclusively.

As for Sauron, I always assumed the references to a physical body were metaphorical. I mean, when the Fellowship are on Caradrahas, and Gimli and Gandalf imply that Sauron is using the snow to attack them, Gandlaf says 'His arm has grown long...' This clearly isn't literal. I mean, Sauron isn't sitting in Barad-dur throwing snow at them for a laugh, is he?

[Hopeless]

Tolkien never actually says what Bombadil is. A Maia is a reasonable assumption, as is Eru Illuvatar, but it's one of those things that will never be answered conclusively.

As for Sauron, I always assumed the references to a physical body were metaphorical. I mean, when the Fellowship are on Caradrahas, and Gimli and Gandalf imply that Sauron is using the snow to attack them, Gandlaf says 'His arm has grown long...' This clearly isn't literal. I mean, Sauron isn't sitting in Barad-dur throwing snow at them for a laugh, is he?

I thought that was Saruman.

[Eddums]

It's Saruman in the film.

I'm 90% sure it's Sauron in the book.

Edit: Yes, yes it is. Or at least, is implied to be by Gandalf. At any rate, there's no mention of it being Saruman in the book.

[Athaniar]

According to the Encyclopedia of Arda, at least (although I have no idea how relaible it is), Tolkien does mention in his letters that Sauron did indeed have a physical form during the War of the Ring. Also according to the Encyclopedia, Jackson has stated that he believes Sauron to be a great burning eye.

[warty goblin]

It's Saruman in the film.

I'm 90% sure it's Sauron in the book.

Edit: Yes, yes it is. Or at least, is implied to be by Gandalf. At any rate, there's no mention of it being Saruman in the book.

Or it's the mountain being a bitch. I always figured Caradras was being a pain because it'd had a Balrog sleeping under it for a couple millenia.

[Eddums]

Could be that as well. Several characters imply that the snow is due to Caradhras's cruelty, but I feel that Gandalf's implication that it's Sauron is more likely to be right given that, you know, it's Gandalf.

[Zaydos]

Tom Bombadil is not a maia spirit, or at least we have good reason not to think so as Gandalf implied that even he did not know what kind of being Tom Bombadil was but that the little man was a unique entity in every way and had been in Middle Earth longer than the elves.

Sauron was the necromancer and did have a physical form but I've never been certain what it was and throughout the book pictured him mostly as an eye wreathed in flame.

As for the movies: They're pretty and they are good, but disappoint as far as the books go. They took out Bombadil (which I will admit was a necessity), changed Arwen into a warrior princess to apply to the wider demographic (not too bad but in doing so they made her summon the water to vanquish the Nazgul and thus stopped us from seeing one of the elven rings in actual use), they ruined Faramir changing him into just Boromir-lite instead of a true Steward of Gondor, they took out when the ents actually animated an entire forest and smote Saruman's army during their march to Orthanc, they took out Sharky and never showed you just what the power of Saruman truly was.

In short I have a long list of complaints when I compare it to the books, but they're movies which are good enough I watched enthralled 3 times each and will still watch again with friends and family if asked (and allowed my laptop).

As for other fantasy movies: I like the Conan movies, but they don't live up to the stories in the least (King Kull does a better, albeit bad, job at this). The Princess Bride is awesome and does fairly well although you lose half the humor, same with the Last Unicorn. I want to see a movie adaptation of the Dying Earth although it's episodic nature makes it a little difficult (most of the stories follow one character but there are gaps and stories that follow other characters), Cugel the Swift would make an easier adaptation as it is a single story.

[WalkingTarget]

Could be that as well. Several characters imply that the snow is due to Caradhras's cruelty, but I feel that Gandalf's implication that it's Sauron is more likely to be right given that, you know, it's Gandalf.

Gandalf admits that Sauron's reach is long, therefore not ruling it out as a possibility. A few lines later he dismisses who it is is irrelevant since they "cannot beat off his attack". I think that it's ambiguous, and ultimately unimportant. Neither the Fellowship nor we, the readers, ever find out for sure who/what was against them at Caradhras and so, while we each are free to have our own personal theories, it's impossible to use the events there as evidence for any entity's abilities in other discussions.

The same goes for Bombadil. It's not revealed anywhere within Tolkien's narratives what he is (besides his initial conception as the spirit of the Oxford countryside - but that was unrelated to his later cameo in LotR). We do have word that he's not Eru, though. From a letter somebody had brought up the "he is" argument and Tolkien's response included "As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point."

[Serpentine]

You are all aware that books other than Lord of the Rings have been turned into movies, right?
But while we're at it, I recall it being the mountain itself.

I'd like to see a Dark Tower TV series, and a GOOD Animorphs one (close enough to fantasy I reckons...).

[factotum]

You are all aware that books other than Lord of the Rings have been turned into movies, right?


The only fantasy movies that made it into the IMDB top 10 for worldwide box-office gross are LOTR and Harry Potter--is it surprising one or the other of them get more discussion? The highest placed out-and-out fantasy I can see in that list that was definitely derived from a book is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" at #33...

[JonestheSpy]

The only fantasy movies that made it into the IMDB top 10 for worldwide box-office gross are LOTR and Harry Potter--is it surprising one or the other of them get more discussion? The highest placed out-and-out fantasy I can see in that list that was definitely derived from a book is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" at #33...

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was amazingly good in my opinion, better in many ways than Jackson's films. But really, I think using lists of top-grossing films as a basis for relevancy is rather shallow. I mean what, we're only going to talk about books that made the New York Times best seller list?

The Neverending Story was interesting but flawed. Same with The Golden Compasss, but much more so. Disney's try at The Black Cauldron still yet more flawed, and from everything I've heard the Sci-fi Channel's adaption of The Wizard of Earthsea suggested absolute suckitude.

Stardust was fairly formulaic but still quite enjoyable, and very true to the orginal book.

I've never actually seen The Last Unicorn, based on Peter S Beagle's novel, but heard good things about it.

I just saw The Tale of Desperaux and was quite impressed. And speaking of talking mice, I liked The Secret Of Nimh a lot, even though it bore almost no resemblence to it's source material Mrs Frisby and the Rats of Nimh, which was really science fiction with no fantasy elements at all. And Watership Down should be mentioned, though the actual fantasy elements are small (but very interesting).

People tend to forget that The Wizard of Oz was adapted from a book - an adaptation that far surpassed its source material, in my opinion. Other children's fanstasies that people tend to forget were books first include Mary Poppins, Chitti-Chitti Bang Bang, and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. THe BBC did nifty adaptations of the The Borrowers series.

The 2004 live action adaptation of Peter Pan is one of the best fantasy films ever, and defintiely the best adaptation of that tale (imho).

More horror than fantasy but still deserving a shout-out, Bubba Ho-tep is a wonderful film based of Joe Lansdale's short story of the same name. Clive Barker's Nightbreed is another one that straddles fantasy and horror.

Oh, there's the Conan films - the less said the better. And only for the sake of being a completist do I meniton Red Sonja.

[Optimystik]

I personally have no qualms with them leaving Tom Bombadil out of the movie. While he may be important to the Tolkien Universe as a whole, I don't think having him in the War of the Ring trilogy served good to the story, and that part of the book could easily have been cut out without affecting the overall tale at all. My real gripe in regards to LOTR book to movie is leaving Saurman's takeover of the Shire out of the movie. In my mind, it is clearly the most important part of the whole story as it shows how the hobbits, who left essentially scared little children, have grown over the course of the adventures of the previous year.

So much win in one post. Kudos, sirrah.
Really though, we should consign the LotR-wank to its own thread.

***

I definitely consider the Harry Potter movies to be Adaptation Distillation, particularly where Hermione is concerned. Many of her more Crowning Moments of Awesome were glossed over in the books - defeating the Devil's Snare, freezing Lockhart's escaped pixies and socking Malfoy, for instance - but these three scenes were made much more dynamic in the movies.

As for books yet-to-be-made into movies... we NEED a Wheel of Time movie. Not only would it be loaded with action and high fantasy for audiences to enjoy, the movies wouldn't even be that long. Half of the books are descriptions of dresses. :smallwink:

[Thrawn183]

I think the 6th HP movie was quite good. I watched it with my father (I'm 22 btw, so my father is getting up there) and he hasn't read any of the books. He's also not one who really remembers all the details of past movies that he's seen so he was really impressed that the movie could practically stand on its own.

It's tough to get my father to compliment a movie (you should have seen his reaction to time travel in the third HP), but he liked HP 6, so there you have it.

[Eddums]

The first three Harry Potter films are good. After that, and this is an issue I have with the books as well, the stories just get too unwieldy to make effective films.

[Redpieper]

I think the 6th HP movie was quite good. I watched it with my father (I'm 22 btw, so my father is getting up there) and he hasn't read any of the books. He's also not one who really remembers all the details of past movies that he's seen so he was really impressed that the movie could practically stand on its own.

It's tough to get my father to compliment a movie (you should have seen his reaction to time travel in the third HP), but he liked HP 6, so there you have it.

Your dad and mine are complete opposites in that respect then. :smallamused:
He loves most movies, quality be damned.

On topic:

The Good:

The Lotr movies were great, I watch them pretty much every year with my dad.
Princess Bride of course, never read the book though. (yes I know this needs to be corrected ASAP)
I liked Stardust too, it wasn't stellar mind you but it was good entertainment.

The Bad

The Narnia movies aren't my cup of tea...let's leave it at that.
The Golden Compass was complete garbage with one shiny pearl among the bad. Armoured Polar Bears.
Harry Potter 5 and 6, they just annoyed me more then anything really.

The Mediocre

The rest of the Harry Potter movies, they're okay, but only that.

Anddd that's about all the movies I can think off, I'll edit it if I remember anymore.

[factotum]

But really, I think using lists of top-grossing films as a basis for relevancy is rather shallow.

I never said I was using it as a basis for relevancy, but more people went to see LOTR and Harry Potter, so more people on these boards will have seen them and thus the discussion tends to gravitate towards them anyway!

Oh, and thanks for the clear implication that I'm shallow...I'm going to go and cry in a corner now until someone buys me something shiny, OK? :smallwink:

[JonestheSpy]

I never said I was using it as a basis for relevancy, but more people went to see LOTR and Harry Potter, so more people on these boards will have seen them and thus the discussion tends to gravitate towards them anyway!

Oh, and thanks for the clear implication that I'm shallow...I'm going to go and cry in a corner now until someone buys me something shiny, OK? :smallwink:

My humble apologies about the snarkitude. It was supposed to be more of a comment about the lack of ideas from the board in general than you personally. I come from Ye Olde Sckooll where fantasy geeks were familiar with all the obscure stuff that the mainstream had no clue about..