Are there any books shouldn't (or shouldn't have been) made into movies?
So, we went around and asked some students.
Well, some people said yes just because they know the movies would ruin the books, but they couldn't name any books.
A couple of people said they shouldn't have made Twilight into a movie because they didn't do a very good job of it.
Another popular reply was that books shouldn't be made into movies because the movies can't capture the feel of the book, the finality of finishing a book, the thoughts and feelings and emotions of the characters.
One person said that they shouldn't make the book Lincoln's Last Days a movie because they couldn't get a good actor to play Lincoln without it seeming fake and cheesy; it would just be wrong.
Another book is The Way of The Kings because the book is too long to be a good movie -- they couldn't get everything in.
Someone else wrote that movies turn books into big commercial franchises and mess up the integrity of the books.
A book that I personally think shouldn't be a movie (although, I've heard they will make one) is an amazing book called The Art of Racing In The Rain. The story is told from the point of view of a dog, and I don't think that they can capture his essence and personality, or tell the story without leaving out important parts, or parts that really help to explain things.
We asked Mrs. Hoole, too. She said that she doesn't want to see any more books where dogs die made into movies. "Enough with the depressing dog deaths!"
Sometimes, once in a while, they actually do a good job of the book, but overall, books just aren't meant to be movies.
What do you think? What books do YOU think shouldn't be made into movies, and why???
-ArwenPond
