Page to Screen: Book to movie/series adaptation discussions

Hello book lovers!

This space is for all those book nerds who would love to talk about their favorite Book to Screen adaptations.

Let's be real: we've all at some point fan casted and mentally directed and produced our own movies or TV series on our favorite books, haven't we?

So when those books are actually adapted on screen and you finally got to watch your favorite characters and story play out... how did you feel? 

Did you enjoy them both as separate mediums and therefore different experiences, appreciating each for its strength and beauty?

Or did you absolutely rage at the injustice when you saw how they diminished your favorite character's arc or omitted certain storylines because of budgeting, scheduling or some other feeble reason?

Did you end up wishing you'd never watched the screen adaptation?

Or did you end up loving it even more than the book?

Did you watch the screen version first or read the book first? 

Or are you so obsessed with one of them that you refuse to taint that love by delving into the other?

Welcome to our thread on

Feel free to chat about any book & its movie/ series adaptation

from Pride & Prejudice to Parineeta

from Bridgerton to Breakfast at Tiffany's

from Guide to Game of Thrones

from To Kill a Mockingbird to The Lord of the Rings

Tell us what you loved and what you hated in each version.

Which version did it better?

And what you would have done differently?

Now that you've read the book, will you watch the movie/ series?

Or did you just watch the series and feel compelled to know how the book depicted the same scenario?

Just break it all down for us, and have fun doing it!

Tags by DreamOfEndless

Edited by DreamOfEndless - 2 days ago

Share your thoughts on book-to-movie adaptations, favourite scenes, and how the films compare to the originals. Join in the discussion!

Hello LizzieBennet and fellow book lovers!

This thread is a fantastic idea! As someone who has a deep love for both books and their screen adaptations, I have a lot to say.

When it comes to adaptations, I've experienced a wide range of emotions. Some adaptations have brought my favorite characters to life in ways I never imagined, while others have left me feeling disappointed.

For example, I absolutely loved howThe Fault in Our Stars was adapted into a movie. The performances by Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort truly captured the essence of the characters, and the film stayed faithful to John Green's emotional story. On the other hand, I was quite disappointed with how certain storylines were handled in Percy Jackson & the Olympians—some of my favorite moments from the books were either changed drastically or omitted altogether.

I often try to appreciate both the book and the adaptation as separate entities. The visual medium can offer new perspectives and bring out different aspects of the story. However, there have been times when I wished I hadn't watched the adaptation because it didn't live up to the book's magic.

I usually prefer to read the book first, but there have been occasions where I've watched the screen adaptation first and then felt compelled to read the book to experience the original story.

One adaptation that pleasantly surprised me was The Hunger Games. The film series did justice to Suzanne Collins' books and even added its own visual flair.

In conclusion, whether I end up loving or hating an adaptation, I always find it fascinating to see how different people interpret the same story.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and experiences!

Happy discussing!

Edited by vijay - 3 days ago

Wonderful topic .

One famous book to movies adaptation is of course the Harry Potter series. I saw most of the movies first... Deathly Hallows (1 & 2) were the only ones where I had already read the book first.

Coming to the questions you asked... I like both of them separately and love binge-watching as well reading. Both the mediums have their own joys to offer... but if I had to absolutely choose -

There is no doubt that some scenes are really iconic and having once seen the movie, you can't help but visualize things that way even while reading (especially first two parts). But some parts (Prisoner of Azkaban, Order of the Phoenix) are a real let down once you familiarize yourself with the books. After reading once, when you watch the movie again, it's natural to think of all the missed opportunities and wonder how it could have been done better.

Coming to another book to movie adaptation I'm familiar with - the Narnia series. Saw the movie (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) and then read all the 7 books. Have watched the other two movies and waiting for them to shoot the rest. Again, the books are better... but only because they're skipping their way through the series and making movies randomly. If I were to compare them one-on-one directly instead of looking at it as a complete series, the movies might win because the visuals are really great and the Dawn Treader being 3D made it an even more immersive experience.

These are the only examples I remember right now. For some others, I've only read or watched... but not both, so can't compare. I think both the mediums have their pros and cons. Movies suffer more than books bcz imagination has no bounds but budget, schedules and other limitations affect movies more. But on the other hand, a picture is worth a thousand words, and what might take a few pages of description could be easily shown within a couple of seconds visually. So yeah, I prefer enjoying both separately (even while making comparisons in my head ).

Would love to read others' views .

Love,

Stuti

P.S. Thanks for the tag DreamOfEndless .

I do the opposite, I read novels that are about to get an adaptation. Especially with East Asian works. Following shooting progress till the main release is quite a journey.

Both mediums are bound to have their own strength and weakness. I like reading what the characters feel (which might not get justice in the drama unless the actors do utmost justice) while I love watching the costumes, decors, fight scenes come into life. 

In rage?? Absolutely yes!!!! But no matter what my favorite character will continue to live in my memories. So far I've never felt any adaptation did injustice to the original work. If I loved something more in the adaptation, it's the improvised version of the decors, usage of CGIs and other visual treats. 

I prefer reading the book first. Once I watch the adaptation I tend to pick on the weak plots and skip while reading(I terribly feel bad for the book later). Mostly I avoid reading if I end up watching the adaptation first (but I read reviews on book vs adaptation to get unanswered questions).

Thank you for the tag! This is actually something that I'm super interested in since a lot of the books I've read have gotten/are getting adapted into movies or TV. In general, as long as the adaptation is respectful of the source material and is able to do it justice, I'm good (I mean, I'd watch it regardless because the book is still the book).

Adaptations that I think are better than the book are usually of books I don't really like.  I've talked about this so many times on here, but I thought that the content of The Hating Game translated better as a 1.5-hour movie than a 300+ page novel. The movie also changed scenes that I found problematic in the book and the actors (mostly Lucy Hale who was playing the main character) made a lot of really cringe-y lines/moments seem more natural and fun. (I will always remember the "I wanna juice your head like a lemon" line because in the book it was giving serial killer but Lucy Hale made it cute somehow.) 

Another example of this would be the series Supernatural Academy, an animated series for teens that was adapted from Jaymin Eve's Supernatural Prison series. I loved the show and did watch it before reading the book - which I'm glad I did because if I had read the books first, I wouldn't have touched the show with a ten-foot pole. I could only get through one book because the Supernatural Prison series represents everything I hate about fantasy - Mary Sue-ish protagonist that all the male characters fight over, the main protagonist being the only likable female character because we can't have more than one of those and god forbid she have female friends, every man in the book being the reddest flag... in short, the book was awful and I can't believe they took the initial concept and worldbuilding and created such a wholesome animated series out of it.

Another book-to-movie adaptation that I think is worth mentioning is RWRB (sorry in advance for SPOILERS). Now listen, I have my gripes with this book - most of it comes from the fandom and some of it does come from the actual content within the book. In my experience, I haven't seen a standalone romance have the amount of popularity that this book did in terms of engagement, fanwork, etc. even before its adaptation was announced. There are over 10k fics on AO3 for RWRB and nearly 4000 of those were before anything related to the movie was released (trailers, previews, stills, etc.). That is absolutely insane to me!

This is definitely an unpopular opinion (and probably one I have because I've grown to like this book less and less over the years) but I liked the movie more than the book. The book is still great and deep down I will always love it, but there's a reason why it's my least favourite of the author's books. In terms of all the things that were changed... I liked a lot of the changes. 

I don't think that the people who are upset about the political aspect of the book being cut understand what it represented in the first place. Casey McQuiston wrote this book to cope with the 2016 US presidential elections and verbatim describes it as a "political fantasy". No director or screenwriter was ever going adapt that aspect of the book because they would've had to change so much more about the book. You don't need a PoliSci degree to know that the amount of research Casey did for the book was nonexistent, I don't know why anyone would've expected this to be some revolutionary political drama and not a romcom.

Changing Alex's family dynamics and cutting screen time for supporting characters. I absolutely wanted to see more of Pez, but I liked movie!Nora so much more than book!Nora. Casey tends to do this thing where in order to write "badass" female characters, they end up making them so unnecessarily mean and downright cruel (something that I think was improved in their more recent books). I had a Nora in my friend group and there's a reason why no one talks to that person anymore. Since they cut out a lot of the political aspects and decided to have Alex write his own speech (thank god), his sister was not important to the movie (rip Junebug). I'm also glad they didn't delve into Alex's toxic family dynamic from the book because his parents are divorced and hate each other so much that they literally refer to him by each other's last name when they're mad at him (how messed up is that?!). His dad also heavily contributed to abandonment issues in the book and I don't think there was any way that movie could've included all of that and still make it seem like Alex had a loving family in comparison to Henry.

Alex's coming-out story was also a lot better in the movie. There's this thing in the book where Alex is supposedly very oblivious to his own sexuality and everyone around him is aware of it and kind of treats him like an idiot for knowing this about himself (something that fanfic writers also include and it genuinely makes me sad for the Alex that's probably in their own lives). Also loved that the movie refrained from referring to Alex and Henry being outed as a sex scandal as if it's a joke and not a genuinely traumatic event, and I thought that the speech Alex gave about it was a lot better than the one from the book.

I swear I don't hate this book, but it's definitely one of the main reasons I don't like to get into fandoms anymore. It was like I was reliving the horrors of The Vampire Diaries fandom nonsense all over again.

There are also adaptations that change a lot of the original source material to fit their project and for me, it honestly depends on what they change (I'm not the type to believe that an adaptation isn't faithful if it's not an exact replica of the book, if that's what I wanted I would just re-read the book). The Bridgerton books are a great example of this because the show added/changed many things and they kept certain other things and I just want to know who to speak to about this because why would make such a big deal about consent on your show and retain the most heinous Daphne and Simon scene from the book?! 

The 'diamond of the first water' stuff isn't even in the books - Daphne starts out on her second or third season on the marriage mart and is not the desirable debutante the show depicts her as. In the books, she's consistently friend-zoned and actually shares some similarities with show!Eloise, and there was one book scene in particular that genuinely made me mad at how the show portrayed her because Simon tries to this whole smolder-y thing with her and she laughs in his face like, 'I have three brothers and I'm the eldest daughter, I will not be flustered by you'. I also think that while I liked them changing how Kate and Anthony get married on the show vs the book, I also don't because of what they did to Edwina (THERE WAS NO LOVE TRIANGLE IN THE BOOK, I WILL NEVER GET OVER THIS). A positive change though for sure is show!Benedict because he was not a likable character in the books so fine, give him Colin's personality from the books so I can at least tolerate him.

Shadow & Bone had similar issues. The Six of Crows duology is the fan-favourite in comparison to the original S&B trilogy, so combining the two was already a terrible idea in my head. And I stand by that because while I think it did work for Season 1, Season 2 was very disappointing (especially since the series got cancelled and we'll never get to see the heist from the first book). 

Season 1 was actually solid and the actors made me appreciate certain characters more. I had a new love for Alina and Mal because of their actors and their chemistry - I was never too fond of these two, especially as a couple, but their portrayal on the show made me see them differently. Same with Nina and Matthias - LOVED Nina in the books, did not care for Matthias at all, but they were probably the most perfectly cast and I would die for Matthias now. I think that using S1 to go into more depth with how Nina and Matthias first met and got together was a brilliant idea because it's something that we really only see them address briefly, so their scenes in S1 made their relationship feel more developed (it was hilarious to people who hadn't read the books complain about why they were getting so much screen time though). Something that was also very special to me was the Alina and Inej friendship because Inej has such respect for Alina in the books, that first scene where she sees her for the very first time actually had me tearing up. 

What didn't work was them trying to shove the next two S&B books and Crooked Kingdom into one season. 8-10 episode seasons are their own issue, but it was just too much all at once and I also think that there were a lot of lines/moments that I don't think the writers of the show understood, and that's why book fans were pissed. I also hated how they watered down the crows because they didn't want their protagonists to do anything they considered morally corrupt, which defeats the entire purpose of these characters. I don't know if I'd call them anti-heroes, but the whole reason these characters and that duology were so fascinating is because they do things that traditional protagonists would never do and that's something that's more common in fantasy books now because of Six of Crows.

Now, I don't know how involved Leigh Bardugo was in the adaptation process, but I do know that Rick Riordan was a big part of the most recent Percy Jackson adaptation. Once again, some shows just need more than 8 episodes and I am so sick and tired of having to say that over and over again. It's genuinely the only flaw I see with adaptation because otherwise, I had a great time, I don't care what anyone else has to say about writing or casting (Rick hand-picked the main three actors, by the way, I don't know about the others though). The show just needs more room to breathe and not feel so rushed. (We as a society deteriorated after letting Riverdale be the last show with a 22-episode season.)

Another adaptation that was, unfortunately, a victim of Netflix's post-S2 cancellation curse and part of this weird 8-episode-only season epidemic was The Baby-Sitters Club. Again, I don't care what people say about casting because I thought the changes worked for this current time and generation. BSC came out in the 80s/90s and adapting it within that time period would not have worked in 2018 (I think that's when it came out?). The books consistently described Claudia Kishi as "exotic" because she was Japanese and always included some variation of the line "The biggest difference between Mallory and Jesse was the Mallory was white and Jesse was black" - none of this would've been okay with current audiences. This is why the diverse casting and LGBT representation worked for this show compared to others where it would feel very performative. A great example of this would be the episode "Claudia and the Sad Goodbye" which adapted the book of the very same name. It was one of the best episodes from the series which is wild because I didn't like the book. Not only did the episode do a great job of dealing with grief, I loved how much care was taken in giving Claudia's grandmother a traditional Japanese funeral and also her sister's coming out story - they took key aspects from the book and made it so much better.

That's not to say that there weren't flaws. I despised the characterization of Mallory Pike, who was my favourite character in the books. Mallory is very quiet, loves to read and write and is the eldest of ten - truly made for me and me alone. Based on the few books of hers that I read, she's the most mature of all the girls, the way she handles herself in certain situations is commendable and she's a very capable babysitter (probably because of the aforementioned NINE younger siblings). And you get none of that in the show. They made her this really ramble-y, hyperactive, 'always says the wrong thing' type of person and that's not how she was supposed to be in the slightest. I still don't understand what happened here because all the other girls were almost perfect adaptations of their book counterparts, so I don't know what the issue was with Mallory. (AND NONE OF HER BOOKS GOT A DEDICATED EPISODE!!!)

I could also address the way that the MCU bulldozes the comics, but I won't because I don't consider any MCU project an adaptation of the comics, it's literally fanfiction to me.

The only adaptation I think I've ever considered as being nearly perfect, is Heartstopper. However, I'm really excited to watch A Good Girl's Guide To Murder (I think it just came out in the UK!) and one of my favourite authors is rumoured to be getting a book adapted by Disney+ - it's A Crown of Wishes by Roshani Chokshi and Avantika Vandanapu is supposedly starring in it and she's the executive producer. I'm very excited about it, even though I think it's a little strange for the second to be adapted instead of the first... but then again, the two books can kind of be read as standalones so I guess it's fine?

I'm so sorry, I didn't know I had so much to say.

Originally posted by: vijay

Hello LizzieBennet and fellow book lovers!

This thread is a fantastic idea! As someone who has a deep love for both books and their screen adaptations, I have a lot to say.

When it comes to adaptations, I've experienced a wide range of emotions. Some adaptations have brought my favorite characters to life in ways I never imagined, while others have left me feeling disappointed.

For example, I absolutely loved howThe Fault in Our Stars was adapted into a movie. The performances by Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort truly captured the essence of the characters, and the film stayed faithful to John Green's emotional story. On the other hand, I was quite disappointed with how certain storylines were handled in Percy Jackson & the Olympians—some of my favorite moments from the books were either changed drastically or omitted altogether.

I often try to appreciate both the book and the adaptation as separate entities. The visual medium can offer new perspectives and bring out different aspects of the story. However, there have been times when I wished I hadn't watched the adaptation because it didn't live up to the book's magic.

I usually prefer to read the book first, but there have been occasions where I've watched the screen adaptation first and then felt compelled to read the book to experience the original story.

One adaptation that pleasantly surprised me was The Hunger Games. The film series did justice to Suzanne Collins' books and even added its own visual flair.

In conclusion, whether I end up loving or hating an adaptation, I always find it fascinating to see how different people interpret the same story.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and experiences!

Happy discussing!

Thank you, Vijay, for sharing your thoughts on Books Vs their screen adaptations.

I have been meaning to read (& watch) The fault in our stars but have been putting it off for some reason. Perhaps because it sounds strikingly similar to another book I've read, The Love Story by Erich Segal. But I will get down to it soon.

I have not read The Hunger Games but have watched all the movies, cannot comment on how faithful they are to the books, but I especially liked the most recent one: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. 

You're right about interpreting the same story differently through different mediums. And while books are more exhaustive and nuanced and delve deeper into the characters and their world, sometimes the visual medium is more exciting because of the number of interpretations it offers through a well-placed dialogue or even a look exchanged between the actors. It offers endless possibilities to interpret and analyze.

That said, I've usually preferred books to movies - they leave me more satisfied in terms of having fully explored the world of the characters. With a few notable exceptions - The Lord of the Rings is one that comes immediately to mind.  

Any other books/ movies you'd recommend?

Originally posted by: ssttuuttii

Wonderful topic .

One famous book to movies adaptation is of course the Harry Potter series. I saw most of the movies fi

Coming to another book to movie adaptation I'm familiar with - the Narnia series.  

Yep, I do agree with you that The book is usually better. For me, it's a handful of exceptions. But sometimes.. like in case of Pride & Prejudice and some others, when I find myself itching to revisit the story, I prefer to rewatch the series (the BBC one) than pick up the book because well, a) it's quicker. And b) I can drool over Colin Firth as Darcy . 

When it comes to LoTR though, I can say I only read the books once but I've rewatched the movies N number of times. I actually got pulled into reading the book only after watching Fellowship of the Ring and was dying to know what happened next and did not have the patience to wait for 2 (or whatever number) years for the next movie to come out. 

Some other acclaimed ones like GoT .. I haven't read yet. They're in my TBR so will get to them someday, but am waiting for GRR to finish the series. I do not want to be added on the list of frustrated fans who have been waiting for 3898387837 years for the next one! I hate that 

Another one I must mention is the Hercule Poirot mysteries starring David Suchet adapted from Agatha Christie's books. Some of them can be boring but Suchet as Poirot is perfection!

Same for Sherlock Holmes. I still imagine Jeremy Brett whenever I happen to come across any Sherlock story though the modernized BBC reimagining was really good.

Originally posted by: Leprechaun

I do the opposite, I read novels that are about to get an adaptation. Especially with East Asian works. Following shooting progress till the main release is quite a journey.

Both mediums are bound to have their own strength and weakness. I like reading what the characters feel (which might not get justice in the drama unless the actors do utmost justice) while I love watching the costumes, decors, fight scenes come into life. 

In rage?? Absolutely yes!!!! But no matter what my favorite character will continue to live in my memories. So far I've never felt any adaptation did injustice to the original work. If I loved something more in the adaptation, it's the improvised version of the decors, usage of CGIs and other visual treats. 

I prefer reading the book first. Once I watch the adaptation I tend to pick on the weak plots and skip while reading(I terribly feel bad for the book later). Mostly I avoid reading if I end up watching the adaptation first (but I read reviews on book vs adaptation to get unanswered questions).

Thanks for sharing, Kadyn. That's actually quite interesting and I can relate because I have done this in a manner of speaking for Bridgerton.

I had read the books years ago and had quite forgotten them and once the series came out, I began re-reading. Then following the news of the casting, production, filming etc. And then watching it and breaking down how different it was from the books. 

I'm with you in that..once I watch the adaptation I rarely go and read the book. Even if I do, I will make sure I leave a lot of gaps so I can enjoy the book on its own without bringing up constant comparisons with the movie/ series. It's hard not to though..especially when it comes to imagining the characters. They tend to look like the actors in my head!

Thank you for sharing that detailed response. And never apologize for having a lot to say. That's what this thread and forum are for!

I think I will agree with you on both The Hating Game and RWRB.

I did much prefer the movies.

RWRB maybe because the book plot lost me too many times and I ended up taking a looooong time to finish it. I read the book after I watched the movie, so that could be a reason too. I didn't really miss much of what the movie didn't have that the book had (June & some other stuff) because at that point I was invested in the movie characters and the book ones were just an extension of them for me. I think that could have made a difference to how I experienced them and my enjoyment of them. Whereas my friend who read the book first did not enjoy the movie much. 

The Hating Game was a pretty unremarkable book for me. The movie was meh too, but at least it was quicker to watch  than read