There seems to be a rise in movies being produced from previously written books. This is probably because producers realize that the script has already been written and popularized and there is already a fan base attached. But do these movies really justify the works of the original author? Does the movie make the book more popular? What's more worth your time, reading the book or watching the movie or are both equal?
I can only comment on what I have read and watched, I have probably seen more movies where I haven't read the corresponding books. Although in most cases if I have read a book that I love I will most likely watch the movie.
I will begin with the current series of books I have fallen in love with, "The Work and the Glory". Now I have to admit that even though these books were originaly published about 16 years ago I never had an interest in reading them until the movie came out, with all the hype surrounding the release of the movie and the reprint of the books in paperback. I went down to Idaho to visit my sister and brother-in-law during the Easter weekend in 2005 and had the opportunity to watch "The Work and the Glory" in the theater in Idaho Falls with my family. My reaction from the movie was that I loved this movie! It really gave me a greater sense of people's reaction towards Joseph Smith's vision and his message of the restored gospel. I could see why some people could be skeptical, but what drove them to fight against Joseph Smith and persecute his family and followers? I could also see the joy people found as the spirit touched their hearts and bore wittiness to them of the truth they had been seeking their whole lives. I could also see that Joseph Smith was also just an ordinary man who worked hard to make an honest living but would not and could not deny the things he knew to be true.
This movie had such a great impression on me that I had to read the book. Not surprisingly, the book was even better, I was captured into this book and the life of the fictional Steed family from the first sentence. Gerald N. Lund has this great ability to really draw the reader into the book and into the minds and views of his characters. He also does a great job in mixing fiction and history and also throughout the book we are given opportunities to really determine what our view is on the subjects given and decide for ourselves what it is we believe to be true. There where a few differences between the movie and the book but none that I thought were too significant. Perhaps because I watched the movie first those differences didn't bother me too much.
When the Second edition came out I was anxious to read this book and watch the movie. (I did wait until it came out on paper back because I thought seen how I had the first in paperback I should collect the whole set in paperback and its also easier to carry paperbacks around to read on the bus and such.) I was halfway throughout the book when the DVD I ordered had arrived so I put down the book for a couple of hours to watch the movie and was disappointed to see the first half or the book viewed in the first 15 minutes, or what seemed to be the first half of the book. It didn't really seem to follow the story line and left out the most important parts of the book, the building and dedication of the temple; the Father, Benjamin's conversion. They also didn't show Lydia's struggles of loneliness in always having her husband Nathan away on work or church assignments. The movie only showed the birth of one child and not the 3 others, which includes one stillborn. In the movie it seems that Jessie is keeping Joshua from their daughter but really Joshua kept himself from them and filed the divorce papers that left her with fear and pain but eventually strength and hope for a a better life free of the abuse she faced with her husband.
If someone with very little knowlege of the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where to watch "The Work and the Glory - American Zion" I doubt they would understand very much about the church history portions. It seems they go through the events rather quickly without really clarifying them. For example someone watching the movie wouldn't know that Joseph and Emma's twins died at birth but soon after were given the Murdocks twins, Joseph and Julia, to care for after their mother died during childbirth. Little Joseph was the one they showed die the night the mobs came and tarred and feathered Joseph Smith. Later in the movie we see the little girl and some may wonder who she is but she is most likely Julia. The movie showed the burning of the printing press but didn't show the little girls who saved the precious documents of "The book of Commandments" that we now know as "The Doctrine and Covenants".
Now I know that the movie can't possibly include everything the book does, but why leave out the most important things, the things that the author placed the greatest significance on? The move mainly focused on the opposition between the Saints and the Mobs which was just a small portion of the book. I would really loved to have seen the movie conclude the same way as the book, with the dedication of the temple the Saints had sacrificed to build and only to enjoy for a short time. To have Ben join his family in the temple and realize why his wife and children had grown to love the gospel.
The reason I think the two movies were so different is that they were distributed by different companies. The first by Excel which is owned by Deseret Books and focuses on movies with LDS content so they of course want to get to the core of the authors message. The second was distributed by Paramount who likely wanted more 'action' in the movie by foucusing on the mobs and persecutions. But in the movies defense, its not that bad of a movie (but the first is way better) to watch if you haven't read the book or try to ignore everything you know from the book. Also, why on earth is this movie rated 14A??!! I almost didn't watch it as I hardly even watch PG 13 movies. There is no foul language, nudity and as for violence ... in my opinion Mulan has more violence.
well, there's my opinion about "The Work and the Glory" ... I can't wait to read the third volume and I hope the movie is better then the second one was, maybe Excel will take over again.
As a young girl I loved reading the "Little house on the Prairie" and "Anne of Green Gabel's" series. Little house on the Prairie was made into a TV series in the 70's and 80's and one that my parents watched together often that when my twin sister and I were born in 1982, Melissa was named after two actresses from the show, Melissa Gilbert and Melissa Sue Anderson. The reruns played long after the shows dismissal and are still shown today. I have probably watched each episode about 5 times. Besides the family members names .. the show is almost entirely fictional. Actually, Mary didn't even get married and never had any children but actually lived a lonely and depressed life after she went blind. oh, and they never adopted those other children either. The show is really well done though and my conclusion is that the show basically just shows modern day problems and how they may have been dealt with in pioneer times (racism, drugs, death, illness, poverty, etc.) and how pioneers worked so hard in farming and building up businesses to make life a little easier for us today. I also looked up the Ingall's family history on
www.familysearch.org and was saddened to realize that Charles and Caroline don't have any descendents living today. They had 5 children, yet their posterity ended with the death of Laura's daughter, Rose's baby boy.
"Anne of Green Gables" is a wonderful story about a young girl full of imagination and free will, that sometimes gets her into trouble and her journey to womanhood. The first two movies, "Anne of Green Gables" and "Anne of Avonlea" do a wonderful job at following the story line and capturing the character of Anne. However, I was disappointed in the third movie which was totally made up, and yes, I do know that Anne is a fictional character but she's real to me. Gilbert never went off to war, it was her son's that did and Anne wasn't a nurse in the army, rather she worried everyday for the safety of her sons and grieved at the loss of one. However, you can't help but rejoice at the part where Anne and Gilbert are reunited ... but it just bothers me that the whole movie is made up, they should have just left it at the first two.
now, for one movie that I actually do like more than the book, "Ella Enchanted" ... to me the movie is more an original of the Cinderella fairytale and or course the music, acting and special effects are pretty neat too. The book seemed pretty dark to me and more of a copy of Cinderella. Also, in the book Ella was pretty young, it just seems more appropriate that she was older to know what romantic love really meant.
to sum up my original thoughts, sometimes movies do not justify the original works of the author as in volume 2 of "The Work and the Glory" and sometimes the books and movies are equally great like the first 2 volumes of "Anne of Green Gables". I do believe that it is smart for producers to produce movies from books as they already have a fan base and it is a win-win situation for the producers and the authors, as in most cases those who have read the book will want to see the movie, and those that have seen the movie (and like it) will want to read the book.
