a problem with film adaptation of book series

You know film adaptation to book series is nice but there is a problem with some adaptations like these its called "splitting the final film in to two parts",This trend just started with harry potter and the deathly hallows then after it gained the franchise its last applause and huge popularity Twilight film makers summit decided to split the final film breaking dawn into two films and now The hunger games films finale Mockingjay will be split in to two films in 2014 and 2015 (the hobbit is included but its just a prequel),
This is the problem of film adaptation of book serials i mean it can affect all book to film adaptation serials like if the Uglies series is adapted then its final novel "specials" which will be adapted into a film will be split into two or worse three parts,or maybe if WAKE film series by Lisa McMann is adapted into a film then its final book "GONE" would be split into two films as well,If artemis fowl is adapted into a film series then its last one the last guardian will be split into two films and if the pendragon series is adapted into a film series then its final novel The Soldiers of Halla will be split into two films.
This list will go on,who know if the diary of a wimpy kid film series reaches its final film with a possible adaptation of the final novel (which might involve gregs graduation before going to college) then it will be possible that it will split into two parts.
So we must try to pursue the film producers, executive producers and most of every Production company staffs not to split the final film of the series which was adapted from book series to two parts or worse three parts what do you say?

Why is this a problem? I'd rather have two 2.5 hour Hobbit movies that cover the entire story rather than one movie that has to condense it.

^ ditto. as for the Harry Potter films, they should have used this concept with Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix and The Half Blood Prince. these were the HP films which I truly found painful to watch. I haven't read the GoF and HBP books yet, but it was obvious they took out TOO many important parts.

Kiryurules said:

Why is this a problem? I'd rather have two 2.5 hour Hobbit movies that cover the entire story rather than one movie that has to condense it.

Click to expand...

Yeah so how does it feel if you watch a 4 hour film adaptation of the final novel of the book series whats wrong with it ? how does it feel ?

kamsasdn13213231 said:

Yeah so how does it fell it you a 4 hour film adaptation of the final novel of the book series whats wrong with it ? how does it feel then?

Click to expand...

For the love of god... Some one please translate this to English?:redface2:

KingRanger said:

For the love of god... Some one please translate this to English?:redface2:

Click to expand...

read it again because i improved it.:redface2:

If it's so that they can cover the story properly and not miss out important stuff, I don't mind it. If it's just so they can linger more lovingly on Edward Cullen and his hellspawn (come on, Twilight's "plot" is tissue-thin, they had to add in a random shitty battle that didn't happen in the book just to make it vaguely exciting) yeah, keep it to one movie and save us the worst

In response to the OP: I don't think most people really want to sit through a four-hour movie. That's why they won't do it. The first Lord of the Rings movie was 3 hours and 18 minutes, and that was so long that a lot of cinemas had an intermission during it. Plus, two movies gives the studio two releases and more money coming in, so they like that.

Agreed. No problem with splitting a script, as long as it's long enough to warrant it. Some books, though, would have no choice.

The sword of truth series has 11 novels in it, almost all of them are, at least, the length of the longest Harry Potter novel or longer. (The longest being only a few pages short of a thousand) They're so long, the final novel, Chainfire, was actually split into a trilogy.

At best, you could probably condense it down to eight or nine movie, but you'd have to leave a lot out.

Okay well how about the technique that people from another country Take example the Millennium series film trilogy from Sweden it was considered for some a three parter and they release all 3 films in the same year,so why cant film makers like the ones who made lord of the rings or the ones who are responsible for splitting deathly hallows into two parter should have release all films in the same year.

KingRanger said:

For the love of god... Some one please translate this to English?:redface2:

Click to expand...

是这样如何下跌，你的小说系列丛书的最后4小时的电影改编whats错吗？它是怎样的感觉呢？

[This is how to fall, the last four hours of the film adaptation of the novel series, whats wrong you? It is how it feels? ]

Sry, just had to troll it.....:laugh:

-----

but for my honest opinion on book films here it is .

• The first film has to set everything up and introduce worldwide audiences to the series and characters. Aka those whom don't read that much.
• The first film has to do this in an alloted space of time and varying on the page length or episode length like Avatar TLA, **** has to be cut out. Even the Hunger Games has helluva ton of things cut from its story and some due to length.
• It's a rarity they will adapt a book with an ideal time, thus things have to be focused upon, ala core plot , characters and maybe a few subplots , but to streamline it to not only keep the spirit of the book , but most of its elements. See how in the Hunger games where the first chapter or so prior to the Reaping could have easily been a half hour if it was done like the book, especially with interactions with the Avox and the Capitol's world. We rarely see much depicted like it was in the books due to time slot , but if there's an extended version, it could be possible, but not necessary.
• The issue with book adapts is that many dirctors just see the name of the series and its profit wielding powers. Why not just half-ass it and still get people hooked to it? We see this in the Golden Compass, Percy Jackson and Eragon where really, if they paid more attention to the details of the book and stayed as true as possible , there wouldn't be an issue. you can be as true to the source to keep the spirit of the book, and make a decent film. Narnia ,HP ,, and I am Number Four did that.
• A book adapt doesn't need to be 4 hours long and neither should it be 1 1/2 hours , but the biggest issue is the "cramming the most **** you can" factor. If you can streamline it and truly pull it off , there's not an issue, but in A Series of Unfortunate Events, it felt like three films smashed together aka the Airbender Effect. Too much **** in such little time = not good at all. Trust me , cramming as much story can work if it is done well, but only if the elements , not the entire story , are utilized. There has to be a clear central plot that goes throughout the entire film rather than feel like a sum of 3 books, 25 episodes, you get the point. There will always be things you have to cut due to time limits , but that's why there is an extended edition or director's cut for.