The whole thing about books converted into movies

Well. I'm back. Thought i'd just post my thoughts on this topic (I was bored researching about orkut anyway, i'll be back with more on orkut in sometime..).Best-selling books, as you all know are usually pictured as motion-pictures to enlarge the commercial gains raising out of their general popularity. Harry Potter. Lord Of The Rings. More recently, The Da Vinci Code. Many, many, more. Comics also don't escape this money-minting exercise. But, as far as i can say, comics would be better suited

to adapt to a movie than best-selling novels. I would never ever agree if anyone ever says a Harry Potter movie even slightly matched the image formed in their mind while reading the book. Hell, they even change major parts of the storyline while 'adapting' the book. What exactly do they propose to do by it?? Try and act as though their just taking one percent out of the book and the remaining out of their own blotched imagination??? It really irritates the hell out of me when they change the actual happenings of the book. Its either that, or they completely omit important characters from the book. All Harry Potter fans would know that Dobby did not at all appear in the fourth movie, and they made Neville give Harry the Gillyweed instead. Some of you might get the feeling that i'm trying to make too much out of nothing, but still, i shall scream this out loud... Movies made out of books do not give even provide one percent of all the joy we get out of reading the latter. More often than not, things unfold in the movie totally different from the way you expect while reading the book. And the web of images you've formed in your mind while reading the book...those wonderful pictures that you can dream about whenever you want to, are instantly shattered the instant you watch the movie.
And, the plot. Most of the people who go in to see a from-the-book movie already know what's going to happen where, who's the mystery character, who's going to die, and so on. Even people who may have not read the book will surely know these facts. Such movies succeed only because people are curious to know whether the filmed version matches their imaginative version, they are disappointed mostly but still continue to remain curious for the next such movie. I myself, for one, will continue to remain curious how much ever i might crap about them in my thoughts or in my blog.
And sometimes, in movies such as The Da Vinci Code, the movie version is exceedingly boring, and makes you wonder if it was this book that you enjoyed. Maybe the director of the movie is to be blamed for it, whatever, lets not start the blame-game. If the movie's bad, it's bad. i'm a strong believer of the fact that there are only two kinds of movies - good and bad. There are no 'ok' kinda movies, the 'not bad' and 'sort of ok' kinda movies do not exist. It's either that the movie was good, or bad. Ok, coming back to The Code. I watched it at Viggy's place today and as advertised heavily before it's release, the good thing about it was that it gave the viewer an inside look into the famous Louvre museum, the original mona lisa, and the like. Unfortunately, that seemed to be the only good thing about it. Utterly boring, the rest of it. Vignesh n I were almost asleep an hour into the movie. I was like 'Thank God, it's over' by the time it neared the end. If it was not for the hype and controversy surrounding the movie, it would have surely bombed at the box-office. Here again, they have changed the whole climax of the bloody novel to an extent that makes me wonder aloud how such things happen. If it's lik A in the book and B in the movie, how is it acceptable. There were no documents at the rosalin place in the novel and thereby not supposed to be in the movie. And fifty Priory members come n meet with langdon and neveu an that 'secret chamber'. All this was not in the book, was it?? Again I tell you I may seem to make too much out of nothing here, but still i will. I'm not writing for The New York Times or The Hindu. This is MY blog, MY personalised space on the web and i think i'm entitled to write whatever crap i want on this page. Whoever wants to read it, can do so and ccomment upon what i write in any way they want to.
Every book-deal, i suppose, also includes a clause which gives the publisher rights to sell the book to a movie-maker, supposing it becomes a best-seller. Any author would gladly agree to it, because it only gives him an additional chance to earn, and that is the sole aim of his writing a book. No one can give crap like he's writing the book to unleash his imagination, or say that he's paying homage to the wonderful world of literature in his humble work. That does NOT sell. Money, money, money. The smell of currency. What would'nt we do for it. Infact, we do everything for it. Guess we're drifting off topic. Dunno if there ever existed the so-called moral values on earth, that are supposedly being eaten away by the 'evils' of corruption and greedy money-making. Coming back to the authors. Their sole aim is to make money. I have always dreamt of being suddenly struck by a brainwave while travelling on a train with an idea for a book that had potential to beat Harry Potter and make me the richest man in the world, but fact is, that will never happen. The next Christopher Paolini?? Naaah...too difficult. Needs a lot of luck, hard to come by.
Maybe there exist people on earth who still write just for the joy of creating something with some meaning, with the expectation that their 'masterpiece' will be appreciated by someone. They may write something nonsensical, something without any true implication or meaning. But it still gives them an oppurtunity to play with words, and experience the bliss of writing. I'm definitrly one of them. And for people like me, B-L-O-G-G-E-R . . . Ah well its a (I won't say God-given gift ... god did not create blogs) gift, thats all. A boon, perhaps.