When a movie comes out that's based on a book, I'm always annoyed to see the re-released book with the movie poster as the cover. The actors don't necessarily fit the character descriptions and even if they do, most readers do not picture those actors as the book characters. The movie-poster-as-the-book-cover is a marketing device and that's frustrating enough, but I found something worse: re-naming the book to match the movie title.
I watched Limitless, which is a great movie because it explores what it's like to have full access to your mind—learning, memory, and critical thinking skills—but doesn't expect its viewers to fully use their minds as they watch the movie. Great, because it contradicts itself and yet remains entertaining.
I like the ideas in the story, so I looked up the book. If you go to bookstores now, it's called Limitless by Alan Glynn the cover looks something like this:
That's Bradley Cooper, the lead, in the middle panel. The movie came out in 2011, so if you look for the book before then, the cover looks like this:
Still a novel by Alan Glynn, but it's called The Dark Fields. A perfectly good title and a perfectly good cover, so why does a movie based on the book have to bring on these changes?
Anyone can find a book that a movie is based on. Search for it online. (Wikipedia is especially useful in this matter.) Or, hey, movies based on books say so in the credits.
Let the book title stay the book title and it's okay if the movie is called something else. I prefer a different title on the movie, actually, if the movie is only a loose interpretation of the book.
I know for marketing purposes, it's easier and more effective to have the movie and book titles match. New book covers to match movie posters is cross-advertising and you draw the movie goers to the bookstore and the readers to the cinema. But people can link the book to the movie (and vice versa) on their own. Give the audience a little credit.
Image sources: Limitless cover | The Dark Fields cover
I watched Limitless, which is a great movie because it explores what it's like to have full access to your mind—learning, memory, and critical thinking skills—but doesn't expect its viewers to fully use their minds as they watch the movie. Great, because it contradicts itself and yet remains entertaining.
I like the ideas in the story, so I looked up the book. If you go to bookstores now, it's called Limitless by Alan Glynn the cover looks something like this:
That's Bradley Cooper, the lead, in the middle panel. The movie came out in 2011, so if you look for the book before then, the cover looks like this:
Still a novel by Alan Glynn, but it's called The Dark Fields. A perfectly good title and a perfectly good cover, so why does a movie based on the book have to bring on these changes?
Anyone can find a book that a movie is based on. Search for it online. (Wikipedia is especially useful in this matter.) Or, hey, movies based on books say so in the credits.
Let the book title stay the book title and it's okay if the movie is called something else. I prefer a different title on the movie, actually, if the movie is only a loose interpretation of the book.
I know for marketing purposes, it's easier and more effective to have the movie and book titles match. New book covers to match movie posters is cross-advertising and you draw the movie goers to the bookstore and the readers to the cinema. But people can link the book to the movie (and vice versa) on their own. Give the audience a little credit.
Image sources: Limitless cover | The Dark Fields cover
No comments:
Post a Comment