This is my first post here and I feel like I need to warn that it might be a bit long, so you don't have to read it if you don't want.
Anywho, I recently had the mind to sit down and read/watch what all the bad press/reviews and hype was about this movie and books. I had never heard of these books till the movie was set to be released and the press and internet was flying. Vampires has always been my bailiwick so to speak. If there was a "monster" to pick vampires were it. Unfortunately I have been working on my bachelor and master's the past 6 years straight so when I am not reading 3,000 years old religious text or about the French Revolution I am pretty much just not reading anything, until now.
In truth I had really no interest in seeing the movie, the reviews aside. If anything has that many negative reviews, people balking and parodies online I will usually see it just cause of all that. Anyway, my sister is the one who wanted to see it so when it came out on DVD I rented for her from my Netflix. When it got to the house, before I could give to her in a few days, I said what the hell and watched. After I did I sat up and honestly said, "I have seen much worse movies", it really wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. I kind of genuinely liked it, that was until I decided to look into the source material.
Yep, I went and I read the book to compare it to the movie, probably a bad idea, and now I kind of hate the movie for not being what was in the book. I know many people say, "apples and oranges" but for me that is not even the problem. I mean I could watch "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" , for example, and see the movie for what it was apart from the book, but this movie I had trouble with. To me it left out a lot of what made the book interesting and brought it charm. It shifted around scenes and dialogue to different parts or completely new scenes that made little sense and kind of confused the story. I blame the screen writer 100% for this. I notice a lot people blame the director and this is part true. However, the director goes by what is in the script and it was if the person who adapted the book took all the most interesting and important parts of the book, completely ignored them, and then picked all the generic bland high school garbage that you can get in any other "teen flick" type movie. (after looking up her CV I can see why this is) I know people say "but you can't have the whole book in two hours" and that is true but you can have an adaptation that is actually done well, this is evident from past Oscar winning movies being adaptions. This movie felt more like and "inspired by" or "based on" then an adaptation.
For me I can remember what it was like being in school, a young chick, (oh so many moons ago) and seeing "that guy" in school and going "damn!" and then knowing no way in hell I would get him. I mean even small things like being so worked up over talking to "that guy" that I couldn't sleep so I took cold medicine so I could. When that happened in the book I shouted and laughed "I so did that". However, that kind of charm for me was lost in the movie and I was left with, i felt, a more watered down and rushed version of the book and a lot of things left unexplained, making it seem overly dramatic and cheesy at times. They really did leave out some of the best scenes in the book and put in new scenes or chopped stuff together. I mean come on I would I have liked to seen the meadow scene fully done and in the film, which would have done a lot for the film and had the "killing spree" angle dropped.
One example that bugged me would be Bella who went from a somewhat shy/introverted person a bit more of a loner, smart, very observant a bit pigheaded and a bit self deprecating, but caring, all of which I also identified with, to someone who came off as skittish, overly nervous, sheepish, kind of smart but not overly and clumsy for the sake of being nervous and not predisposed to it.
Anyway, now I am just complaining and that is not good, sorry. In the end I think I rather enjoy the books more. And my sister who saw it, when I first asked her what she thought/did she like it, she said "well the cinematography was beautiful" and that kind of summed it up. The movie is what it is and if I can see it apart from the books I might like it more but I keep getting the feeling that the books would have made a better tv show then a movie. In fact it was brother-in-law, who saw it with my sister, who suggested it and said how much it reminded him of Roswell. Good points and one I agree with. I think I would root for a TV version that gave us more of what the books has then watered down movies.
Sorry, went a little off topic/strayed in thought. Anyway, what I wanted to know was did this happen to anyone else? Did they see the movie first and ten read the book? Did it make the movie better or worse for you?