Okay, I told myself I wasn't going to bring this up since this is such a controversial topic, but I can't take it. I need to say my peace and be done with it.

I love the idea of adapting a book onto the big screen. However, I've almost never been in a position where I've read the book first and then saw the movie afterwards. I've always seen the movies first and then later learned that there was a book based off the movie. These include A Series of Unfortunate Events, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, A Little Princess, Little Women, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, etc. One of the only times where I've read the book and then years later they finally made a movie was The BFG, but I haven't seen it yet since I didn't have money for the theater at the time (I was a smite young), and my parents had no interest in seeing it. (Roald Dahl movies aren't very popular apparently, minus Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).

While this may not seem like a big deal, I think there are both pros and cons of seeing a movie before reading the book. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there is actually an advantage to watching the movie first. Not that there's something wrong with book reading. In fact, I love reading the book. But I've found out that it can be extremely difficult to learn to love a movie adaptation when you become attached to the characters in the book series, or if you're in love with a completely different adaption itself. Despite this, I have to say this about movie adaptations: If I read the book and still love the movie I watched, it was good. I say this because, on its own terms, a movie can be very good and a pleasure to watch. However, there's a difference between a good movie and a good adaptation, and I think that's where people like me get a lot of hate.

I've often noticed that people get irritated with book readers who hate certain movies, simply because the biggest complaint is that "This deviates from the book!" and I can understand this complaint to a certain extent. You want the movie to represent who the characters are in the book. That's why you fell in love with the book in the first place. However, not everyone is a book-to-movie reader, and they want to enjoy the movie as a movie, not as a faithful narrative from the original source material. I'd like to think that I'm not one of those people who hates that not every single detail is out of place in the movie. However, I do feel very strongly when there are certain deviations from the book and I've decided to just have my peace and be done with.

I don't normally bring up these kind of topics because I know everyone has a different opinion and I don't want to be offensive or rude. However, after a certain series has been praised for its blunt feminist attitudes that contrast hard from the original source material, I've decided I've had enough and I need to just say SOMETHING about book-to-movie adaptations. Remember, I'm not a professional critic, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. But I just really need to write down what's on my head. Like, now!!!!!!

The first thing I need to get off of my chest is this whole feminism/radicalism thing that's become a thing in movies. There are two specific movies/series that I'm thinking about that do this and that's 1994 Little Women and Anne with an E, the netflix series. Both of these high light certain aspects of feminism that was both subtle and only lightly discussed in the original source material (Actually, I think the idea of feminism in Little Women came from Alcott's own life since she based the characters on her family). I don't mind the adaption of Little Women despite the fact that the book didn't have "radical" ideas. However, I didn't mind the movie because it captured the spirit of the characters, it distinguished the morals and values of the Marches from outsiders just like the book does, and this stuff is placed in so that it's touched on at appropriate moments, but not to the point of being overbearing. (Though on a personal note, what the heck is up with these movies and the women not wearing corsets? Isn't that like someone today going out of the house not wearing a bra?). Anne with an E on the other hand I absolutely detested within the first few episodes. Not only is the series radically different from the book as far as Anne's personality and attitude, but there are so many feminist speeches that spew out of everybody's mouth that it's exhausting!!!!! Yes, they do touch on some of these things in the book. The older generations, for example, don't like the new way of teaching and believe that beating with a stick is better than being grounded. (That was an issue in the Little Women book too actually), and the older generations, Mrs. Lynde as a matter of fact, talk about how inappropriate it is for a girl to go off to college and fill her head with such knowledge as Latin. But this is only touched on for two seconds! The book is more concerned about Anne learning from her mistakes and polishing her character so that she's still romantic and outgoing, but more toned down and calm to the point where she's respectable and sensible rather than hot-tempered and vain. In the show Anne with an E, there's literally a whole episode about girls being stupid and not knowing any better and how much better it is for girls to not go to school. Not to mention there's this stupid scene in one of the episodes about the girls panicking about becoming pregnant from dancing! I know talks about sex were different back then, but I wouldn't imagine girls were that dumb! Even as a kid in all my innocence, I didn't think I was suddenly pregnant because I believed pregnancy was a random thing that just happened to married women. And no one in Avonela was improper, so I doubt those girls would have thought so!!!!!!!

If you're going to touch on the topic of feminism and changing views of the century, the least you could do is be subtle and address it at appropriate points of viewing. I don't want to sit there and have a lecture from every single character because there's something happening in the 21st century that causes the directors to rewrite a book that's from 1907!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even the American Girls movies were subtle, and they're based on a series of books dedicated to describing the changes of the era!!!!!!!!!!!

Moving on!

The other issue I have, which I mentioned earlier, is radically changing a character in the movie. Or changing the whole heart of the book. And before I go into this, I'm going to say this right now: the following movies are the perfect examples of how someone might have an advantage watching the movie first.

A Little Princess (1995) is a very good movie, and one I watched, as per usual, before reading the book. I loved Sara as a character, I loved how her dad called her a little princess, I loved how sweet she was and I loved her stories and I loved how her and Becky became like sisters at the very end. And that chase across the rooftops was pretty suspenseful, I have to say. I liked that part. On it's own, it is a very good movie and I do recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

But as a faithful adaption from the original source material.........??????

Ooh boy.....

When I read the original story of A Little Princess (1905), I was shocked by how different Sara's character was in comparison to the 1995 film! Book Sara is quiet and thoughtful, even when under the charge of the nasty Miss Minchin, and only has the courage to denounce her when she's safe from harm. Movie Sara was a lot more defying and vengeful, though still sweet and considerate. I liked Sara because she had a decided opinion of you, but kept it to herself and used her imagination to keep herself from falling into despair in the book. (Something I used to do when I was stuck with terrible teachers at her age). The plot is also completely different from the book too! Sara's combatant against homesickness is a doll named Emily who she pretends is alive, but in the movie, it's a picture of her mother in a locket. Sara's French origin in the book is changed to an American one in the movie, and she's sent to an American school rather than an English one. Her father also fights in WWI while in the book, her father dies from Jungle Fever in India. I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever did the movie was more keen on adapting it from the original adaptation movie starring Shirley Temple since the plot lines and characters are eerily similar. But that's just me. They did include other characters from the book, so they had to have looked at it at least once. Again, I don't hate the movie, but it does bother me that they didn't try to be faithful to the book.

Speaking of book-movie conflicts, one of my biggest enemies for this has been the adaptations of The Secret Garden, written by the same author who did A Little Princess. There's three I've seen and one that's due to come out that I refuse to take part in since they've already shown how much they misinterpreted the book. The earliest one is from the 70's, which is okay so far minus the fact that Mary Lennox seems like a subdued counterpart of the book version. (Of course, I'll have to watch the whole thing; I've only seen the first episode, but I'm not impressed so far). The latest one is from the 1990's, which is good minus the introduction of real magic, which in the book is just childhood imagination. What's wrong with childhood imagination? Mary considers everything in the garden as magic because she's never grown a garden before, so the fact that the directors are trying to take it in a different direction is irritating. The worst though, and by far the most disappointing, is The Secret Garden adaptation from the 1980's. I say disappointing because this movie is, from what I can tell, the best adaptation I have ever seen of this book. Mary looks much different than her book counterpart, but she's imperialistic, nasty, selfish, and has no manners whatsoever until she finally learns to grow up and act like a proper young lady. I especially loved the part in the movie when she and Colin get into a fight and she walks away from the room grumbling, "If we were in India, I'd put a snake in his bed!!!" What ruins it for me, as someone who read the book first, is the fact that Colin and Mary are sweethearts in the movie. Granted, they did the same thing with Dickon and Mary in the 1990's version, but in the book, Colin and Mary are cousins, so to me, that's GROSS!!!!! Of course, it turns out that cousin marriage was common in the 1800's, so it's possible that was the route they wanted to go down and avoid getting audience-goers confused. But to me that's a little sickening! Ew! No!!! And it totally 100 percent ruins the movie for me!!!!!! Talk about a let-down!!!!!

I know this is a long rant for something so seemingly simple, but I couldn't take it! I need to get this off my chest! I know a lot of people out there don't agree with me entirely regarding the need to be faithful to the original source material. I guess for me it's just that I love these characters and seeing a director butcher the story and the characters that I grew to love just hurts. And it makes me feel disappointed because the characters I see in my head will never be brought to life as they deserve to. But that's just me.

Again, this is just my opinion, so take this with a grain of salt. But I've said my peace regarding these types of movies. And so I shall leave it there.

Have a nice day. And please don't feel guilty about enjoying or not enjoying certain movies. We're all entitled to our tastes. :)