I think that a movie can only be an adjunct or only a supplement to books, to different points of view, to scholars, historians and your own teachers.
I'm also a huge cinephile, and I have witnessed that to honor the book literally word-for-word never makes a good movie.
I'm not of the opinion that the next logical step for a book is for it to be made into a film.
I had read the novel and I had heard David Lean was going to direct it - and it came as a surprise to me because American actors, if given the chance, can do style as well as anybody and speak as well as anybody.
There's no point in making a film out of a great book. The book's already great. What's the point?
When I see films made from books, I make a huge effort not to remember the book. It's important to see the film as a film.
I'd like to think that my films are personal enough to exist without hearkening back to their respective novels.
I'm always frustrated when somebody makes a movie out of a book and they leave the book behind, or the heart of it.
The movie is actually from a book by Stephen King called The Body. When they were gonna put it to a motion picture, they found the story was a bit too strong for the title The Body, based on a young kid's movie. It would be too heavy.
The script for 'Trainspotting' was amazing, and it was different from the book.
Movies can't ruin books. They can only ruin movies.
There is not less wit nor less invention in applying rightly a thought one finds in a book, than in being the first author of that thought.
I've been reading the books. It's the origination, it's the primary source. You should always go back to the books.
Usually, I think, every film I've made has been a book, and I've always read it.
If you take a really good book, then the potential is for a really good film. But you've got to get it right.
I've done quite a few films that are based on books, and it's always nerve-wracking because there's an audience who has read and loved the book, and what if they see the movie and hate it?
The plot of my 'Phantom' is pretty much mine. It's based on the Gaston Leroux book - I've taken a lot of liberties with it.
We've seen from shows like 'Game of Thrones' that the book can become a seed, which you plant in the ground of great TV creators, and it can sprout out into a big tree.
I know a movie and a book are two different things and you are going do different media in different ways. No author can want a movie to be exactly like the book because then it will be a bad movie.
I firmly believe that you can't get a good movie without risking a bad movie. A good adaptation of your book is worth it because it is such a wonderful experience to see your world translated onto the screen.
I think successful movies that are based on books are their own thing. I think if you're too faithful, word by word, character trait to character trait, it can hurt the movie.
Authors of books are not given very much control over the films that are made from their books.
Most films are rooted in a book or a comic strip, but I don't go out there saying I want to do adaptations.
As an author, you can't expect a movie to be an illustration of the book. If that's what you hope for, you shouldn't sell the rights.
I think the hardcore fans can expect exactly what both 'The Hunger Games' and 'Catching Fire' delivered: 'Mockingjay' is going to be as faithful a rendition of Suzanne's Collins's world and books and characters as we can put out!
