General Discussion

Welcome to the Roundtable Discussion on Book Adaptations, put your reading glasses on and enjoy! I’m Christina and I’ll be your host today. Please keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times. Let’s see who I have with me today:

CrimsonAvenger: Hi I'm Drew and I will not keep my limbs inside the vehicle because that is no fun.

Dvdhaus: Hi, I'm dvdhaus or Joe. I answer to whatever.

Rem25: I'm Mike though some have called me Mike the Red. Mike is fine though. :)

So what have you been watching and reading lately?

I have a massive backlog of television shows to watch, I haven’t been keeping up with TV at all these past few months. As for reading I have been into fantasy books lately, or as a certain someone here today would say “sparkly vampire books” Also I’ve been trying to catch up on the 3 months’ worth of comics.

"biggest bomb of all time"

Drew: I've been watching a ton of stuff. I've been working my way through the various Stargate shows, and am really digging them. As for literature, I've been trying to read Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars before I see John Carter next week.

Joe: Let's see, I've been reading a book called 1Q84. As far as TV watching, I've been addicted to Storage Wars. Movie wise though I have a backlog that I will eventually get around to watching.

Mike: As far as TV goes, I'm also insanely backed up with shows I do like. The only ones I'm watching consistently now are Modern Family, Revenge, 30 Rock, and The Walking Dead.

I finished The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo a month ago before my wife and I saw the David Fincher version in theaters. Right now I just started reading On The Trail of The Assassins by Jim Garrison. It's a non-fiction account of the author investigating the assassination of JFK. Oliver Stone based the movie JFK partly on this book.

I've read The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo too, plus the second one. I’ve been slowly working my way through the last one for ages but I'm finding it hard to read to be honest

Mike: I seem to have that same problem too. I have a hard time just sitting down and focusing on reading for a period of time. It took me several months to finish The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo because I got bored reading and put it away for awhile before picking it back up when the movie came out

My main problem is that there seems to be so many names and places that I can't even pronounce, never mind keep track of. I took a long break in between book 2 and 3 and I am just too lost to keep reading.

• Ok, first question: It’s just been announced that your favourite book is going to be adapted into a movie. YAY or NAY?!

Drew: Nay. If it's from a director I quite like and the author is involved then maybe yes but since most of the time the authors aren't given much creative control over the film, I kind have to be worried.

Joe: Nay I guess. Something always gets lost in the transition and never lives up to the self-hype I would put on it. If it was a book that sounded interesting for a movie then I would not be opposed to seeing it. Unless the cast was way off how I imagined them.

Mike: Yay for me. I might be worried the wrong director or screenwriter might be chosen for the project but I feel that Hollywood has gotten much better at adapting books into movies without losing much of what made them great. It's not a guarantee of course, but I would be excited to see who would play each character.

It’s YAY for me! I love following the transition from book to movie, seeing who’s directing, casted, looking at potential sets and places they are going to film. Wondering what plot points they will change and what will make it into the movie. Then finally after the months (or years) of waiting you get to see your favourite characters on the big screen.

I'd find it hard to be upset if this guy shot me..

Drew: And then sometimes we end up with films like One for the Money and we all know how that film turned out (With a whopping 2% approval on Rotten Tomatoes out of 53 reviews).

I actually kind of enjoyed that movie, and I enjoyed the book too!

Drew: You enjoyed One for the Money? Everyone has their own opinion but I just thought the film looked a little generic and similar to another film from 2010.

Yes I did enjoy it, it was funny and inoffensive. Heigl wasn't too bad either, which was my main worry.

• In your opinion what are the best and worst book adaptations?

Drew: I have to say the best adaptation I've ever seen was 2006's Casino Royale. It remained incredibly faithful to Ian Fleming's novel and really did wonders for the Bond franchise. Second best I've got to with the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo even though I've never actually read the book. Third would be The Mark of Zorro from 1940.

As for the worst adaptation I've ever seen was How The Grinch Stole Christmas. Live action adaptations of Dr. Seuss' works are just terrible ideas. It was fun but just plain awful though I believe some people did like it.

Joe: Best are when a director is dedicated to the fiction, like Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Worst are the opposite. Can't really remember a bad one where I both read and watched the piece. There are also good ones that ride the line like Runaway Jury, where something big was changed but it still plays well either way, in book or movie form.

Mike: The best book adaptation would be Forrest Gump. They had the movie almost spot-on from the book. The only thing the movie lacked was the large amount of humor in the book. The worst book adaptation probably is Pet Semetary. Stephen King's novel was much grittier and terrifying than the movie was. Also, the movie ending was terrible.

Obviously I found Harry Potter and LOTR amazing, but for one of the recent best I’m going to say Never Let Me Go. I felt like the movie really captured the emotions of the book. I can’t say much for the casting seen as I had already watched the movie trailer before reading the books. The characters automatically looked like the cast to me. Worst? That is difficult; I don’t hold much interest in Dan Browns work. They were kind of enjoyable, but could easily be ignored. I thought Angles and Demons movie was pretty bad.

Drew: I love Dan Browns work! I liked both films but the novels are infinitely better even if they are just pure nonsense. Angels & Demons is the better book and movie in my opinion.

Oh I agree with you on the book, it is the better book. I do not like the movie though.

• This wasn't a question I planned to ask, but you all more or less brought it up: Do you class a good adaptation as having the exact same plot and characters the book has then?

Joe: I think a good adaption is something that is loyal to the book. I doesn't have to copy the plot word for word, but just feel like the book

I don't get too caught up on the plot changes from book to movie, if it has the same sort of "vibe" as the books did then I’ll usually enjoy it. I even sometimes see it as an extra story, something new with the characters I love in it.

Drew: Well I love all three of the Jason Bourne films and they have little in common with the novels they take their names from other than a few characters and a few plot points. So to answer your question, no I don't class an adaptation as to whether or not it follows the book directly in terms of plot but it has to retain some elements of the book. No idea if what I'm saying makes sense but yeah that's just what I think.

Mike: I think there is an art to creating a film that is close to the original material so that audience enjoys it but you also have to put your own spin on it too to make it unique. In the book Forrest Gump, Jenny doesn't die as she and Forrest raise their child together. Forrest also takes on several jobs never mentioned in the film. His character changes some and I think the movie loses out a bit as a result but they keep most everything intact.

I feel like when some people say "loyal to the book" they actually mean loyal to the plot. A movie can be loyal to the book, and not be the same. If the characters are treated with respect and the story is something that could definitely happen in the book world then what's the worry? I’m not sure if that would still be classed as a “book adaptation” though, maybe more of a “character adaptation.” I’m not sure what i'm talking about!

• There has been a lot of hype around teen book adaptations in the recent years. Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games etc. What are your opinions on this? Is it a good thing? Are teens being pushed into putting money into endless merchandise and movies?

Drew: I think teens are being pushed into throwing away money into a product that really isn't all that great. I mean the Twilight films could probably have been done a lot better if the studio had hired directors who honestly cared about the books. These books aren't being adapted properly because the studios aren't hiring these directors because they really want to do great adaptations of these books, they're hiring them to just make something regardless of the actual quality.

JJ's masterpiece

I love seeing kids reading, and I think that is happening more and more these days. I mean when I used to read a book at lunch in school I’d get made fun of, but it seems a lot “cooler” these days. (Also when I say “these days” I feel like an 80 year old woman.) I do think some of the marketing is just shameless pandering to what hollywood thinks teens want. Like all the endless Team Edward vs. Team Jacob garb.

Mike: I think in the case of Harry Potter, it was a good thing. Many kids who normally wouldn't read got sucked into the wizard world and grew up with Harry. While the books were dense, they did a pretty good job of pulling out the important material and creating good films. We'll have to wait and see how the Hunger Games does, but I think it is a good thing. All the merchandise stuff I can't say I agree with but it's no different than what Disney was doing with all their animated features. Fans of the material are going to want to see the movies for the most part regardless of how good they are. Twilight seems especially guilty of this. I haven't read the books but the movies are just awful. I understand I'm not the target audience (28 year old male) but even my wife who enjoyed the books somewhat, can't stand the films either. She has been reading the Hunger Games though and is really excited for the movie so take that how you will I guess.

Joe: I think you said it best. The teens are being pushed into those movies whether they are good or not. The problem with most of those movies is that the studio doesn't care if the movies are good or not. All the studio sees is the money that can be made.

Mike: Joe I would say that it seems Studio Canal doesn't care how good the Twilight books are. I think Warner Bros. was heavily invested into the Harry Potter series and did their best to create films that fans and non-fans would enjoy (with the exception of The Prisoner of Azkaban, I felt they lost the thriller aspect of the novel). New Line Cinema also seemed invested with the Lord of the Rings trilogy to get it right but make money too.

OH I totally agree with you about The Prisoner of Azkaban movie, it was my favourite book and I was disappointed in the movie. It just didn't feel right!

• How about books into TV shows? Do you have any favourite shows that were once books?

Drew: I don't know if this counts because episodes of this are adaptations of one or two stories but Sherlock is probably my favorite is if it does. There have been many many adaptations of Sherlock Holmes (most of which I've seen) but none of them are quite as good as Sherlock primarily because it's produced by Steven Moffat and the casting is spot on. Making a Sherlock Holmes show set in current times is a difficult task but the people on that show have done it masterfully.

Mike: I honestly cannot think of any tv shows that were once books that I watch. Other than The Walking Dead (comic books, I know) I'm not sure of anything.

Joe: Can't really think about TV shows that were adapted from books that I watch. Lost though was inspired from many different books and added to the mystery of the show.

I can think of a LOT myself, from the top of my head: True Blood, The Secret Circle, Pretty Little Liars, Wire in the Blood, Vampire Diaries. Maybe this is why I get so behind on TV, I watch too many shows. I've been meaning to get into the latest Sherlock, I have to on DVD but just haven't found the inclination to watch it.

Mike: Wait, I just remembered. Dexter! The first season was based on the novel though some major changes were made with some characters. Both are interesting paths though it's probably good the tv show deviated from the books after that.

• Is there anything coming up (book/movie related) that you guys are looking forward too?

I am looking forward to the Hunger Games at the end of the month, and to mention comics I cannot wait for The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises later on in the year.

Joe: Dark Knight Rises is one I'm looking forward to also. The Hobit around Christmas seems so far away.

Mike: I am looking forward to The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises too. I would like to read then watch A Game of Thrones. Other than that, I don't think there's any books/movies I'm definitely pumped about.

Ooooo! I totally forgot about Game of Thrones! My DVD of the first season has just been dispatched too.

Drew: Yes I really am quite excited for John Carter next week. Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel is quite good and it has Andrew Stanton directing. A lot of people are writing off the film as a potential box office bomb but I have to say I disagree with everyone. I think it has the potential to make quite a bit of money. I've spent a great deal of time writing up its' wiki page and digging up info on it and from doing so, I've come to think the film will actually be quite good despite Disney's poor marketing. It may not make a ton of money but I don't think it will be as big of a bomb as everyone thinks it will be. Comics wise, I'm incredibly excited for The Avengers but I honestly am not excited for TDKR or The Amazing Spider-Man because I was looking forward to spider-man but the more and more footage I see from that film, the less interested in it I grow for some reason.

Wow I forgot about Spiderman and The Hobbit too! What is with me today? I wanted to go into The Hobbit without seeing anything about it, but there was a trailer in front of Ghost Rider. Gutted, but I had to keep my Nic Cage promise after all...

Joe: The Hobbit was stuck in my mind because I was thinking about Peter Jackson and his work on the LOTR stuff.

Drew: I totally forgot about The Hobbit as well. I think it'll turn out fine but whether or not it can the first three LOTR films, I don't know. That film is just coming out so late in the year it's real easy to forget about.

Joe: I can't wait for Assassin's Creed 3...oops wrong form of entertainment. =P

Well on that note I think we have talked long enough! Thanks for joining me today, it was fun. My first solo hosted Roundtable discussion is complete. I've been Christina, and will continue being Christina!

Mike: You did a great job Christina! I want to thank everyone as this was my first RT discussion and it was a lot of fun. I look forward to participating more down the road. This is Mike, signing out.

Drew: I'm Drew and this has been most enlightening. I hope to be back to the future again! (See what I did there?). So may the Force be with you.

Joe: This is Joe and this has been my favorite Roundtable discussion I've been a part of!

If you read down this far then I totally love you, go ahead and answer the questions yourself in the comments!

Good work!

Wow! That was genuinely great stuff guys - nice work!

Sherlock is a good shout, Drew. As you mentioned, the casting is quality - I think a good deal of the show's success is due to the well-judged casting and characterisation of Watson and Sherlock. I think another key aspect is the adherence to the source material, which is usually really strong. There's a reason Sherlock Holmes has become as popular as it has -- the stories themselves are (mostly) of a high standard. Their updating of the story never feels like modernisation for the sake of it, they always seem to find ways in which to take core concepts of the book and adapt them in order to benefit the story as a whole. In other words, they seem to have found a good balance between staying faithful to the novels and providing a unique and creative take on familiar plots and concepts. So yeah, I agree with Joe's definition of a good book adaptation - though his was infinitely more eloquent and precise than mine!

I'd really be interested in hearing more of your thoughts of Never Let Me Go, Christina. I, perhaps wrongly, watched the movie before reading the book, and I too kept on reading the characters as Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield & co. I definitely felt that the book and movie, while pretty similar in a lot of content, seemed to place difference ideas at the core of the story. The movie definitely felt more like a love story to me -- like the relationship between Kathy and Tommy was the primary focus, with all the surrounding pieces mostly serving to impact upon their time together (or apart). The book only seemed to accelerate their relationship towards the end (with a greater emphasis on the Kathy-Ruth friendship). I did really like the revelation scene at the end of the book though - I think they handled some of the ideas that were previously alluded to really well (trying not to spoil anything!)

Interesting thoughts there about the comparisons between Twilight and HP and LotR, Mike. You seem to be pretty familiar with those books, so do you think the quality of film is largely dependent on the target audience? For example, LotR and HP, although both gained a very specific cult following, have the potential to appeal to a wide audience, and therefore required a higher level of all-round quality to capitalise of the potentially large audience. As an extension of this, Twilight might therefore be seen as the opposite? Clearly, the books sold truckloads, but (perhaps this is a generalisation), they were predominantly teenage girls. Mark Kermode has regularly lamented the fact that there are really very few movies that are designed for young girls -- but that they are a viable audience. Do you think that's what we're seeing in Twilight? Like, the filmmakers don't necessarily devote as much time to the film's overall quality because they realise they only need to cater to one specific audience, and crucially, this audience doesn't regularly have movies made for them and are therefore more willing to accept products like Twilight? (if that makes any sense!)

Wow after a couple weeks into my film class and this discussion. I think almost all of my answers would change. I was so young back when this conversation took place. =P

@skidd said:

Interesting thoughts there about the comparisons between Twilight and HP and LotR, Mike. You seem to be pretty familiar with those books, so do you think the quality of film is largely dependent on the target audience? For example, LotR and HP, although both gained a very specific cult following, have the potential to appeal to a wide audience, and therefore required a higher level of all-round quality to capitalise of the potentially large audience. As an extension of this, Twilight might therefore be seen as the opposite? Clearly, the books sold truckloads, but (perhaps this is a generalisation), they were predominantly teenage girls. Mark Kermode has regularly lamented the fact that there are really very few movies that are designed for young girls -- but that they are a viable audience. Do you think that's what we're seeing in Twilight? Like, the filmmakers don't necessarily devote as much time to the film's overall quality because they realise they only need to cater to one specific audience, and crucially, this audience doesn't regularly have movies made for them and are therefore more willing to accept products like Twilight? (if that makes any sense!)

Looking back on this now. I would say with LOTR those books have been around for so long that there was no target age range. What was it like 60 plus years ago those books came out. HP on the other hand was targeted for kids. But most likely a lot of parents read those first books to their kids and in a sense became fans themselves. Also because there were years between the first book release and the first movie release that many more kids, were able to jump into that world before the movie release. Twilight is the different one. That target audience I think was set at teenage girls. Yeah others read it as well, but mostly when someone thinks of Twilight fans, the stereotype is a screaming teenage girl with a Team Jacob/Edward shirt on.

@dvdhaus: Thanks for the reply! As somone who's seen the film (and read the books?), do you think the target audience (or stereotype) made a significant impact on the film's quality and/or faithfulness to the book?

Can we all laugh now at @CrimsonAvenger for his misplaced optimism on John Carter's box office? HAHA

Excellent work on the Wiki page, though :D

I'm actually excited to see Hunger Games this weekend after hearing it's not actually a Twilight knock-off, and stands on itself as a good movie if you haven't read the books. Plus, Battle Royale Blu Ray just came out, great cross-promotion there.

@skidd: As far as the Harry Potter movies yes. At least the first two movies. Once they changed directors for the third movie and the books storyline started getting darker, those movies also started getting darker as well. The first two movies because the kids were so young, and kid actors in their first roles you can't expect them to be brilliant. However those movies did do a good job introducing that world.

@AssInAss said:

Can we all laugh now at @CrimsonAvenger for his misplaced optimism on John Carter's box office? HAHA

Excellent work on the Wiki page, though :D

I'm actually excited to see Hunger Games this weekend after hearing it's not actually a Twilight knock-off, and stands on itself as a good movie if you haven't read the books. Plus, Battle Royale Blu Ray just came out, great cross-promotion there.

All right you and everyone else can laugh at my misguided optimism. I held out hope that the film would perform somewhat good but I was wrong and am still baffled as to how Disney spent on $100 Million on marketing that film.

This is very nice! I'm proud of you, Christina. :)

As for me, I'm normally neutral about book adaptations, unless I'm familiar with that franchise, like both The Hunger Games and Battle Royale for example. I'm anticipating on seeing THG later after it's released and luckily for me, the whole BR movie collection is now released on DVD here in the US (plus, I've already read the manga version of BR. I recommend it if you have a strong stomach).

The best book adaptation I've ever seen would probably have to be Naked Lunch. I think Cronenberg did an amazing job of being both loyal and disloyal to the book. The movie has its own characters and plot, but it is referential and reverential to its source material. It doesn't diminish the necessity of the book, but rather plays with its themes and ideas in film form.

I think the problem with most adaptations is that you rarely get "more" and you only sometimes get "different". I think it's kind of lazy and exploitative to just turn a book into a movie, word for frame. I'm not saying I hate adaptations, but why should I read a book if I've seen the movie? (Especially when the book/movie is broad and surface-level in its commercialism) What miraculous insight can I gain by reading the LOTR books after seeing the movies? My perception is that all I'll get are ultimately irrelevent "deleted scenes". For example, Mike mentioned that Forrest Gump takes on jobs in the book that aren't in the movie, but their omission (or inclusion) doesn't add or remove anything that was integral to the story.

The Naked Lunch book and movie can coexist and play off each other, rather than eliminate the need for each other. Apocalypse Now is another great example: It adapts a lot of the ideas of Heart of Darkness really well and it stands out as a great film because it IS a film first and foremost, and an adaptation second.

Also, I watched Kitano's Outrage recently and it reminded me of Titus Andronicus. I don't know if Kitano was attempting at all the reference Shakespeare, but I think that movie is more interesting for its take on deceit than it would be if it was a direct adaptation.

I hope I didn't come off as entirely cynical. I'm really psyched to see The Hobbit when it's out. The thing I'm wrestling with is that a lot of adaptations just come across as unnecessary. They seem like thoughtless productions, even when they're good movies. Originality is inherently more interesting than strict adaptation. I would like it if more studios were willing to make films that adapt themes and ideas rather than characters and plot.

Just as a sidenote, what do you guys think about how entire book series tend to be what is adapted? The Harry Potter movies seem cool, but they intimidate me because there are so many. I feel like if you're not in at the start, it's too late.

I enjoy reading these round tables, haven't seen one in a while! :D

@skidd said:

Interesting thoughts there about the comparisons between Twilight and HP and LotR, Mike. You seem to be pretty familiar with those books, so do you think the quality of film is largely dependent on the target audience? For example, LotR and HP, although both gained a very specific cult following, have the potential to appeal to a wide audience, and therefore required a higher level of all-round quality to capitalise of the potentially large audience. As an extension of this, Twilight might therefore be seen as the opposite? Clearly, the books sold truckloads, but (perhaps this is a generalisation), they were predominantly teenage girls. Mark Kermode has regularly lamented the fact that there are really very few movies that are designed for young girls -- but that they are a viable audience. Do you think that's what we're seeing in Twilight? Like, the filmmakers don't necessarily devote as much time to the film's overall quality because they realise they only need to cater to one specific audience, and crucially, this audience doesn't regularly have movies made for them and are therefore more willing to accept products like Twilight? (if that makes any sense!)

Thanks for that! I actually haven't read the Twilight books, I've only heard second hand from my wife about them. I haven't read HP or LotR in several years either but I think @dvdhaus hit it on the money with comments on both series. I would say the LotR books were still most likely read by "geek" culture. I think people like big, sweeping epic stories and despite the fantasy aspect, I think there were elements to appeal to a wide audience. You've got a good story, characters, drama, action, romance, and good looking people (I think every girl, my wife included, was in love with Legolas even though he got all Tony Hawk in The Two Towers). The HP series definitely was geared towards kids but the end of the series had much darker tones to it to appeal to older audiences. I think HP is like LotR and Star Wars to an extent in that the fantasy aspect helps take people to a world we don't know and that magical part resonates with many people. As far as the Twilight series goes, I think Stephanie Meyer was writing for pre-teen and teenage girls. I completely agree with you in that teen girls are a market many movies don't touch but the fan base is there. Give them two hot guys with their shirts of a lot and you'll attract a large flock of girls and also help sell merchandise, etc. I think they know their boyfriends or husbands will drag them to the theater as well, which helps increase ticket sales. Again, I can't speak for the novel-to-film translation for this series, but I do think the studio knows they will get people to flock, no matter how shitty the story and dialogue are. This is one of the things that scares me with the Dark Tower series potentially getting made. This series is very dark and violent. There is no way to make this a PG-13 film and keep it's integrity. I think they would be better off doing a Game of Thrones style TV series on HBO or Showtime (I could even see FX to an extent) and having each book be it's own series (maybe The Gunslinger could be a three hour mini-series on its own). The problem with The Dark Tower though is it's like LotR but set in a western/fantasy land. It has so much potential but I don't think there would be an audience without changing a lot of what makes the books great.

Sorry if I went overboard with the responses. Let me know if I've answered your questions.

@rem25: Absolutely, you've covered that really well. Thanks for the response!

@skidd: Great, I'm glad you liked it! :)

@FinalDasa: Cheers =)

@skidd: I agree with you on the love theme of the film, they definitely put more emphasis on the Kathy and Tommy relationship instead of the Kathy and Ruth friendship. But I think that's to be expected these days, they always seem to believe that romance will make a movie more interesting than friendship. I guess they were trying for a sort of love triangle thing, whereas in the books I felt like Kathy valued having Ruth as her friend more than Tommy as her boyfriend. The bit with Tommy and Madame at the end had me crying like a girl in the books and the movie, god it was so sad!

@dvdhaus: Tough luck, can't change it now!

@AssInAss: LOL, I did feel sorry for him when I put up that picture. Oh well! I'll be seeing The Hunger Games tomorrow, but I'm hearing good things so far!

@Bigheart711: Thanks =)

@Nicked: I see what you mean about book/movie series being intimidating, especially something like Harry Potter with it having like 7 books and 8 movies. It's the same with TV shows aswell. You watch a show, find out it's based on a book and wonder if you should go back and read it. Then the books will spoil the TV show and you gotta decide what you'll enjoy more: reading the books when it's over knowing what happens or watching the show knowing what happens after reading the books. If that even makes any sense.. LOL.

@President_Barackbar: I thought that movie poster on the I, The Jury page said " Lithe Jury" That would have been a whole other movie...

@Christina: Fair points - the love story is probably easier to sell than friendship. I suppose I had my expectations skewed significantly due to seeing the movie first. Also, maybe I read it wrong, but I thought Kathy in the book was way meaner than Carey Mulligan's version!

@skidd: It's been a while since I've read or watched it, what do you mean by meaner?

@Christina: It's also been a while since I've read the book so I may be misremembering. Perhaps it was just the product of having Kathy narrate the book, but there seemed to be more instances of subtle digs or judgements of other characters. In the movie, she seemed more passive and innocent - but maybe that's simply because they didn't have that constant stream of narration.

I find it odd that you didn't like Prisoner of Azkaban much, I always thought it was the most well-received movie before the last one was released.

@Black_Rose: It was my favourite book and I feel like it lost something in transition to the movie. Can't really explain it to be honest, it might be that they left out the whole map explanation. I do like it a lot more these days.