Books-To-Movies: How I See Them (A Candidate For Worst Title Ever)

(I guess this is kinda an addendum to my Scott Pilgrim review. An additional bullet point, if you will. And you will. So, yeah.)

Being someone who read the complete series of graphic novels before seeing the movie, I had to wonder whether I would be able to follow along as easily had I not.

With a lot of adaptations (book, TV show, movie, etc.), I always find it helpful to have some kind of background knowledge at least to have a good understanding of what's going on. For example, the Harry Potter movies: even when they were first coming out, I knew that it would be best to read the book first to have a complete understanding. However, these movies are top-notch adaptations in that they cover the majority of the books (this is true for the earlier ones, at least). The first movie sets up the HP universe well-enough that someone who, for some weird reason or another, hasn't read the books could still completely understand what's going on.

However, having read the books first allowed me to have free reign to whine about the little things missing. I like having my permission to whine, thanks very much. This is what happens with a lot of movies based on books that I've read. Atonement is widely considered a good movie, but I read the book first. That book is mad dope, y'all. (What does that even mean?!) It was one of the best books I read last year. But the movie just couldn't compare. Instead of enjoying Saoirse Ronan's acting/existence (don't ask) like I should have been, I found myself glaring and saying, "NOPE, BOOK WAS BETTER!" or "THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK" or whatever. And it was a generally faithful adaptation, too. But oftentimes having read the book first will affect your perception of the movie -- usually negatively.

The thing is, I don't like watching the movie first, especially if it's faithful to the book.. I don't like reading books where I already know everything that happens. I couldn't read Fight Club for this reason, even though I probably would have liked it. It just bored me out of my mind because I already know that Tyler Durden is part of the narrator. (Sorry if that's a spoiler for you. I just read a Shadow of the Colossus spoiler so I understand how upsetting they can be. T_T)

However, with something like Scott Pilgrim, or like Harry Potter, watching the movie is seeing your favorite characters come to life. And I guess everything I just wrote about is really irrelevant, because SP and HP are totally different. The Harry Potter movies, like I said, have really good exposition. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? Eh.

I think with something as insane as SP, it would be hard to understand what's really going on. The story is very streamlined, and it's not too confusing. It's random and nonsensical, but for someone who hasn't read the comic but likes video games it won't be too implausible. Weird, but possible. The thing I worry about for the non-reader who watches this movie is they're going to have a warped perception of the comic books if they ever to choose to read them later. While having read the books first influenced my opinion of the movie (which you can find here), someone who doesn't know that Kim Pine is more than a misanthropic, cynical jerk with a gigantic stick up her butt might will get the impression that that's who she is. It's not the case. It upsets me. Very, very much. It makes me so sad, so very, very sad. Although apparently some moviegoers enjoyed her depiction. I guess it's their perceptions not matching mine that upsets me.

Also, not having read the comics first, I would be confused about why Envy was so important, I might think Ramona is boring, and maybe even sort of NICE, which is not the case at all, and I might think that Young Neil is more important and socially awkward than is really the case.

In short, not knowing the comics will make you not know the real story. Will the story that appears confuse you? Well, the reviews by people who didn't even know about the comic don't seem to talk about being so confused (although there are people saying "WHY DO THEY TURN INTO COINS WUTWUT"), it's more like they're saying they can't relate. That is something that's lost in the movie, too. As I said before in the review that I will pimp as many times as possible, no one receives real characterization besides Scott. Knives grows up a little bit, too, but aside from that it's all about Scott. It makes sense, since this is Scott's side of the story. But reading the comics, you come to love everyone. In this movie, unless you're one of those weirdos who finds Movie Kim likable, you won't want to root for anyone. That's the biggest loss.

That, and you're missing out on a really good series of graphic novels.

Sorry this was so rambly and nonsensical. What I really just want to know is, for people who did not read the comic books first, what did you think of the movie? Does it make you want to read the comic books now? Did you understand everything without trouble?