There is a sort of theory that you should adapt bad books because they always make more successful films.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't hold with the notion that only bad books make good movies.
I think my background in film taught me that a great book adaptation is not always slavishly faithful to the source material.
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.
There's no point in making a film out of a great book. The book's already great. What's the point?
Some writers get snooty about what happens when their books are adapted to film, but I don't feel that way.
If you take a really good book, then the potential is for a really good film. But you've got to get it right.
By the usual reckoning, the worst books make the best films.
Oftentimes when you see adaptations of books you like, you're let down. As an author, you assume that they are going to suck. A little bit of hope is dangerous.
By the nature of cinema and how it literalizes what we envision, movies can have difficulty replicating that connection we make with a classic book.
Realistically, the chance of any book becoming a film is slim.
No opposing quotes found.