MovieChat Forums > Blood and Chocolate (2007) Discussion > Why did they bother buying the rights to...

Why did they bother buying the rights to the book?

posted 16 years ago by catcmack
9 replies | jump to latest

I really don't get it. People always complain when books are adapted to film that the movie isn't good enough and they changed stuff. But this movie literally changed almost everything. Character names and one of the characters drawing, that's about all thats the same. The story is completely different. So my questions is, why did they even bother buying the book rights. If they changed character names and the movie title no one would have ever known it was supposed to have anything to do with the book, so why waste the money?

“Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.”
- Pablo Picasso

[–] gerbilsrcute 16 years ago

If they did that then people would be on here complaining that they ripped off the novel. Granted, yes a lot was changed but there is still enough similarities to the original story. Also, Blood and Chocolate is not the first nor will it be the last to have a movie adaptation change so much of the story. Dean Koontz's novel Watchers is a prime example and they made SEVERAL movies based on that one. I actually liked the movie version of Blood & Chocololate better than the novel.

O~O
(\"/)
(\"o"/)
m`-'m'`---. hjw

[–] catcmack 16 years ago

But that's my point. How would they be saying they ripped off the novel. There weren't any similarities to the book. It was completely different. The setting, the plot, the way the characters behaved, the character development (or lack thereof in the case of the movie), who the good guys were, who the bad guys were, who died and who didn't. It's not recognizable at all except or the title and character names.

Ella Enchanted was a movie that changes A LOT from the book but was still recognizable. B&C is not.

“Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.”
- Pablo Picasso

[–] gerbilsrcute 16 years ago

There are still some similarities. The fact that the main female werewolf character falls in love/is attracted to a human. Believe me from what I've read on other boards, that alone would have people screaming rip off if kept the movie as is while changing names and titles. Then, while somewhat different in approach you DO have a werewolf that kills people. Not to mention if I recall correctly the way that Rafe gets Aiden out to meet via a letter from Vivian is similar to a part in the book. Then there is the artist factor though granted as another said Vivian was the artist in the book and not Aiden. Off the top of my head that's all I can recall but as stated earlier that would have been enough to have some people screaming ripoff.

O~O
(\"/)
(\"o"/)
m`-'m'`---. hjw

[–] Mrs_Edward_Jr_Cullen 16 years ago

if i remember right, vivian was the artist in the book. aiden was a poet.

(if anyone remembers them meeting in the book only because aidens poem was in a magazine with one of her peices of art and she was curious of how he "knew so much of changing into a werewolf")

[–] lorena-brinch 16 years ago

Actually, in the book, Vivian and Aiden went to high school together and Vivian's drawing of a werewolf won her publication in the school's newspaper. Next to her drawing was the publication of a poem about the beautiful changing of a human into a werewolf written by Aiden. She sought out Aiden to meet him face-to-face because she was intrigued at his knowledge and seeming understanding of "loup-garoux."

One of the things that disappointed me about the movie is that Vivian's mother, Esme, played a key role in the book and she was killed off in the first scene of the movie. Also, Astrid was Esme's nemesis, certainly NOT her sister as suggested by the movie. Rafe was not the love-child of Astrid and Gabriel in the book and in my opinion, the notion of said is ridiculous. Rafe was simply one of "The Five" and not Vivian's cousin. Trying to tie all of the movie characters neatly altogether as a family rendered the movie contrived.

Another disappointment was that Aiden was a seemingly whimpy, poetic shy boy in the book, while in the movie, he played somewhat of a superhero, making his character absolutely unbelieveable. Absent in the movie were Aiden's group of friends, who called themselves "The Amoeba." I was hoping to see them and was left disappointed that the movie creators deemed them unworthy of screen time.

I agree that the movie ventured too far away from the book. It was as if the movie creators felt that the book couldn't stand on its own as written and made up a whole new story that they believed would keep a movie audience interested. Sadly, they couldn't have been more wrong.

[–] nicole_croft2001 16 years ago

I have to agree with you...and I haven't even seen the movie!!!
I just finished the book this morning, and wanted to see who played who in the movie before I rented it, and when I saw the plot summary about them being in Romania, and Aiden being an artist...I almost choked! This doesn't even sound close to the book! Where's Esme? And Astrid is Vivian's aunt? And what the hell are they doing in Romania?!?!?!

I don't think people would have called it a rip-off...if anything they may have said they were ripping off the Underworld franchise...the only thing you're changing is the werewolf falls in love with a human instead of a vampire. At least that way they could have left this awesome book alone!

[–] gerbilsrcute 16 years ago

I still think people would complain rip off if it was titled differently. As I stated above there are still some similarities to the book. Don't get me wrong I do understand the feelings of all the fans of the book that the movie wasn't exactly the same (nor will it be the first or last time it'll happen) BUT in all honestly I must say I enjoyed the movie sooo much more so than the book. I've seen the movie many times over, but have only read the novel once, and I picked it up based on all the rave reviews it has seen here. I rate the movie as a favorite werewolf movie but the novel would be way down on my list of werewolf novels. I've even read similar ones that I enjoy far more so than this. I don't have the time at the moment but if anyone likes I can list several of the books that I did enjoy if anyone is intersted.

O~O
(\"/)
(\"o"/)
m`-'m'`---. hjw

[–] doldrums452 16 years ago

I enjoyed the book more, but that's because I loved the descriptions of the wolves and the beauty inherent in the transformation and the joy of the hunt. That's what is missing from the movie, that connection that Vivian had with herself as being a werewolf. In the book she loved it and in the end had accepted what she was, in the movie it somehow becomes all about a boy.

Yeah, you saw that. That's how we roll in the shire!

[–] jeannedeorleans 15 years ago

I do understand the feelings of all the fans of the book that the movie wasn't exactly the same

-----------------------------------------

It isn't exactly the same. It has NOTHING the same. If it at least follows the main plot of the book (the Aiden is chocolate and Gabriel is blood thing) I would appreciate it.