Angourie Rice Quotes

When a movie is being made out of a book, there is a mixed reaction on the part of fans because they are both extremely excited and they are also terrified. 'They are going to take my story, and they are going to mess it up; they are going to ruin it; they're going to do this; they're going to do that.'

A movie is not a book. If the source material is a book, you cannot be too respectful of the book. All you owe to the book is the spirit.

I'd like to think that my films are personal enough to exist without hearkening back to their respective novels.

Particularly when you're making a movie of a book, people are always waiting with their knives - you know?

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 think my background in film taught me that a great book adaptation is not always slavishly faithful to the source material.

I think comics can be the basis for great films, but I think the focus of such a project should be on making the film as good as possible, not on painstakingly replicating the comic.

I'm always worried about how fans of the books will react, but we have kept true to a lot of the books. Obviously there are changes, but with the books as a basis, hopefully the fans will like what we have done.

Most films are rooted in a book or a comic strip, but I don't go out there saying I want to do adaptations.

The best adaptations are the ones that really excavate the material. The movies that work are the ones in which somebody very smart figured out how to take all the thematic material, all the character material, all the filigree, all the beautiful writing and put it into a story.

Movies can't ruin books. They can only ruin movies.

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.

Unfortunately, the author of a book pretty much gives up control of the story when the producers take over a book to make it into a movie.

Authors of books are not given very much control over the films that are made from their books.

I'm always frustrated when somebody makes a movie out of a book and they leave the book behind, or the heart of it.

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.

All I can say is that I am not one of those writers who want 100% of their book in the film. I recognize that film is a different medium and the filmmaker must have the right to bring some new elements to the table, provided the soul of the book is preserved.

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.

People think, 'Oh, well how can 'The Hobbit,' which is one book, become three films?' But you can take one line from an appendice and it turns into a whole sequence.

I think it's counterproductive for actors to come to the set with well-thumbed copies of the book their film is adapted from.

It is customary for the writer to sneer that Hollywood has traduced their book. Well, I adore my film.

I always felt once it goes into movie land, the book belongs to someone else.

Polar' is based on the first and a little bit on the second book and all the characters from those novels are in there. The story is based on the graphic novel, but when it came to the execution of the film I felt I couldn't really make a movie without any dialogue.

Adapting a book doesn't mean the book stops just because you've made a film out of it.

Each time when my films get released, people always compare it with my debut film 'Parutthiveeran' and comment that nothing comes near that flick.