It seems like most films of today are being based on books. Recently we have had movies like “Cloud Atlas,” “Warm Bodies,” “Safe Haven” and the recent trends of fairy tales and comic books.

It is almost guaranteed that a movie adaption will soon be in the works when a best seller tops the lists.

It’s just the way Hollywood works today.

When approaching a popular book, especially young adult novels, you have the most important parts of the movie already figured out for you.

But sometimes book-to-movie adaptions spark up a lot of drama.

Fans start fighting over who should have played their favorite characters and how wrong every minor detail was.

It seems like whenever a book is involved, people suddenly forget how to enjoy a movie.

Almost everyone who knows what a vampire is probably knows of Anne Rice’s work.

Her “Vampire Chronicles” have had quite a following over the past couple of decades.

Yet only two of the books have been made into movies.

Rice expressed dismay when Tom Cruise was cast as main character Lestat de Lioncourt in “Interview with a Vampire” back in 1994. She took back her negativity when she later saw the film. Fans loved it.

But when “Queen of the Damned” was released in 2002, many fans were upset by how much the movie deviated from the book.

Even Rice doesn’t like it to this day.

Recently on Facebook, Rice asked her fans about their opinions on the book. She then insisted that she would not read anything posted about the movie because “the pain factor is too great.”

I’m not trying to call her out for it. I am a huge fan of Rice and her books.

I liked “Queen of the Damned” as a stand-alone movie, but compared to the book it was wrong.

Though books can be tragically ripped to shreds in their movie counterpart, some do manage to make it through with the author’s message still clear.

“I, Robot” of 2004 was a series of short stories written by Isaac Asimov in 1950.

The movie simply tells the story of Calvin, Spooner and Sonny. But the book is very different. Spooner is actually a mix of several different characters created for the film adaption.

Asimov’s message and underlying story are still present in the movie although it is vastly different from the book.

Sometimes movie adaptations get people reading for the wrong reasons.

The book snobs come out to play.

They just read the book so they can say, “Oh you only watched the movie? Well I read the book first.”

And sometimes they aren’t even a real book snob. They just want to look like one.

I do think book to movie adaptions are wonderful. They are exciting, fun and not exactly new.

There have been movies based on books ever since the age of silent films.

“Nosferatu” of 1922 was based on Bram Stoker’s “Dracula,” but copyright issues caused names and details to be changed.

It mostly depends on a person’s willingness to just accept and enjoy it without feeling any superiority to other moviegoers who haven’t read the books.

Though it wouldn’t hurt for Hollywood to tune down the mutilation.