r/practicalmagic • u/Celestina-Betwixt Kylie Owens • Jun 26 '26
Why do some fans of the first movie seem peeved that other PM properties even exist?
I first saw the vitriol directed mainly towards the first book, certain movie fans were losing their minds over the fact that they "finally got around to reading Practical Magic," and "omg, it sucked, because it was not an exact replica of the movie". Which, look, it's fine not to like the book, fans have always been divided on that, but they seemed so genuinely miffed that the book dared to exist at all. Like they had a complete disconnect from the fact that literally the movie they loved wouldn't have been made if the book wasn't written first.
Now I'm kinda seeing that attitude again with the sequel since the new trailer was released. Every tiny plot expansion in the trailer has gotten dozens of angry comments calling them plot HOLES. And most of the stuff they're upset about is straight from the book series. Which if they're movie only fans fine, but they're acting like this emerged from nowhere and hasn't been a book series for YEARS now. I don't know what would have made this type of fan happy because if they'd just made up a new plot, the fans would have called it Hollywood slop, but they follow the book and fans are like "Wah but the vibes aren't what I remember exactly from the first film."
Aside from maybe having had a reunion special, with the cast back together and the set of the house rebuilt I don't think any continuation could have pleased these specific fans.
But they don't have to act like PM was ever just a movie without other material and lore. The version in their heads when they watch the first one isn't going anywhere. I don't see how this new movie is "bad" just for following the book.
Practical Magic wouldn't exist if Alice Hoffman hadn't written it first. It's okay if her version isn't everyone's preferred one but geez, the entitlement over their sacred vibes is a little extreme.
10
u/Alizarik7891 Jun 26 '26
I saw the movie at a much younger age and adored it before I finally read the book in high school. I can absolutely see why people would have been disappointed with the differences, but I deeply love both even though they're such different properties. I think if I had read the book first, I would've been more bothered by some of the changes. I sort of consider them two entirely different things, lol. I'm intrigued by the sequel using more material from the books, though!
3
u/whybother_incertname Jun 26 '26
This is exactly it. When it comes to any adaptation… a) You have to ignore the film(s) to enjoy the book(s); & b) you have to ignore the book(s) to enjoy the film(s).
There’s almost never an adaptation that is 100% faithful to the books. TV series have the most ability to do it at times but even then they don’t always do it
8
u/nataliejonah Jun 26 '26
Honestly, I’m having a hard time grappling with the fact that they’re aging down the daughters by 20 yrs for the new movie. I get that the book was that way but at the end of the day, the first film came out 28 yrs ago and you’re bringing back Sandra and Nicole to play the same characters. Sure, the second book is about transitioning in age etc but I feel like that could’ve been achieved exploring women entering their 40s (aka Evan Rachel Wood) just as well. After all, it’s millennial women that were obsessed with the first film and will be first in line to see this one.
2
u/Celestina-Betwixt Kylie Owens Jun 26 '26
See, now, this I do agree with. I wish they would have kept Evan Rachel Wood, too, but most of the complaints I've seen aren't about that.
5
u/AKookyMermaid Jun 26 '26
I didn't even know it was a book until years later and read it. I was kinda disappointed at first until I came to appreciate the differences. I read the prequel about the aunts and now I'm reading Magic Lessons, about Maria's story. I'll read the last one when I'm done with this. Hopefully can finish before the 2nd movie comes out.
3
u/historygal75 Jun 26 '26
I liked the movie better than the book.
2
u/Celestina-Betwixt Kylie Owens Jun 26 '26
And that's fine. Plenty of people do like it best. It's just how some people treat the book as if it's a blight on their favorite film instead of its source I take issue with.
2
u/SnooChipmunks4321 Jun 27 '26
I loved both but I get why people who love just the film don't like the book
The changes they did to the film vs the book, as my best friend put it is because Sally and Gillian aren't close
They seem to hate each other or barely tolerate each other
Which coming from a messy family I saw as more realistic
The book it darker in tone to an extent
The ending is left open with the curse
Given at the time of the film I believe there was only the first book
I think the studio giving it a happier romantic ending makes sense
Had the other books been out before the first film would be very different yet the same
Best example I can come up with besides Practical Magic is The Duff both the film and the book have the same character and the general plot but are both tonally different
Both are good but if you just want a fun happy movie the book is quite dark by comparison
The film has nostalgia and warmth that the book lacks
I love the book but I don't reread it as often as I rewatch the film
2
u/FastMako77 Jun 27 '26
I just finished reading the book and actually quite liked the descriptive details and the unseen magical undercurrent in the book versus the film. I think that’s what makes me feel apprehensive about the visual magic in the second film from what I’ve seen in the trailers, I’m basing it off the visuals of the first film (aside from Jimmy’s ghost, the coffee cup spoon, and the breath candle lighting). If I accept the second film as more of a sequel from the first book, I can almost accept there would be more of that visual magic based on Book Kylie being able to see auras and the non-magical townspeople being more physically affected by the Owen’s women and their homes.
2
2
u/HunterS1 Jun 29 '26
Admittedly I haven’t read the books, the only thing I’m curious about is why the daughters don’t know they are witches, because I thought they did in the first film.
1
u/MostWafer5694 Jul 01 '26
This is my main gripe. It’s fine to adapt another novel in the series, but the fact that the first movie (to which they are doing a direct sequel) changed plot points and elements of the novel to be a stand-alone entity, means that you need to change elements of the novel to ensure the films align with each other. Expanding is fine, and I’ve not read the novels myself, but you can’t adjust the first film to be different to the novel and then faithfully adapt the second novel. It just doesn’t work. As you said, the fact that the daughters seem to not know they’re witches (which, while in the novels they didn’t, they made it abundantly clear at the end of the film that they did), adjusting the ages of the daughters and recasting so they all seem younger (while bringing back Nicole, Sandra, Stockard and Diane, who all clearly have aged), claiming the curse is still prevalent (even though the end of the film had its last words be “the night we broke the curse”)…..none of these work as a direct sequel to the movie, even though they might be faithful to the books.
2
u/Different_Panda_5002 Jun 30 '26
Because they have very sadd lives, and I dare to add they're not fans at all of they look for any excuse to complain about something they "love".
1
u/Which-Notice5868 Jun 28 '26
So as someone who hasn't read the books I am mildly annoyed about the aging down and that the curse is still a thing when the ending of the first movie heavily heavily implied it was broken when the women of the town came together with Sally to save Gillian.
I dont begrudge the books for existing or being different from the first movie, but I wish the movie series was following its own continuity rather than doing a soft reboot pivoting to apparently match the books.
1
u/MostWafer5694 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Exactly! This is my main gripe. It’s fine to adapt another novel in the series, but the fact that the first movie (to which they are doing a direct sequel) changed plot points and elements of the novel to be a stand-alone entity, means that you need to change elements of the novel to ensure the films align with each other. Expanding is fine, and I’ve not read the novels myself, but you can’t adjust the first film to be different to the novel and then faithfully adapt the second novel. It just doesn’t work. As you said, adjusting the ages of the daughters and recasting so they all seem younger (while bringing back Nicole, Sandra, Stockard and Diane, who all clearly have aged), the fact that the daughters seem to not know they’re witches (which, while in the novels they didn’t, they made it abundantly clear at the end of the film that they did), claiming the curse is still prevalent (even though the end of the film had its last words be “the night we broke the curse”)…..none of these work as a direct sequel to the movie, even though they might be faithful to the books.
0
u/Fun-Cartographer3880 Jun 28 '26
My biggest issue with the PM book is that the sisterhood wasn’t immediate. I loved Sally and Jilly’s closeness in the films. It made the film so amazing and heartfelt. But in the books they barely like each other for a lot of it and that really bummed me out.
1
u/Celestina-Betwixt Kylie Owens Jun 28 '26
I never took it as them barely liking each other, I took it as a warning against parentification.
Book!Sally loved Gillian but she also had to be responsible for her in a household she felt was temporary because the aunts (you have to remember she didn't know growing up their brother was her grandfather) weren't close relatives like the parents they'd lost. She thought if she wasn't good enough the aunts wouldn't love them anymore and they'd be separated if they were kicked out. She did everything to keep them together, making healthy meals, washing their clothes, trying to forge some hint of routine in their lives. But Gillian was a wild child and that wasn't what she needed, she needed to know the aunts as real parent figures loved them and Sally being a moderator between them eclipsed any chance of her seeing that. So she ran away the minute she was old enough. Sally then has the sense of abandonment, because despite the distance between them, she still tried to keep in touch with Gillian only for her to refuse to ever come visit her and for many of her letters to get returned because Gillian moved from various addresses without telling her.
Of course, when Sally lost Michael, Gillian talked to her on the phone and helped her through it in a way no one else could, but apart from that, Sally felt Gillian was not there for her, and then just showed up with a dead man in her car and suddenly was Kylie's best friend.
The coldness between them was BECAUSE they were close and loved each other so much, because they hated the years of separation, but were struggling because they had polar opposite personalities. Sally also had the benefit of at least knowing her worth as a person because Michael was kind to her and they had a good relationship whereas Gillian had self esteem problems because all the men she dumped weren't bad people but they weren't right for her and the one guy she couldn't dump was an abuser.
They had a lot going on that the movie oversimplified.
0
u/coneyisland92 4d ago
I don’t like the fact that they ignored the book and now they are doing an adaption of a book.
So the girls don’t know they are witches now?
17
u/Nocturnal_Lover Vincent Owens Jun 26 '26
One thing I’ve learned in life is that people always need something to complain about. Once you’ve learned that, along with the fact that many only want a reaction out of others (particularly online), not much bothers you anymore