Printable View
This topic is about books that have been made into films.
Do you watch films that have been made from books you've read - and if so, what? Also, which was better, the film or the book?
Heres a couple from me:
Catch Me If You Can: Good film but book was better.
Misery: Book Definately, goes into a lot more detail.
The Beach: Again, I have to go with the book
Theres more, but i'll post them later. What do you think?
hmmm, I don't like watching a film if I already read the book it was based on, or vice versa. I want to picture the fictive world myself....
Still, I liked both the film and the book of 'The Shining'....but that's about it for me.
Every film I've ever seen or heard of based on a book, has paled in comparison to the book, or just been an outright insult. However, that pertains to films made ABOUT a book, I think, as opposed to films loosely based or inspired by the book, which can't really be compared that way.
I agree with Skweeky about picturing the fictional world and all of the imagery and characters and expression myself - it is far more personal and real that way, and certainly not limited by someone elses imagination or special effects budget.
I also think it depends on the type of book/film. I think that a film based on a Grisham book or something can convey the story fairly well, but a book based on fantasy or something deeply conceptual is much harder to pull off.
Despite all of these arguments, I have been impressed by a number of films recently, including LOTR , and some of the comic based movies have at least been decent. I just watched Breakfast Of Champions :blink:. And look at something like Trainspotting - AWESOME book that resulted in hip cheap thrill movie and RUINED the book forever for me....
That's a tough one. I love the Harry Potter series but I also love the movies eventhough many scenes are removed for time constraints.
Have to agree with Darth Sushi : some films add something to the experience
like beautiful settings or nice visual effects.
On the other hand books offer you the freedom of your own imagination and I'd
sure like to see kids read more books instead of hanging out in front of the tv.
Also a lot of movies do differ in content from the book they were based on.
A good example imo is Stephen Kings 'The Shining' and Curleys example
of 'Misery' (both bookvss. are better) ;)
I prefer films :)
Me loved the Lord of the Rings books, but I equally love the movies (well, they have Orlando "Mr Cheekbones" Bloom.../me drools).
the Harry potter books were GREAT! me loves them loads and I guess the movies were ok...the boy who plays Harry just needs some more acting lessons...
:P
I'm almost always disapointed by such movies... No, wait a minute: always! But if they're about books I really love, I'll go see them anyway! Even if they feature some bloke surfin' in Helm's Deep and dwarf-tossing stuff... ;)
"nobody tosses a dwarf!"
:lol:
Now Alice In Wonderland, thats a differant matter :D
I prefer the film, always have & always will!
When i read books that are then made into movies the movie usually is a disappointment.
ok, no knockin' the dwarve tossin' till you try it, ok?
Duly noted!Quote:
Originally posted by Tikibonbon@25 May 2003 - 15:47
ok, no knockin' the dwarve tossin' till you try it, ok?
:lol:
i always thought the movies of books sucked and hence nearly always stayed away from them...but i saw the harry potter films and think they actually did quite a good job of representing the story and remaining "true" to the books'/author's intentions. i also saw the LOTR films and although they can in no way come close to matching the grandeur of the books, i thought they were, in their own right, stunning pieces of film.
i guess i should also admit here to being one of those people who probably watch more films than i read books, but i think i still prefer a good book to a good film.... :huh:
botts
I prefer reading the bok first then watching the film its better u can have ur own imagination The lost world for example the movie sucked at the end the book was heaps heaps better
Yeah...all Michael Crichton books adopted into films, always end up being inferior to their books (anyone see Sphere). Jurassic Park...was really good...but still paled in comparison to the book. Theyre adapting another one of his novels...Timeline...I loved that book ,and Im hoping for the best in the film...but its highly unlikely...*sigh*...
one of the few fiction books i've read (i prefer facts and bios) is snow falling on cedars.
i loved but not watched the movie.
has anyone read and seen it?
A simple book (say a childrens) can be made into a good film...
A decent adult book?
Nah, I prefer my own imagination...the film involves interpretation from so many other people that it just loses the magic of the printed word.
I also get a little fed up with movie maker's insistence on 'sugar soaping'...often going for some human interest, morality tale... This may be why kids books tend to make better films as they often have good triumphs over evil themes anyway.
The harder edged books are never as good cos the movie guys dont have the bottle to stick with the plot.
I also have to agree that my own imagination is usally much better at filling in the details than a team of production execs.
must say i watch more movies than i read books, though good visual takes on
books(personal opinion of course) would include Catch 22, A Clockwork Orange,
and fear and loathing in las vegas. The feel of each book seems to be captured
perfectly for me, and the soundtrack seems to have alot to do with this,something
books dont always manage to capture, though steven king does somehow when he
quotes lines from songs being played on the radio, or sung by a character.I think
most people mentioned how they prefer to use their imagination, and i totally agree, this to me has to be why a good book beats a film hand down, and probably also why it spoils the movie, we all picture a character in our minds eye
and each reader pictures them diffrently, so it's hardly surprising there's disapointment when bruce willis plays your favourite character in a novel and hes
twenty years too old for the part and crap, casting is almost as important as the
screenplay. the best way to avoid disapintment would have to be.................
STOP READING BLOODY BOOKS AND GO THE PICTURES MORE! no one likes a
well read smart arse.
So you saying we are smart arses because we read books??
obviously not as it was a joke, sorry.
or the last two lines were anyway.
:D Thats OK, wern't sure if you being serious or not :D
tis good to keep people guessing.
A Clockwork Orange was, aesthetically anyway, a fair attempt.
Yet I do think Kubrick's arrogance got the better of him.
Visually, it is, ofcourse, stunning and lovely lovely Ludwig Van is like angel trumpets and devil trombones.
But what about the last chapter?
The epilogue of acceptance in Burgess's novel redefined what we had just read as a redemption tale. We find, if not hope, at least conformity for Alex. A maturity and greater wisdom gained simply by existing.
Kubrick affords us no such profundity. Kubrick's Alex is an unswerving sociopath risen to impunity. I love the film but I can't help thinking that the ending was a deliberate stab at controversy sustained by warring cinephiles and bibliophiles.
" Relic ", the novel, scared the crap out of me. Could NOT put it down.
I anticipated the movie so eagerly, telling all my friends to make a point to see it, and was thoroughly pissed that I'd wasted six bucks for a ticket.
I've done that in the past... thats why I either go to see the film first, or just stick to the book and don't bother with the film.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. :( I wish I had the will power to resist all the Hollywood hype about a movie after reading the book, but I think so many of us put WAY too much faith in that industry's ability to magically make things come to life on the big screen.Quote:
Originally posted by Curley@19 June 2003 - 03:36
I've done that in the past... thats why I either go to see the film first, or just stick to the book and don't bother with the film.
sympathy to all who forked out hard earned wedge to witness Relic on the big screen, it was bad enough on satelite. At least you had popcorn!
Chalice, in reply to your comments on Kubricks visual and aural depiction of the Burgess novel, i have to say fair comment on all points, i still felt alex had seen the error in his evil deeds, but a bit self pittying all the same in the face of what
seems to be the ultimate punishment for the poor wretch.
as for kubricks arrogance, well i'd sooner see a director stamp his individuality on
a picture than have the studios force theirs on both. It most definately could have
been a better movie, but still a fair representation of one of the most moralistic
tales i've ever read. must just mention the soudtrack, Walter Carlos and his electronic reworking of the classics really fitted the mood of the piece and gave it a futuristic edge, I wonder if it was kubricks idea to hire him? must try and find out.
come on anyway lets have some of your novel movie crossovers, i'm curious.
Neil, apologies for the dawdling response but the truth is you really have had me racking my brains.
I decided, a long time ago, as a fiction lover and cinema lover, to keep those separate beauties exactly that; separate. Too often had I cursed one and kissed the other, anticipation demanding loyalty. Too often I suffered disappointment, glancing from book to screen and straining my neck. The only true representation a director can make of a novel is to scroll the novel on a 50 foot screen, verbatum,
until the last full stop. The metaphor applies in reverse.
I must say I was somewhat struck by John Huston's The Dead, which I thought captured all facets of the story and discovered new pardoxes, easier to deliniate when set to three dimensions.
George Roy Hill's The World According To Garp was lovingly similar to the novel and I love both equally.
Also Nicolas Roeg's masterful and horrifying Don't Look Now in which, in my opinion,he surpasses even Hitchcock in his grim reading of Du Maurier.
I think certain 'modern' authors are more influenced by cinema and thus, their writing lends itself to adaptation. Stephen King certainly comes to mind and I've long thought that Mick Ferren's work would make good cinema.
Thomas Harris makes a good case of someone whose work should be easily translatable, but so far hasn't been. It's too bad that Red Dragon (one of my favorite genre books, ever) was first made into Manhunter, as big a piece of drivel as I've ever seen, and the far superior second remake (with Antony Hopkins) came after the shock had worn off.
It will be very interesting to see what happens with Harris' next book, as the film of Hannibal completely changed the ending of the book.
chalice, will reply in full after taking short course on deciphering the writers
critic, lol. what a clever man you are. make me feel like championing a fu*kwit
world. back to the dictionary, speak soon, neil.
Please play nice in bookworld :( :'(
curley, I hope youre not taking me wrong, tis only friendly banter, youre going to
scare me off the boards twice you've pulled me now i'm getting paranoid. when you read my posts try to imagine someone smiling jovially :) and not someone
staring at his feet running an index finger along the entire length of a rusty sickle.
note to self. must start using those smiley faces. :rolleyes: :) :D :P :lol: B) :) :P :rolleyes: :D :lol:
refrence to fu*kwit world was aimed at self. i'm a niceguy, believe me.
:D :D :D
Neil, my hare-lip permits geography for these contortions of the tongue and my hump provides acoustics for a certain gravatas. :)
nearly wet myself :D