Film Tie-In Book Covers

[bethany725]

I avoid the movie tie-in ones at all costs.. I think for me, it's because I see sooo many movies that are so much worse than the books. I really like to feel inspired when I look at my books... So much work can go into making the book cover represent what the book's story is all about, that often I really do feel like the cover inspires me to read more and learn more. So when they take beautiful artwork or inspirational designs and replace them with an air-brushed picture of a celebrity playing that role, it takes out much of the inspiration for me.

 

*Note: For the record, I cannot profess to be a book snob -- I don't mind used books, falling apart books, you name it. Also, I don't hate celebrities -- I read quite a bit of celebrity gossip (I know, I know.. groan away).. but for whatever reason, I just don't think the two go so well TOGETHER for me.

Edited April 14, 2009 by bethany725

[Peacefield]

Just think..they'll release a New Moon one with Jacob on the cover.

 

Ugh, Bee! You just made me spit out my drink!! I never even thought up about that until just this moment.

 

Thank goodness I already have the one w/the original cover...

[Kylie]

So when they take beautiful artwork or inspirational designs and replace them with an air-brushed picture of a celebrity playing that role, it takes out much of the inspiration for me.

 

I meant to say something like this earlier. Seeing a picture from a movie on a book cover reeks of a fast and careless job - you can tell not much thought has been put into the cover. They've just rushed it out in time for the movie release.

 

I much prefer covers with original artwork...something that someone has laboured over. It makes it much more special and, of course, much nicer to look at.

[bethany725]

I agree completely.

[Nollaig]

I always take books and movies to be two different entities. A movie poster has actors, settings etc to work with. A movie's art lies in posters, trailers, etc. To me, a book, being a seperate entity should have it's own interpretation - unlimited by actor's faces and real locations.

[Scarlette]

I despise those things. I have been forced to buy Atonement's film tie-in cover, simply because I had to have that book - NOW! I now hide it amongst my other novels on the bookshelf, hoping that no one will notice... I'll buy an edition with a proper cover sometime in the future and then take the dreaded film edition to the second hand bookstore.

[bethany725]

I was forced to buy the movie covered "Twilight" since it was the only cover available in 2 stores the day I went out to the buy the book.. I already sold it to the secondhand shop. I feel you, Scarlette.

[MissWhitlock]

I really don't like these tie-in things. I was forced to buy one as well, of Eragon, because that edition was all they had, I guess. Everytime I look at it, I get reminded of the movie. *shudders* And the movie was one of the worst films I've seen, so it's twice as horrible.

[Adonis]

I'm fairly new here, so this is my first attempt at starting a thread. I was reading the one about bad film adaptations of books, but how about films that you enjoyed more than the book.

 

For me it's The Motorcycle Diaries. The film brings a spirit to the story that (for me) was missing from the pages of the book, which was readable but very dry.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Angels and Demons was a terrible film, but almost infinitely better than the book...

 

And on a slightly different level, I actually much preferred the film of No Country For Old Men. But I think that might be because I saw the film first and it was in many ways such a literal translation from the book, the book just read like a screenplay, but without some of the humour.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Freewheeling Andy

[Lucybird]

Lord of the Rings. I've tried to read it several times and could never get into it.

[AbielleRose]

Lord of the Rings. I've tried to read it several times and could never get into it.

 

I second that!

[Ausonius]

I'm fairly new here, so this is my first attempt at starting a thread. I was reading the one about bad film adaptations of books, but how about films that you enjoyed more than the book.

 

For me it's The Motorcycle Diaries. The film brings a spirit to the story that (for me) was missing from the pages of the book, which was readable but very dry.

 

Also fairly new here, and this is a great topic: Alfred Hitchcock had a rule that great books make poor movies, since a movie can never be on the same level as a great book ideationally. The audience therefore would always find the movie lacking.

 

But a weak book, he believed, might have cinematic possibilities. As a result, he usually took books (e.g. Psycho) which were potboilers and turned them into classic movies.

 

One can debate how "weak" a book like Strangers On A Train might be. And in some cases - in his later years - he took potboilers (e.g. Topaz) and made a bad movie from a mediocre book.

 

One great movie from a book which I found to be disappointing: Doctor Zhivago. Boris Pasternak's novel I found lacking in the psychological complexity found in the movie by David Lean. In the book, Zhivago has clearly forsaken his wife for Lara. In the movie, you see Zhivago as a more tortured figure who is clearly in love with 2 women simultaneously, leading him to ruin.

[ned]

I don't really have one, as a rule i avoid a film if i have read the book because it usually disappoints

[Nollaig]

New Moon.

 

Then I went back and loved the book too

[AbielleRose]

It's a bit of an oldie but I loved the movie Charlie (based on the book Flowers for Algernon). The movie definately did the book justice.

[Dimitra]

I think we have a similar thread?

[Kell]

Lord of the Rings. I've tried to read it several times and could never get into it.

 

I second that!

And I third it!

 

It's a bit of an oldie but I loved the movie Charlie (based on the book Flowers for Algernon). The movie definately did the book justice.

I loved that book and had no idea a film had been made of it. I shall have to go looking for it now.

 

Twilight was a way better film than the book, which I found to be incredibly mediocre and not up to the hype surrounding it.

[Readwine]

Definitely The English Patient (book by Michael Ontdaatje). The film was sublime. The book....okay

[Ausonius]

Lord of the Rings. I've tried to read it several times and could never get into it.

 

Amen!

 

The Hobbit is the best of the Lord of the Rings books, although technically not part of the trilogy. The books become worse as you head through them, with the style becoming turgid and the action repetitive.

 

Following Hitchcock's rule which I mentioned above, the movies were much better.

[martymcfly3004]

Lord of the Rings. I've tried to read it several times and could never get into it.

 

Il fourth this. Rubbish books, amazing films.

[Raskolnikov]

The Road is as good as the book.

[BigWords]

I thought the film of Fight Club was better than the novel. There have been debates about that particular adaptation, and the changes made from the source material, on many sites since it was released, and opinion still seems to be split. It is arguable that Goodfellas is a better representation of the criminal underworld than the source novel, Wiseguys, and has certainly had a wider audience.

The Godfather films (well, the first two...) had much more impact on me than Puzo's writing, which has always felt rather slow and plodding. I know that he has done brilliant work, but The Godfather seems to work better as a film.

[Ausonius]

I thought the film of Fight Club was better than the novel. There have been debates about that particular adaptation, and the changes made from the source material, on many sites since it was released, and opinion still seems to be split. It is arguable that Goodfellas is a better representation of the criminal underworld than the source novel, Wiseguys, and has certainly had a wider audience.

The Godfather films (well, the first two...) had much more impact on me than Puzo's writing, which has always felt rather slow and plodding. I know that he has done brilliant work, but The Godfather seems to work better as a film.

 

Quite true: "pop" novels often have the seeds for great stories which their authors do not quite pull off, or do not pull off at all. The Godfather is a good example of the Hitchcock rule I mentioned earlier in this topic.

 

So why do the authors fail? A comparison: I suppose there are Michelangelo-wannabes out there, who have Sistine-Chapel images in their heads, but when they finish painting, they have stick figures and two-dimensional landscapes.

 

Perhaps such authors are more interested in cheap thrills for the audience, or they find it easier to keep and treat their characters as marionettes, attached to the author's hands for jerking them around into those cheap thrills, rather than freeing the characters and giving them free will to choose what they want to do.

 

The story then follows the will of the author up and down a roller-coaster track, pre-set and unalterable, rather than an organically psychologically evolving story.

[Lukeozade100]

I second The English Patient, and I raise you The Constant Gardener, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney version), LOTR Trilogy & One Flew over The Cuckoos Nest. Though all but LOTR I saw the movie first so that might bias my view somewhat.