Books maniac Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I don't think a movie could ever be as good as the book, movies tend to view people in black and white as the tone of voice and face expressions of actors decide wether they are good people or bad people, but in books (of course not all of them) you imagine for yourself the characters depending on what you think of the plot and scenario, also it's a direct contact between you and the writer which is unlike in movies as there are directors, actors and actresses, the cost of production that might limit the creativity etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookJumper Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I see where you're coming from Book maniac, and I mostly agree - films rarely do justice to books, if only because they tend to 1. leave out so much and 2. make people/things/places nothing like you imagine them. Yet, there are cases in which the opposite has happened: much as I loved "Stardust" the novel (and much as I bemoaned the absence in the movie of the delighful floppy-eared creature), for Stardust Neil Gaiman fleshed out the rather anonymous pirate captain of the book into the unforgettable Capt. Shakespeare, unforgettably pulled off by Robert De Niro. Sometimes, an actor will be so right for a character you will find yourself unable to imagine them any other way thereafter: while I don't picture Daniel Radcliffe when I think of Harry Potter, I do and always will equate Rupert Grint with Ron, Alan Rickman with Snape, and especially Kenneth Branagh with Gilderoy Lockheart. Turning things as magically subjective as books into films is never going to be an easy task, and admittedly it is usually performed to a lesser standard than it could and should be; however, miracles do happen . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewell Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I don't think a movie could ever be as good as the book. I do think a movie can be good as a viewpoint. A little bit like a piece of art. It is done from the artists perspective. And i find this usefull, because it gives me a perspective that i never thought of before. To me it's the same reason i come on this forum, to hear other peoples perspective and viewpoint, so i can colour more of mine in, or learn to appreciate it from that angle. It makes the experience mean more. However i do believe no film could ever give a book the perfect amount of justice it deserves. After all they are taking someone else's viewpoint and trying to interpret it themselves. To a degree thats not entirley possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCee Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I do think the LOTR trilogy was superb and at least did the books justice. I actually preferred the movie Atonement over the book which for me was monotonous. I didn't enjoy the book but I did enjoy he film. I also think the Gone With the Wind was beautifully adapted from the book if not the complete story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesilbeach Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I do think the LOTR trilogy was superb and at least did the books justice. I actually go one better and say that the films are better than the books. I think the films are riveting (even the extended directors cut versions aren't too long for me), and the script is a fantastic adaptation even with some of the plot points changed. I thought the books were less accessible than the films and although I did insist on reading them before I saw the films, I did struggle with them at times, and got bored in places. Generally, I'm happy to accept films as completely different entities to books, because it's a different type of story telling, and is almost impossible to create the same atmosphere or garner the same emotions from two hours of images and sounds on a screen, as it is from the solitary experience of your brain creating its own vision of the words on the page in your intimate relationship which develops over (usually) many, many hours, days or weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Generally, I'm happy to accept films as completely different entities to books, because it's a different type of story telling... I'm in total agreement with you. I love both books and film, and generally can detach myself from the two when I've read the book then watched the film. A couple of good cases would be I Am Legend and Yes Man. Thoroughly enjoyed both mediums. LOTR is awesome in both mediums. Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexiepiper Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I didn't realise Yes Man was a book, the film was really good though, so I may have to get it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCee Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I didn't realise Yes Man was a book, the film was really good though, so I may have to get it I read the book a month or so ago but don't expect it to be like the film. It is a Danny Wallace book and is hilarious, you'll enjoy it. There are lots of 'laugh out loud' moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Books maniac Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I admit it's nice though to FIRST read the book and then compare the world you built from it with the one that the director did when you see the film afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookcrazy14 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I thought New Moon was better than Twilight and it followed the book much more closely than Twilight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWords Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Blade Runner, The Godfather (1+2) and Fight Club. They are all different from the books in some regards (Fight Club especially so), but they retain the spirit of the stories from which they sprang. I'm of the opinion that a looser translation which sticks to the intentions of the author is better than an adaptations which slavishly reproduces the text, but which has no soul. For one of the most respectful adaptations in recent memory, Watchmen was a massive disappointment precisely because it was so faithful. A little wiggle room can make the difference between an enjoyable movie that respects the book, and a boring movie which merely reproduces the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dzposableheroes Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 First off I try to read a book before I watch it as a movie if I know the book exists. I feel that I can better understand the film and it's characters that way and also that I have a secret knowledge of the movie that the rest of the viewers may not have. To agree with a few others I feel the LOTR movies were by far better then the books. They kept me on the edge of my seat whereas I really disliked the books and found them boring. Also, I really liked the adaptation of Memoirs of a Geisha. I felt the movie did a good job of retelling the story and the imagery in it was breathtaking. The few things they changed from the book were too minor to distract from the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drexydefighter Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 I tend to prefer the book than the movie but I prefer LOTR movie than the book Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.