Do you think that the movie can be better than the book?

[Jtolj]

I think. It's when the movie is based off either a lacking or mediocre or bad book.

The best example I can think of is Oliver Twist, in which they took a really crude mess of a book and made an amazing musical. I also think that A Clockwork Orange due to its audiovisual aspect made a more enjoyable experience, although the book was also very good.

[cuppajoe_9]

Most Kubrick is at least comarable to the source material and, in the case of The Shining, for example, kicks the snot out of it.

[Bookworm Cris]

I tend to prefer books to movies, especially if I have already read it. Usually the moviemakers change the story to be more Hollywood-like. Okay, it´s two different ways to tell a story, each one with its peculiarities. What works in a book may become incomprehensible in a movie, or boring (for exemple, excess of narration with voice-over). But what makes me mad is when they change the story.
Exceptions are the movies that are as good as the book: Lord of the Rings, Ordinary People, Shawshank Redemption, Wuthering Heights (the version with Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes, it´s very close of what I imagined reading it).

[Mark F.]

The movie can be better but it rarely is. The reason for this is simple, a good adaptation implies that the director has made the story his own, taken what he likes in the book and developing that aspect. Most films are put together by the studios who buy a story and then pay a director to shoot it. Most indie directors prefer to write their own stories. But every now and then a director does a great adaptation like Apocalypse Now. Heart of Darkness is a masterpiece, don't get me wrong but I think Coppola's film is even better.

Other examples of good adaptations are Blade Runner, by shifting the point of view from Deckard to the Android Scott gives the story a different twist even though the plot's more or less the same and the main theme is still existentialism. Kubrick movies....the list goes on. The fact is a lot of great movies are adaptations of bad novels most people don't know about in the first place.

[Bookworm Cris]

Other examples of good adaptations are Blade Runner, by shifting the point of view from Deckard to the Android Scott gives the story a different twist even though the plot's more or less the same and the main theme is still existentialism. Kubrick movies....the list goes on. The fact is a lot of great movies are adaptations of bad novels most people don't know about in the first place.

What happens to me is, when I read a book and then see the movie, I end up disappointed. When I see a good movie and know it was based on a book, I read it and usually I prefer the book.
But I agree, a bad book well adapted to the screen may become a good movie. (you made me want to read the short story in which Blade Runner was based, I loved the movie, and probably will like the book too.:p )

[malwethien]

I usually like the books better than their movie counterpart. Of course give visuals, which sometimes work to the advantage or disadvantage of the adaptation. There are times when the visuals the movie provides depth to the novel, but it can also ruin preconceived ideas and images of how characters look like and how some events are pictured to have happened.

The only book I can think of which was better on film (for me) was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban. I appreciated the 3rd installment of Harry Potter only after I saw the movie.

The reason why books are usually better than their screen adaptations is because of the detail they provide which, due to time constraints and "entertainment" value, gets cut from the film...

[Shannanigan]

I rarely see a movie live up to my expectations once I've read the book, and even when it does, I still like the book better, lol. I just prefer the act of reading over sitting down and soaking up entertainment in such a non-interactive way, I guess...a book you can stop and think about, a movie you would have to pause for that, and that would just annoy anyone who is watching it with you, lol

[Woland]

Most Kubrick is at least comarable to the source material and, in the case of The Shining, for example, kicks the snot out of it.

Completely agree. Kubrick is one of the few directors that can make a movie that good.

[bazarov]

Book is definitly better, the only one good movie made by book is The Godfather. Actually, it's brilliant! Everything is completly the same, absolutly everything!

[Turk]

They are completeley different forms of art. Though i can say some movie adaptations more exciting, fun and better than base novel. Such as "A Clockwork Orange"...

[miss tenderness]

books are more trustworthy, movies are entertaining....


as an ordinary human being,:D I prefer movies...sometimes I read a book an feel anxious till I see how it's performed .

[cuppajoe_9]

Completely agree. Kubrick is one of the few directors that can make a movie that good.
Kubrick is the only director who can make a movie as good as Kubrick's. He's the king, friend.

A good way to make a movie that is better than the book is to start with a really pulpy book. There's more room for improvment with Crichton, Halliday and Ellroy than there is with Dostoevski.

[Nossa]

As mentioned before...the onlt case for me in which the movie if better, is when the book is a mess..lol
Honestly, there are SO many examples in which the book excelled the movie..even though alot of people went to see the movie...one famous example of that is The Da Vinci Code...I saw read the book and then watched the movie..and the movie wasn't by any means as good as the book...that's just an example..
But I still like to see the movies that are based on books...it's good to be always aware of what's gonna happen next :D lols

[amanda_isabel]

usually i prefer books to movies... if i read the book first i think the movie doens't even come to half of how great the book is. like charlie and the chocolate factory--i hated the movie. another one was the da vinci code... it's understandable that they had to make it movie-length but then it did sacrifice the suspense dan brown was able to make throughout the novel. but then it makes me wonder why they had to make it a movie--why not a bunch of 30 minute sequels on cable-tv that would run for about 2 weeks? well, anyway, yeah, a movie can be greater than the book-although i haven't encountered one yet.

[Goodfella]

Movies are more easier to watch than reading books.
Why do almost all of you have forgotten the people that don't have a good reading culture i.e who got tired/bored as soon as they started reading?

[PuddNheadPete]

i like both cuz when u read a book and watch the movie u deal with it on two levels so u get more from it naw mean.

[kathycf]

Movies are more easier to watch than reading books.
Why do almost all of you have forgotten the people that don't have a good reading culture i.e who got tired/bored as soon as they started reading?

Hmm, then I would assume that those folks are not members of a literature forum and thusly the original question in this thread was not directed at them. ;) (just teasing you....:) )

I must say I tend to agree with those who have said they prefer the book over the movie adaptation. This is not to say there aren't many fine movies based on fine novels, nor that there are not good movies based on really bad books. I think it boils down to an individual preference, and also the fact that a movie is a purely visual medium. A book may have illustrations, but a novel must be read to convey it's ideas and so is much different in nature than a movie. A little bit like comparing apples and oranges...:)

[Mark F.]

Everybody seems to think that movies are more about entertainment than books. Cut the crap, 2001 A Space Odessy is not entertainment, it demands a lot of felection from the viewer, Harry Potter on the other hand doesn't. It just occured to me that most people prefer the books because they're reading good books and watching horrible movies.

[muhsin]

Movies are more easier to watch than reading books.
Why do almost all of you have forgotten the people that don't have a good reading culture i.e who got tired/bored as soon as they started reading?

Oh! Kathycf preceed me. I too would have prepared people like you Goodfella aren't members of Lit. Forum. (Good...:crash: never mind our teasing)
Do you want to learn? A real learning? If yes, I'll just tell you to READ not to WATCH. And I think no one will dare telling you to do the latter, isn't it?

[Kurtz]

Since we are talking about the transition from book to movie, I was curious if anybody has seen the movie for Patrick Suskind's "Perfume". The book is great and I must say the movie looks beautiful. I think it has been released in Germany but has not made it to the states yet. Here is a link to the official site: http://www.perfumemovie.com/

[davoarid]

I'm a cinephile, so I think dozens of films are better than their books. I mean, 2001: A Space Odyssey? Jules et Jim?

[Bysshe]

Possibly.

The only example I can think of is the Lemony Snicket film, which I found surprisingly entertaining. But I didn't think much of the books in the first place...

[Jean-Baptiste]

I would have to consider a movie/book comparison on an individual basis. I do think that the production of a movie can be just as admirable as writing a book, and while they are two separate art form, I believe that they can find a common ground for comparison.

Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" has been mentioned quite a few times in this thread. I actually liked Anthony Burgess' book more than the film. One of the best things about that story, movie or book, is the words--and that is the fault of Burgess, not Kubrick.

On the other side of things, I felt that the movie "Trainspotting" completely saved the book by Irving Welsh. What a crap-lousy sensationalist lot of disjointed writing that book is. I hated it. But I was very impressed with the movie, and not just for the fact that Danny Boyle found anything whatever to make a movie out of in that book, but it was simply an exceptional movie.

That's my opinion on the matter; essentially my answer to the question is, yes it can.

[cuppajoe_9]

It just occured to me that most people prefer the books because they're reading good books and watching horrible movies.

Exactly! If the theatres still played Hitchcock and Ford and the libraries were dedicated to Harliquin romances, we'd all be debating it on the Film Network Forums right now.

[Evi]

I agree that movies are much more easier for someone who isnt used to like and read books. I know many people who are very inteligent but unfortunately they dont find pleasure by reading a good book. I feel sorry for them but everyone has his own hobbies and mode of living his own life.
I find it generally very hard to addapt a 1.ooo pages book in a two hours movie. The director has to be very clever in order to put everything esential in it.
One of the examples of movies that i like it much more as a movie than a book was "the English patient". I didnt like the book, i found it tiring and boring but i loved the film.

Evi

[Shalot]

I have become one of those people who has to see the movie first.


A long time ago I was this person who loved to read. I would read anything and everything. I could sit at home with a book all day and be perfectly content. I could read long books in one day.

Now, I am very different. I used to be able to stick with a book that was kind of dry and finish it to the end. I could read anything. I've changed a bit and now I can't read anything unless it is immediately engaging.
My husband reads textbooks only. To him, reading must have a purpose and he reads books that relate to his line of work only.

Lately I am enjoying memoirs like Mary Karr and David Sedaris. I also liked reading books of collected essays about various subjects. But anything longer than that and I either don't have the time or I can't make the time.

How did this happen?

[Bookworm89]

I completely agree with Malwethein: "The only book I can think of which was better on film (for me) was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban." I loved the book, but the movie was better. Anyways, books are better than movies. They are more entertaining and intellectualy stimulating.

[~Maude~]

On the other side of things, I felt that the movie "Trainspotting" completely saved the book by Irving Welsh. What a crap-lousy sensationalist lot of disjointed writing that book is. I hated it. But I was very impressed with the movie, and not just for the fact that Danny Boyle found anything whatever to make a movie out of in that book, but it was simply an exceptional movie.

That's my opinion on the matter; essentially my answer to the question is, yes it can.

I completely agree on that book/movie comparison I loved the movie but couldn't even finish the book.

[Goodfella]

Hmm, then I would assume that those folks are not members of a literature forum and thusly the original question in this thread was not directed at them. ;) (just teasing you....:) )

I must say I tend to agree with those who have said they prefer the book over the movie adaptation. This is not to say there aren't many fine movies based on fine novels, nor that there are not good movies based on really bad books. I think it boils down to an individual preference, and also the fact that a movie is a purely visual medium. A book may have illustrations, but a novel must be read to convey it's ideas and so is much different in nature than a movie. A little bit like comparing apples and oranges...:)

I'll soon come to you. Hold on:crash:

[miss tenderness]

has anyone of u seen the movie of Wuthering Heights?

[vheissu]

On the other side of things, I felt that the movie "Trainspotting" completely saved the book by Irving Welsh. What a crap-lousy sensationalist lot of disjointed writing that book is. I hated it. But I was very impressed with the movie, and not just for the fact that Danny Boyle found anything whatever to make a movie out of in that book, but it was simply an exceptional movie.

That's my opinion on the matter; essentially my answer to the question is, yes it can.


Might have to disagree there with you. Welsh's writing is rather difficult to follow in Trainspotting but that's because he's trying to imitate scottish jargon.I think it's quite difficult to write the same way you speak, rather than writing in "proper" english"; I definetely wouldn't call it crap or lousy, but I must admit it did take more than half the book to start reading it a bit more easily. And in the end I did enjoy it.
On the other hand, I did see the film first which might have motivated me to actually read and finish his book.
I think most films adapted from books always miss something. It's impossible to adaptate a great book into a great film (even the LOTR films had to cut out a few bits!);and there are a LOT of films who just don't do justice do the book and that's quite annoying:Everything is illuminated is another example. The book is by Jonathan Safran Foer (or Fuer?) and recently they made the film....If you've read the book,don't watch it, it was really bad.
What is weird though is some people's behaviour of buying the book only because they liked the film, not for the pleasure of actually reading it; even weirder is the publisher's choice of changing the cover of the book if the film based on it is a great success, to catch people's attention.
Surely, if you really like the film, you'd be able to look for it in a bookshop, or ask for it!

[F.Emerald]

I completely agree on that book/movie comparison I loved the movie but couldn't even finish the book.

If you're not used to Scottish slang (or even just the accents) then Trainspotting probably would be rather tedious and hard to follow. I loved the book, but I thought the film was even better. Ewan McGregor plays Mark Renton beautifully. Actually, I think each actor was so well matched to their character.

The Count of Monte Christo was a wonderful film, just as good as, if not better than the book.

[grace86]

I usually prefer books to movies like most here. But I believe that the two should be judged independently. I love the LOTR movies. I saw them before reading the books and then when I went and read the book, I noticed a lot of differences. But I still love the movies as they are by themselves and wouldn't change them.

[Ellenа]

well, Fight club by Chuck Palahnuik.The film is rather good.

[Taliesin]

Yeah, it is hard to make a good movie out of a book, but, folks, this is true for every genre-change. It is not easy to make a good book out of a movie either. Every form of creation has its own nuances and things that can come out only in that form of creature. When you change the form of creation of one work of creation in which it was made, it is bound to lose something. On the plus side, it can also win something - the new form offers new possibilities that are only possible in that genre- but then the changer has become an artist him/herself.

[~Maude~]

has anyone of u seen the movie of Wuthering Heights?

I've seen it but not read the book yet.


If you're not used to Scottish slang (or even just the accents) then Trainspotting probably would be rather tedious and hard to follow. I loved the book, but I thought the film was even better. Ewan McGregor plays Mark Renton beautifully. Actually, I think each actor was so well matched to their character.

True, there was much I just didn't understand.

[Evi]

Miss Tenderness,

Which one ? The old one with Laurence Olivier or the new version with Ralph Fiennes? I have seen both of them. The newest one was very based on the book and it was presented the second generation of characters as well. The first one ends with Kathys death. I liked both of them for different reasons.

Evi

[cuppajoe_9]

well, Fight club by Chuck Palahnuik.The film is rather good.

I've heard that Chuck Palahniuk liked the ending of the movie (which he did not write) better than the ending of the book.

[higley]

Books, certainly, have always been more preferable to me. I do like some movies based off books, especially if I look at them as two seperate stories. But I'm excited about the new movie version of Fahrenheit 451 supposedly coming out next year.

Goodfella, I think the question is only about personal preference; we're not trying to condemn people who don't read! :)

[Mark F.]

I agree that movies are much more easier for someone who isnt used to like and read books.


Once again. Wrong. It's easier to read The Devil Wears effing Prada or any other example of a trendy book than to watch films like those made by Bergman, Eisenstein, Murnau and so on. Your problem (not just you Evi, I'm adressing everyone) is that your notion of what a book is, is much more limited than your idea of what a film is. Film includes such visual excrement as Terminator 3 and Stealth but so does literature. On the other hand there is a filmic equivalent to Joyce and even to Gertrude Stein (search for films by Viking Eggeling on Youtube if you don't believe me).

They are two different forms of art and cannot really be compared, each has its own masterpieces, its strengths and weaknesses.

I just have an other question, what's the point in adapting a novel onto film? Is it just telling the same story with a different tool? I don't think so, for me it's about the artist making the subject matter his own, assimilating it and creating something both new and personnal.

Now here's an other question, how many great authors have done just that (Shakespeare, Racine...)? And is there really a difference between one form of adaptation and the other?

[Evi]

Mark F.,
I think that when you are reading a book is much more easier for you to make images of what you are thinking. When you are watching a movie you are "prisoner" of someones else fantasy ( of the directors ) So, my idea of a film based on a book is the idea of the director.

But i was telling something else, i was telling that most of the people that i know ( and beleive me, i know a lot of them!) they are going at the cinema once in a month but they dont read at all. ( Well, they read once in two years when a Da Vinci code appears!)

You asked in your own question:films and novels cant be copmpared! You cant compare the books you read with with the films were filmed.

Evi

[Mark F.]

I agree with you that in general people will prefer to go to the movies rather than read a book, but not any movie and not any book. As you said they're more likely to read The Da Vinci Code than to watch In The Mood For Love, but that's their problem.

However I think you're a "prisoner of someone else's fantasy" in both cases, as a reader and a movie goer. Suspension of disbelief. The degree to which you're free within that fantasy depends more upon the director/writer than upon the medium. Of course, when you watch a film you have a precise image of what a character looks like, but images aren't limited to physical objects like houses and people, thoughts are images too and there are films where the viewer is free to interpret what he is seeing in many different ways (Lynch).

[PeterL]

I usually prefer books to movies like most here. But I believe that the two should be judged independently. I love the LOTR movies. I saw them before reading the books and then when I went and read the book, I noticed a lot of differences. But I still love the movies as they are by themselves and wouldn't change them.

The LOTR movies are amazing adaptations of LoTR, but some important changes were made. Killing Saruman off early changed the ending and eliminated a major piece of the resolution of the novel; The Harrowing of the Shire was essential to the books. Dropping Bombadil was another major loss for the movie. The Hobbits collecting of swords from the barrows connected the weapons with the history; that was subtle but important in the books. But the way the Ents were done was amazing.

[Idril]

I didn't like the LOTR movies at all. There were too many important changes for me to be able to embrace them and I know there are people who can seperate the two and I wish I was one of them, but alas, I am not. Oddly enough, I had no trouble with Bombadil being dropped because I never liked him anyway and that first half of FOTR was so rambling, even though there was that important event of the Hobbits finding the swords, I can understand why it was cut but the changes in TTT and ROTK were so many and so huge, I just get almost angry thinking about it. I'm the first to admit, I take it all waaaayyyy too seriously. :blush: :p

[Mark F.]

There was no point in making a film out of Tolkien's novels. The visuals didn't add anything to Tolkien's descriptions and the story was amputated of its more important parts (thematically speaking). Not to mention that Orlando Bloom is the most horrible actor making movies today.

[Idril]

Not to mention that Orlando Bloom is the most horrible actor making movies today.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

He was a bit of a disappointment, wasn't he? There were some impressive moments in the movie, visually, the sets and environments and special effects were well done but that's not what the story was about. Focusing on those aspects, Jackson sort of missed the point.

[cuppajoe_9]

Not to mention that Orlando Bloom is the most horrible actor making movies today.He is truly the Keanu Reeves of a new generation.

[Mark F.]

Keanu Reeves is actually starting to become a good actor, I thought he did a great job with his small part in Thumbsucker.

[cuppajoe_9]

I know, but it sure took the bugger long enough. I haven't seen Thumbsucker but I thought he did an exceptional job in The Gift. It's going to take a lot of work to make up for his work in Speed, for example. Actually, come to think of it, he sucked in The Lake House too (I saw it against my will), but that could easily be the fault of the director.

[arabian dream]

In my opinion the book is great than movie because in the book you will find
imagine ,philosophy ,wisdom , in good language but what you learn from movie I think nothing because the movie director will symbolize the character and dialogue from his own vision and he will kill the sense of imagining and you will hear another language worst than book language.

[Mark F.]

So writing is a better language than cinema? What you're saying is absolute nonsense. All forms of art are languages, music, cinema, literature, painting, not one is above the others. It's not the type of art that determines the quality of a work of art, it's the talent of the artist.

It's not because a novel doesn't present you with the exact image of the main characters that it's deeper, or wiser than a film. What stimulates the imagination, or your brain, is the way the artist explores different themes. Kubrick's "2001 A Space Odyssey" is an extremely philosphical piece of art, probably even more than Arthur C Clark's novel.

[Jean-Baptiste]

That's a very good point about "Trainspotting," vheissu. Although, the movie was plenty difficult to follow at first, for one not acquainted with the Scottish tongue. Alright, fine, not crap or lousy--but my preference is still for the film.

Mark F., what is this "filmic equivalent...to Gertrude Stein" that you speak of, and how can I be saved from it?:lol:

[kobe2buy]

Hello to everyone, this is my second post...
I just started reading Clockwork Orange, I was told there was a movie.
Would it make more sense watching the movie before I go on reading? Or should I just read the book, by the way I am having to use the glossary the language is a bit confusing....

[Mark F.]

Mark F., what is this "filmic equivalent...to Gertrude Stein" that you speak of, and how can I be saved from it?:lol:

Viking Eggeling, you can see one of his films on youtube. What I meant is really experimental cinema, close to modernism and surrealism. He was actually part of the Dada movement.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Welcome to the forum, kobe2buy! With that particular selection, I would say that you could read or view in whichever order you like, as they are both superb works of art. I wasn't nearly so traumatized by the book as the movie, but I'm a baby when it comes to visuals, hence my presence here. Also, one benefit of reading the book is the last "banned" chapter, which is not included in the movie; that is absolutely necessary. I suppose that these days it would be quite rare to find a copy of the book that doesn't include that chapter (it is really one of the most ridiculous conceptions of censorship ever, to exclude that chapter.) Perhaps it would behoove you to finish the book first (since you're already on it) and then you may go into the movie with a sharper sense of Burgess' intentions, and know that it's not all "horrorshow" rape and pillage. In any case, enjoy.

[Taliesin]

You know, sometimes a movie makes your imagination work more than in a book - in a book you can tell what the characters think, but in a movie, you don't see it. You can only imagine what it might be, from their moves and gestures and facial expressions and words said which gives a lot of possibilities for interpretation.

BTW, We really liked LOTRs' movie adaptations' music and all the little details how Vendelian culture was used for picturing Rohanian culture. Those were really good.

[Mary Sue]

The better the book, the more need there is to do a faithful, accurate adaptation. In other words, to STICK TO THE STORY. But whenever Hollywood gets its greasy hands on a classic----or even just a well-told bestseller---God help us all. The Powers-That-Be invariably chop and change and revise and rewrite. That's why the final cut so often has little relation to the book on which it's based. And I, personally, hate to see that kind of butchery. No wonder most people prefer the book to the movie. Because when the movie doesn't capture the essence of the original story, when the characters portrayed onscreen don't correspond to the characters in print, Hollywood does the book a major injustice.

I am reminded of a horrible movie that I saw the other day, a 1959 adaptation of William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury." No one can describe decadent Southern family life the way Faulkner does, and this book is all about the dysfunctional Compsons of Jefferson, Mississippi. There's an alcoholic father who quotes Latin epigrams...a neurotic son who commits suicide while at Harvard...a nymphomaniac daughter who is disowned...an idiot brother who perceives more than anyone realizes...a bitter, angry brother who hates what the family has come to...and a bastard niece who steals her legacy one night and escapes out the window. Reading this book is like a punch in the gut. It's about tragedy, loss and madness. It's not about pretty stuff, good grief, it's FAULKNER!

So picture this truly awful movie version, which sets out to rewrite/destroy a Nobel winning author. In the film, "The Sound and the Fury" becomes an insipid love story. It's a ROMANCE between the bastard niece--- played charmingly by a young Joanne Woodward--- and her bitter angry uncle---here a STEP-uncle---played by Yul Brenner. YUL BRENNER? Yeah it's Yul, hopelessly miscast as whitebread, racist, nasty Jason Compson. Total character assassination. And sadly, the alcoholic father doesn't even appear in the movie. Neither does the suicidal son. The nympho daughter is seen only as a middle-aged woman, years after her downfall, so none of her original story is played out. The idiot brother makes a poignant figure, but he alone can't save this lemon of a film. It ends with the bastard niece deciding NOT to steal her legacy after all but to stay at home and "clean up her act" because she's so-o-o-o- o in love with handsome, charismatic Yul Brenner...! Yuck.

Don't get me started on bad movie adaptations. Remember Demi Moore in "The Scarlet Letter"? Remember "I, Robot"? Remember "Queen of the Damned"? Even LOTR did a bad job, rewriting Tolkien shamelessly. But at least, in LOTR, the films are visually stunning and well acted, enough so that they can be enjoyed on their own merit. I just wish that we had seen the scouring of the Shire at the end...and Frodo forgiving Saruman. The omission of these crucial scenes is a major flaw, indicating Peter Jackson's less-than-perfect understanding of what Tolkien's written word was really all about.

Remember Tolkien? The guy who INVENTED Middle Earth in the first place? Yeah...that guy.

[hitchhiker]

No I do not think a movie can ever be better then a book. The words that describe ones emotion in a book is so much then ones acting in a movie. By comperison the book effects you so much more then a movie.

[Idril]

The omission of these crucial scenes is a major flaw, indicating Peter Jackson's less-than-perfect understanding of what Tolkien's written word was really all about.

Remember Tolkien? The guy who INVENTED Middle Earth in the first place? Yeah...that guy.

Or, as my brother said, "Apparently, Jackson fancies himself a better storyteller than Tolkien." :rolleyes: I really can't even get started on all the changes that upset me because then I'll never be able to stop but the list is endless, trust me.

But yes, Taliesin, the music was flawless, Howard Shore did an amazing job.

[Evi]

All kind of arts are respectfull and different of course. The seventh art ( as people use to talk about cinema ) is maybe the most popular art. You have to agree here Mark F. that much more people ( fortunately or unfortunately) watch movies than reading books, or drawning or are interested in sculpture or everything. So, it is more easy for the majority of people watching a movie ( whicever movie, maybe the biggest silly Hollywood blookbuster) than reading a book. At least th epeople i know use to go at the cinema at least once a month and they read a book once a year.

Evi

[Kareniyna]

Like Mary Sue expressed, and some others here, I too have big issues with books-turned-movies; I guess because to me, so many of the films so often seem garish, gaudy, sensational, “Hollywoody” overwrought melodrama compared to the books they were based on.

I’m sure that it’s difficult to cram intricate narratives that take hours to read into a 1-2 hour film—obviously things will have to be omitted, condensed, clarified. But I really dislike it when a character is changed or reinvented to suit the film—eg, Faramir in the LOTR film—that really annoyed me; as well as making Frodo into a teenager when he was in fact near 50 when he set out on his quest; although hobbits obviously aged differently than humans, to jump him from 50 down to about 19, as Elijah Wood appeared, was just too much for me personally.

Or trying to accurately portray the complexities of a character like Hugo’s Jean Valjean or Javert from “Les Miserables” in a Hollywood film….

Or take Sayuri’s character in “Memoirs of a Geisha” (which also happens to be one of my favorite books). Towards the end of the film, for example, where they had Sayuri arguing with her superior, her mentor, raising her voice and accusing her etc.—I honestly think that someone in her time, culture, position, would never dream of behaving that way—certainly in the book she does not! I notice that this is often done in films in order to have the characters express more pc views or more relatable to a modern public, but what would basically be historically inaccurate—things that characters from a certain time period or era in history would probably never have expressed or even thought of, but which are popular “soap box” issues nowadays.

On the other side of the coin I agree that as an art, certain films truly are masterpieces, and others are faithful and accurate adaptations of the books they were based on, which seem to really capture the essence of what the author was trying to convey.

[Mark F.]

The better the book, the more need there is to do a faithful, accurate adaptation. In other words, to STICK TO THE STORY. But whenever Hollywood gets its greasy hands on a classic----or even just a well-told bestseller---God help us all. The Powers-That-Be invariably chop and change and revise and rewrite. That's why the final cut so often has little relation to the book on which it's based. And I, personally, hate to see that kind of butchery. No wonder most people prefer the book to the movie. Because when the movie doesn't capture the essence of the original story, when the characters portrayed onscreen don't correspond to the characters in print, Hollywood does the book a major injustice.


But what about Apocalypse Now for example? It's based on a literary masterpiece (Conrad's "Heart of Darkness") but completely disrespects it. You may consider it butchery but I certainly don't, just assumed inspiration. An other example...Kubrick's "Lolita" changes the narrative but this doesn't necessarilly make the film less powerful than the novel, even though it reveals the end of the story right at the beginning.

[Mark F.]

All kind of arts are respectfull and different of course. The seventh art ( as people use to talk about cinema ) is maybe the most popular art. You have to agree here Mark F. that much more people ( fortunately or unfortunately) watch movies than reading books, or drawning or are interested in sculpture or everything. So, it is more easy for the majority of people watching a movie ( whicever movie, maybe the biggest silly Hollywood blookbuster) than reading a book. At least th epeople i know use to go at the cinema at least once a month and they read a book once a year.


I'm not sure I quite understand what you're trying to say here, Evi. Cinema is certainly the most popular art, and the first art to attain such popularity. But is your point that this is a bad thing?

All artists want one thing, to be popular, that's what they need to live. Theatre aspired to popularity but never got out of the highly educated classes. Literature only managed to become popular after centuries of trying. Cinema got there almost imediately. I imagine it had a natural predisposition to become a popular medium.

[Mark F.]

Like Mary Sue expressed, and some others here, I too have big issues with books-turned-movies; I guess because to me, so many of the films so often seem garish, gaudy, sensational, “Hollywoody” overwrought melodrama compared to the books they were based on.


Maybe because you watch "overwrought Hollywood melodrama" so often? Cinema exists outside of Hollywood and if you try looking for good adaptations you will find them. I'm thinking Italian cinema here. Actually a lot of Hollywood film-noir adaptations of Chandler and Hammett are really worth watching as well.

[Basil]

I am reminded of a horrible movie that I saw the other day, a 1959 adaptation of William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury."
You should be aware that the movie rights to "The Sound and the Fury" have once again been picked up. I think Keanu Reeves would make a great Jason Compson, don't you? :D

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117948570.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

[another sara]

i hate it when a good book and i really like but then they ruined it when it becomes a movie! the only thing i remember from that story then the movie! and as a result i hate the book!
but sometimes a really bad and boring book, seems intersting as a movie!
i think it depends on the way they do it

[Evi]

Mark F

I just said that cinema is the most popular kind of art. I havent said that it is bad or good, i just stated a true fact. Nothing else. I dont believe that the popularity of the cinema is bad. Just a fact.

It is a pity , generally speaking, that theatre isnt so popular for example. Few people are familiar with Shakespeare or Ibsen. But you can find million of people knowing everything about movie stars.

Evi

[Mark F.]

I was just asking cause a lot of people automatically think popularity is proof of lower quality. I'm glad you don't think that way.

[cuppajoe_9]

It is a pity , generally speaking, that theatre isnt so popular for example. Few people are familiar with Shakespeare or Ibsen. But you can find million of people knowing everything about movie stars.

I would say that more than a few people are familiar with Shakespeare and Ibsen, but, unfortunately, live idiots sell better than dead geniuses.

[Mark F.]

What's sadder is that even dead geniuses sell better than live ones.

[miss tenderness]

Miss Tenderness,

Which one ? The old one with Laurence Olivier or the new version with Ralph Fiennes? I have seen both of them. The newest one was very based on the book and it was presented the second generation of characters as well. The first one ends with Kathys death. I liked both of them for different reasons.

Evi


I've read the book,loved it so much. I'm looking fowrward to see how it was acted. so which would u recommend me to see?not both,nah!

[bootlegger]

[QUOTE=amanda_isabel;271499]another one was the da vinci code... it's understandable that they had to make it movie-length but then it did sacrifice the suspense dan brown was able to make throughout the novel. QUOTE]
totally agree. what the filmmakers failed to realise is that actually a lot of the book involves people sitting round tables and discussing theories, hardly material for what they tried to portray as a fast paced action-based film! despite what all the critics say, i liked the book on the basis that is was an engaging story, but as a film it just floundered.
i cant really state a preference between the film of the book or the book which inspired the film; a lot of the time the film and book of the same story are quite different in their approach and style.
However, books such as...perhaps Fight Club, lend themselves more aptly to book format, as things which the reader is not supposed to pick up on can be more subtly portrayed, and the disjointed thoughts of a mentally-unstable narrator more interestingly depicted.
On the other hand, books such as Chocolat work in both film and book, because they can be taken in different directions. The book was slightly darker and more sombre,the film was colourful, sweet and enchanting.
In conclusion...it depends on the story.

[Evi]

Miss Tenderness,

About Wuthering Heights, both films are good, as i said before for different reasons, the first one with Laurence Olivier is more romantic and it doesnt includes the end of the story, the growing up of the second generation and the end of the book. The second one has the whole story and it is more accurated to the book and its story. If you wont have a problem with Juliete Binoche speaking English with a very strong French accent, go for the second one. It was released in 1993 and Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche are staring, i am sure it will be easy finding it at the video club.

Evi

[la rose]

The movie can be better but it rarely is. The reason for this is simple, a good adaptation implies that the director has made the story his own, taken what he likes in the book and developing that aspect. Most films are put together by the studios who buy a story and then pay a director to shoot it. Most indie directors prefer to write their own stories. But every now and then a director does a great adaptation like Apocalypse Now. Heart of Darkness is a masterpiece, don't get me wrong but I think Coppola's film is even better.

Iam agree with u

u r right ..........The Movie is better than the book boz Its easy by all the sides

But we can't ignore that the Book have merite than the movie cause when we wanna regain the events and regain reading in any time It can be available .......

[Vedrana]

I thought the Martha Fiennes film, 'Onegin' was pretty well done, though I don't know if it is BETTER than the Pushkin poem.

I was fairly disappointed with 'Pride and Prejudice' from 2005, but I guess it really is a matter of opinion.

[Behemoth]

I think the film version of Captain Corelli's Mandolin was appalling.
I mean, talk about re-writing the narrative?? What happened to Carlo?? And as for changing the ending... :flare: That annoyed me. Generally I like to read the novels before I see the films, because the former is usually better.

[Logos]

I agree with you Behemoth. I have to have read the novel first before I would consider the film. As usual I was quite disappointed with Captain Corelli the film, Cage butchered it with his Italian 'accent' and it was turned into a smarmy soap opera with very little regard to historical accuracy :thumbs_down:

[xlxlauraxlx]

i think they are both equal, upon reading a book and then watching the film, its always interesting to compare. "They've missed this bit out" "That doesn't happen in the book""I didn't imagine her to look like that" ect ect.

a film is shot and sweet

books can make perfect moments last longer, they allow you to forget about the life you lead and follow anothers

if you watch a film first, they can assisst you in reading more challanging books (especially if your mind tends to wonder).

Also, i like comparing different films from the same book.

But all in all, i like them both equally lol.