|
|
Post by Silva on May 30, 2011 21:39:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this belongs on this board, but since the e-reader discussion is I figured I'd stick this here. What do you guys think of film adaptations of literature?
Personally, I have yet to find a movie I liked better than the book. Then again, I haven't watched that many movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on May 30, 2011 21:41:15 GMT -5
Something that I had to come to terms with a long time ago is that the film and the book are two separate entities. This happened a little while after I saw Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the theatre and spent most of my time ranting about how THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK. It wasn't until I saw Blood and Chocolate (before reading the book, even) that I finally came to terms with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brosephargh on May 30, 2011 22:18:18 GMT -5
I agree. The books will ALWAYS be better than the movies. And I used to be really upset by this. Until I came to the realization that it will always be that way and there is nothing I can do to change it.
Now, I view them as two completely separate entities and don't base my opinions of movies on the books. As a movie, it might be good, great even. But if I compare it to the book I begin to hate it. And instead of ruining good movies...I just pretend they're SUPPOSED to be different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silva on May 30, 2011 22:27:12 GMT -5
I should definitely pretend that they're supposed to be different... that would help when I watch them for sure!
|
|
Tucker
Armadillo Pup
';..;'
Posts: 23
|
Post by Tucker on May 30, 2011 22:51:41 GMT -5
I have to agree, the film and the piece of literature are two separate entities. I like to use "Fight Club" as an example. Exceptional book and movie. But they were different. Which is an important thing to remember. They had different focuses I think which made them both amazing.
Also Arthurian Legends. I've read Lawhead's "Pendragon Cycle", T H White's "The Once and Future King", and some other adaptations of the Arthurian Legends. Then I've watched a few film adaptations (I need to watch more). I've always liked the legends just for what they were, but I never was able to accept the vast differences in the stories very well until I watched the television show "Merlin". Watching that show with its HUGE discrepancies with what could be called classic Arthurian Legend made me realize that it's all about representing a certain theme or whatever.
Buhh... I've been drinking tonight. So I hope that is somewhat coherent. I wish I had the mental capacity to expand on it further too.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on May 31, 2011 0:11:35 GMT -5
My magical trick to enjoy both the book and the movie as separate entities: watch the movie before reading the book. Granted, this only works for stories of which you have not yet read the book, but the important part is that it works. Not having anything to compare it to makes the movie untainted and enjoyable, and the book almost always still has plenty of tricks up its sleeve to keep you hooked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silva on May 31, 2011 12:53:17 GMT -5
The problem is with book-to-film movies is that though it is simply someone else's interpretation of a book, I feel that it ruins the imagination aspect that so many people get out of books. A lot of people don't even bother to read the book now.
I'm obviously very biased.
|
|
krista
Young Armadillo
Warrior of Words
Posts: 52
|
Post by krista on May 31, 2011 13:11:22 GMT -5
I agree with the popular opinions on this post: Films and books are two different mediums. I also think that people, in general, will always enjoy the books more because we may each perceive the book differently in our mind. When we watch a film, we see how the director/etc. interprets the book and it may or may not match up to how we viewed it. A lot of adaptations also, as mentioned above, only add in the important "plot" details. I cannot tell you how many times I've watched Harry Potter in the theater and said to myself, "WHY DID THEY NOT ADD -CHARACTER/SCENE- IN HERE?!" D:
|
|
|
|
Post by gabepeg on May 31, 2011 14:22:01 GMT -5
Unpopular Opinion here (perhaps): I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings films as much as the book series...and there are parts of the movies that I liked more than the books.
I agree with them being two different entities. Sure they are another person's interpretations of the text, but that can be pretty exciting in my opinion. Also, I have been reading Jurassic Park currently and I'm almost finished and I am currently loving it. I have seen the movie numerous times since I was little and I like the movie and even though Michael Crichton adapted it into a screenplay himself, there are vast differences. At first I was like "Oh..." and was put off a little bit, but as I continued reading it, I realized the negative affects of including a lot of the book into the movie. Sometimes things in the books simply do not fit into the movie adaptations.
I was glad someone else mentioned Blood and Chocolate...I didn't like the book...or the movie, so I may be a bit biased...but I don't know why they changed so much of it.
I tend to appreciate both versions, though I normally remain critical of certain elements. I think it's best to see the movie and if you like it that's fine, if you don't that's fine also. I think they both contribute a lot to the works, especially of those where the author isn't around to be interviewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tori on May 31, 2011 20:50:03 GMT -5
Unpopular Opinion here (perhaps): I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings films as much as the book series...and there are parts of the movies that I liked more than the books. I actually feel the same way! And that's a bit remarkable for me because I usually dislike film adaptations of books I adore. The only time I have ever liked a film more than the book it was based on: V for Vendetta. I read the graphic novel after I saw the film...and it bored me.  Then again, the film is a rather loose adaptation. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on May 31, 2011 21:01:07 GMT -5
RE: Blood and Chocolate
I enjoyed the book quite a bit when I first read it (age 11), then saw the movie when it came out and thought it was horrid. Then returned to the book, thinking it would be good again, only to be at a loss! I couldn't find any of what I'd enjoyed as a child. Alas.
|
|
|
|
Post by afontofnothing on Jun 1, 2011 0:13:34 GMT -5
I, too, have realized that the books will always be better than the film adaptations, and that I must judge them separately. I have one major complaint about a certain movie, though: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It was the longest book and the shortest movie. What is up with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 1, 2011 1:07:24 GMT -5
I generally avoid film/tv adaptations of books. I already have in my mind the way the characters and the scenes look, and it kind of ruins it for me when I watch the film and then go back to the book and all I can see is the director's version in my mind.
Generally, if a TV show or a movie comes out that looks interesting, I'll see if it was based off something. If it was, I read that and that's fine for me.
That said, I'm more willing to see it if the original writer had a hand in it. For example, Jurassic Park was different from the book, but entertaining. I loved the recent Hitchhiker's Guide adaptation because Adams worked on it before he died.
|
|
|
|
Post by horizonbound on Jun 2, 2011 15:41:23 GMT -5
Ditto on the separate entities. Occasionally I'll come across a film adaptation that's so different from the original book that I can't decided which I prefer, so I simply enjoy them both equally. And I have already come across stories where I much preferred the movie to the book... one that comes to mind is Bed Knobs and Broomsticks. I grew up watching the movie, and when I finally read the book I was disappointed.
I've also come across adaptations that actually enhanced my enjoyment of the original book(s). Watching the television series of All Creatures Great and Small before reading the books gave me not only crystal-clear visuals of the characters, but also allowed me to easily picture some of the absurd situations Herriot and the Farnons had to put up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickusp on Jun 2, 2011 16:37:07 GMT -5
The only movie I enjoyed better than the book was The Exorcist, and even then I was so young when I picked up the book that it wouldn't surprise me if I had a better time with it now.
While I agree you should look at a film adaptation as separate from the original book, I also think it's damaging to people's sense of imagination for every book with a decent following to get a film these days.
I've also known people to carry the "Why read the book when it's a movie?" train of thought with pride, which leaves me with a horrid taste in my mouth...
|
|
Then again, the film is a rather loose adaptation.
