|
Australia3818 Posts
Now, there have always been arguments here.
I want to see what you guys think.
Do you think that books are better than the movies? Or the movies are better than the books?
I guess there are cases for both sides.
LOTR, Harry Potter, Forrest Gump, The Hunt For Red October, The Last of the Mohicans and a whole lot more. Do the movies make the books look better in some cases?
I guess you have to take into account that books can't provide you with theme music or visuals...only in the mind I guess. Movies save you time also, instead of reading for a week or two, you see a movie in 2 hours...and are left more entertained (debatable).
Personally, I don't know what to think, as I really enjoy reading, but at the same time...some stories 'feel' better when they are portrayed on the screen.
Sure you can rule out as much character development in a majority of films that have been adapted from books...and perhaps the element of the story being skewed by the director...but whatever.
What do you guys think?
Poll: Books > Their movie adaptations?
(Vote): Books > Movie version of the book?
(Vote): Movie version of the book > book?
Edit: Another poll I guess:
Poll: Who reads?
(Vote): I read.
(Vote): I hate reading.
And another:
Poll: Would would rather see a movie?
(Vote): I'd rather watch the movie.
(Vote): I'd rather read the book.
|
depends but usually a well written book is better then the movie adaptation
first! ( just kidding >.>)
|
United States20661 Posts
LOTR I liked book better
HP I don't much like either
Forrest Gump movie is much different from book...
THFRO I only read once and saw twice, dunno which I like better.
TLOTM I never saw movie.
Dune book > movie
Not many book to movie adaptations are that great.
300! ahahahahahahahhahahahah
edit: the one where I think both are quite excellent - The Princess Bride. Great book, great movie, classic, all that.
|
the original novel is better than the adapted screenplay, in general.
exceptions for which an argument can be made otherwise include four of the five movies you listed above.
others that come to mind off of the top of my head are: a beautiful mind, a clockwork orange, silence of the lambs, requiem for a dream, the shining...
|
It really depends on the premise behind the book, how its structured, how thematic elements are developed, etc. Some things just don't translate well.
In most cases, movie adaptations are worse because producers and directors try more to find books that are popular or books they like rather than books that would translate well. And also, it takes a good deal of skill, and a different kind of insight than normal, for a director to be able to see the things that need to be changed, cut, and even added in order to convey the same ideas as well as implement them convincingly.
|
|
|
I don't believe there will ever be a movie better than the book, other than the many, many limitations of movies (time, budget, intention to earn money), there's also the fact that when you watch a movie - you're seeing what the director thought when he read the book as opposed to your own thoughts - that completely ruins it for me, so very much.
|
Terminator I think was a movie first, that was made into a book. Those don't count!
|
Books give the reader the chance to mold the setting into what they'd want to see. That's why, to a person who enjoys reading, a book will be preferred over a movie. Also, people who read a book before watching the movie might be disappointed because the characters/other details won't be what they pictured.
Personally, I'd take a good book over a movie. It involves the person a lot more than a movie ever could, and the little details aren't missing and are whatever you want them to be.
EDIT: I'm a big Harry Potter fan, and the movies were a huge disappointment for me. The first and fourth were alright, but overall I was not impressed. The only good book to movie adaptation that I can really think of is LOTR. I read the books first, and I gotta say, the movies were almost perfect. Had they included the scouring of the Shire, I would be a very happy person.
I think Fight Club wasn't that bad, either.
|
I like both, but books much better. I love the 'movie' that goes on in your mind when reading a book, that is what made the hobbit one of the most satisfying reads of my lifetime. (idk how to explain that, but w/e)
However, a well done movie can be better then the book it originated from, in some cases, but I just always think the original deserves more respect than what came after it.
|
On April 16 2007 21:54 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I like both, but books much better. I love the 'movie' that goes on in your mind when reading a book, that is what made the hobbit one of the most satisfying reads of my lifetime. (idk how to explain that, but w/e)
However, a well done movie can be better then the book it originated from, in some cases, but I just always think the original deserves more respect than what came after it.
Ah, the Hobbit was an excellent book. Looking forward to the movie, but apparently Jackson won't be doing it?
|
IMO, which is better (considering comics as books. I'm omitting dozens of titles, I'm sure):
Lord of the Rings: Book
Harry Potter: Movie
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Movie
From Hell: Book
Spiderman: Movie
Superman: Movie
X-Men: Movie
Fantastic 4: Movie
Batman: Movie
Catwoman: Book
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Book
V for Vendetta: Book
Sin City: Movie
Ghost World: Book
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Book
A Clockwork Orange: Book
The Shining: Movie
1984: Book
Fight Club: Movie
Interview with the Vampire: Movie
Book: 9, Movie: 11
pretty even. When the books were better than the movies, they were generally WAY better, and when the books were worse than the movies, they were only slightly worse.
|
The books take a lot more time, and have a lot more to do. I think a really good series would be able to match a book. For instance, if Peter Jackson had twenty or thirty hours worth of episodes to develop characters in LOTR and tell the story through an entire season or two of shows.
I think that is the best book to movie rendition I have ever seen though. As LOTR was simply some great cinema with a weak ending.. kind of Tolkein's fault on that one anyway though.
Movies, even ones as long as LOTR are still rushed to meet time lines & $ for the box office etc.. and cannot capture the true depth of some authors brilliance.
|
Has anybody ever seen the movie for Fahrenheight 451?
It is by far my favorite book, and I have read it quite a few times, but I am interested to know if the movie is good.
|
For me, 99% of the time, the books are better.
For example, if you liked Pursuit of Happiness (movie), you would like the book much more, especially if your whole premise of liking it was how he overcame such tremendous odds. The book actually expounds a whole lot more. I liked the movie, but it didn't do justice to what he really had to suffer through.
Once in a blue moon, the movie is better. One example is of LotR. For me, reading the LotR books was like reading an encyclopedia for the majority of the time until a major battle, and even then it was hard to keep your focus because it shifted scenes quite a bit. The movie left out some parts, but it was for the sake of time. Most of those parts weren't really that important in the book anyways, unless you wanted to really "get into the world of LotR."
And as some have already said, the Harry Potter movies were quite disappointing. That's probably only because it's rated PG-13 (I think) so kids could watch it too. I could imagine little kids freaking out after seeing what the book really describes Lord Voldermort to be.
|
On April 16 2007 21:59 Tadzio00 wrote:
IMO, which is better (considering comics as books. I'm omitting dozens of titles, I'm sure):
Lord of the Rings: Book
Harry Potter: Movie
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Movie
From Hell: Book
Spiderman: Movie
Superman: Movie
X-Men: Movie
Fantastic 4: Movie
Batman: Movie
Catwoman: Book
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Book
V for Vendetta: Book
Sin City: Movie
Ghost World: Book
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Book
A Clockwork Orange: Book
The Shining: Movie
1984: Book
Fight Club: Movie
Interview with the Vampire: Movie
Book: 9, Movie: 11
pretty even. When the books were better than the movies, they were generally WAY better, and when the books were worse than the movies, they were only slightly worse.
i know this is all subjective, but if you consider all those marvel movies better than the comics, you are obviously basing your opinion on very little. i can say the same for harry potter; as mentioned already, there is too much to incorporate into a hp movie that it is simply impossible to do justice to its paperback counterpart.
|
Australia3818 Posts
Has anyone seen and/or read 'The Power of One'?
It's based on the book by Bryce Courtenay...I really like that movie, I haven't actually read the book though.
|
On April 16 2007 22:00 MYM.Testie wrote:
The books take a lot more time, and have a lot more to do. I think a really good series would be able to match a book. For instance, if Peter Jackson had twenty or thirty hours worth of episodes to develop characters in LOTR and tell the story through an entire season or two of shows.
I think that is the best book to movie rendition I have ever seen though. As LOTR was simply some great cinema with a weak ending.. kind of Tolkein's fault on that one anyway though.
Movies, even ones as long as LOTR are still rushed to meet time lines & $ for the box office etc.. and cannot capture the true depth of some authors brilliance.
I don't know what your knowledge of LotR consist, but the ending of the movie isn't the ending of the story-line by Tolkein. I'm not flaming you, but I know a ton of LotR geeks who have read the "sequels." The "LotR trio" is simply just that. It's a three part series of one part of the story. There's other books like the Similarion (sp?) and War of the Worlds... I've been told many times that Tolkein intended on publishing much more... he just never had the time to do it. I've also been told that his son continued some of his works, but they aren't as big names. Again, I'm not a "LotR geek" though so I could be wrong.
|
IMO, which is better (considering comics as books. I'm omitting dozens of titles, I'm sure):
Lord of the Rings: Book
Harry Potter: Book
The Shining: Book
1984: Book
Fight Club: Book
|
On April 16 2007 22:05 Smurg wrote:
Has anyone seen and/or read 'The Power of One'?
It's based on the book by Bryce Courtenay...I really like that movie, I haven't actually read the book though.
i've experienced both, and i want to say that the novel is better. but maybe it's because i watched the movie during an english class four years ago. movies in class = sleepy time
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
