EPTMovies vs Books. - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
larrysbird
375 Posts
| ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
I personally found 2001 Space Odyssey too tedious for my liking whilst the movie I enjoyed quite a lot. | ||
|
Ilvy
Germany2445 Posts
On April 17 2007 03:17 HeMaN wrote: generally people say books are better than movies, however from the few books i\\\'ve read that has ended up as movie adaptions, i\\\'ve liked the movies better. this includes 25th Hour, fight club and lotr. I can\\\'t believe how anyone can say the book format of fight club was better than the movie. I mean sure, the book was great, no doubt. However the movie adaptation is the book on steroids. they basically cut all the bullshit from the novell, used all the best parts and amplified them times ten. If you gonna tell me that Lotr films are better as the book i must really wonder. Books are in 99% always better since they they have the possibility to go way deeper into details and forces you to use your phantasie, way better as a interpretation of a Regisseur | ||
|
defenestrate
United States579 Posts
Kubrick: Spartacus 2001 Clockwork Orange (though Wendy Carlos deserves the lion's share of the credit) Full Metal Jacket ("The Short Timers" is still a great read, though). The Shining Others: Fight Club Silence of the Lambs Stalker (Russian) Battlefield Earth - the movie mercifully truncates the book one third of the way through. Yes, I've read the whole thing. | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On April 16 2007 21:50 ~AreS] wrote: 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 agree with pretty much everything you said ^^ For me, books > movies most of the time Though for LotR, book = movie If you've read the book first and liked it, chances are, you're probably not going to like the movie since your expectations are so high. | ||
|
Storchen
Sweden4385 Posts
On April 17 2007 14:57 defenestrate wrote: Movie > Book: Clockwork Orange (though Wendy Carlos deserves the lion's share of the credit) aww cmon. The movie was good, yes, but the book was way better. So much more philosophy and depth. And the language. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
AiurZ
United States429 Posts
that said, whenever someone says that they think the fight club movie is better than the book i usually think they are either stupid or havent read the book. | ||
|
defenestrate
United States579 Posts
On April 17 2007 15:25 Storchen wrote: aww cmon. The movie was good, yes, but the book was way better. So much more philosophy and depth. And the language. Reading about music does not compare to hearing the music. Yes, the book is deeper. The movie is my favorite, though, while I can think of several dozen better books. | ||
| ||
