Ask Your Question today
I know plenty of people who enjoy a film so much that they later read the book (or vice versa). However, I started reading a book, noticed the film was on TV and am watching it right now (while I'm still partway through the book).
The film has a completely different tone than the book (and so far, even the story is different). Am I making a mistake?
Books are almost ALWAYS better!! One that really stands out for me is 'Running man'. The book was GREAT, but the movie was nothing like the book and it totally sucked!! It had nothing in common with the book and the movie was just terrible regardless of comparison to he book.
The book 'The Godfather' is a lot better than the movie. The movie is great, but the book is even better. The movie goes along with the book very closely but there are parts left out or shortened, and the book is a lot more graphic.
You had me up until you gave the example of The Godfather which to me is the exception to the rule.
Couldn't agree more. I saw Running Man years before I read the book and couldn't believe it was the same thing. The book is really, really good. Don't know if you've read The Long Walk or Rage (two things he wrote about the same time, under the same name). Those two are favourites of mine.
Funny story about the Running Man movie. Family was watching it in the bedroom and just as Arnie was cutting Buzzsaw in two, my brothers leg came bursting through the ceiling. He was in the attic and his foot slipped between the floor joists. Freaked us all the hell out.
Now I can't get excited watching that movie without a leg bursting through the ceiling.
The book is NOTHING like the movie, basically. The book is great. Plot is about 99% different, and it's realistic, not sci-fi or weird like the dumb movie.
I think you're ruining the book for yourself if you're only partway through it and watch the film.
I'd much rather read the book first and imagine all the characters, settings nuances etc, for myself than have someone elses 'vision' influence my mind first.
yeah, those were my thoughts.
I'd much rather finish the book, then AFTERWARDS watch the movie as a "summary".
If i was in the middle of reading and then knew the reminder of whats going to happen from the movie, i don't know if i would bring myself to finish reading. I like to be surprised.
Also, imagining stuff myself. EVEN if the author takes part in the creation(such as was with Game of Thrones). I know Daenerys had to be older for some reasons, but i imagined her quite a bit differently, same with Aria, Joffrey, Theon.... Tyrion, Tywin and Sansa were spot-on though for me. :)
No, but sometimes I will read the script of a movie just for the fun of it.
The book version will always be better then the film version. On occasion there have been extremely loyal film versions. Usually film remakes, especially if made in america, are butchered and watered down versions of the originals. Some interesting examples are:
A clockwork orange. I'm yet to read the book but my mother read it awhile ago. Apparently, the original book was set somewhere around the 50's/60's on EARTH! Yet, the film appeared to be some strange futuristic world opposite of earth. At the ending, in the book they didn't change his love for music, but yet they did in the film. Why change something that makes a person "human"?
The Harry Potter series. The first few films were excellent, but the quality went on a decline afterwards. The third to me was the best film, but a crucial mistake was made! They wore Muggle clothing instead of their School Robes and this trend unfortunately carried on into the other films. Both part one and two of The Deathly Hollows was severely butchered. >_<!
The lord of the rings trilogy remained truthful and perfect on both the live-action and animated remakes, but with a few changes.
Studio's Ghibli's remake of Howls Moving Castle was also perfect so, the outcome of remakes really depends on many different factors. I still think it's better to read the book first instead of judging it due to the film.
i liked lord of the rings in film form much better than the book, it was hard to read
The movie would be much better if you were the director and it went by your interpretation of the book.
Books are usually better.
The reason being that the book is usually the original story. The film, being a shortened adaptation, often has many good parts omitted.
I also often get the impression that the director didn't fully understand the author's intentions and somehow makes something completely different. There's also often partial re-writes of the story in order to make it fit in just 2 hours or less.
That being said, I'm often surprised by the extant that they manage to fuck up a good story.
------
Personally, I don't have time to read all the books I want to, so I watch the film instead.
If the film is very good, I will go read the book, knowing that it must be a true masterpiece if it still retains some brilliance after the film industry has digested it and shat it out.
I wonder whether some of it is that film audiences and book audiences are two very different things and the intersection of those two isn't as massive a market as each one individually.
I can understand how books which are very descriptive or factual could be filmed easily (given enough film for it all), but things with an internal narrative are harder (how do you portray someone's thoughts on screen, apart from with verbal narration?)
Some of the books I love are loved as much for the beauty of their language as the story. It's another one that's tough to translate. After all that you have pressures outside of the director on editing and keeping something down to 96 minutes (I guess it's why there are so many director's cuts... sadly a film has to make us love it in precis first as nobody has the patience to see if it's worthwhile even as a longer film, never mind a book).
You're probably right. I know many people who only watch the movies and some others who only read the books.
I have seen a few films that are on par with their respective books, but usually, for better books, it's harder to make a good film.
Sometimes I think it would be better to adapt certain books into a series, but the market for 90 minute movies is surely much bigger.
UPDATE: A few hours later. I turned the film off after about five minutes because it was clearly just a poor man's Indiana Jones while the book, which is over a century old, is an interesting social document and really well-written. I perhaps won't ever watch the film, but I'll certainly carry on with the book.
Thanks all. You all called it the right way.
mind if I ask what book this was?
And as for my own tastes.. it depends. Most times the book is always better, but there have been times when I've done the movie first and then the book just so the movie wouldn't be ruined for me.
And sometimes I've gotten books because of the movies. For example - Act Of Valor. I saw it in the theatre, picked up the book (iBook) recently, and even though I'm reading the book I watched it last night as well. Although in that case the movie version was really top-notch and I know most of the "mistakes" are on purpose for security reasons.
No, I don't mind at all. It's "King Solomon's Mines". I was given it as a kid and really couldn't take to it at all. Reading it now and knowing a bit more about South African history, it's really coming to life and I'm thoroughly enjoying it (from an entertainment perspective and a historical perspective equally).
The book is almost always better. There are some examples, such as Harry Potter and LOTR, where the movie is done extremely well and is great, but the books were still better.
Prime example being Eragon. The book, the entire series really, was amazing. The movie, however, was one of the biggest "book rapings" I have ever seen!
The book American psycho in my opinion is one of the greatest books ever written, the film doesn't do the book a whole lot of justice as a lot of the story is missed out. In this case it is a good thing though because if the film had the cannabilism, rape and torture scenes in it I believe a lot of people would not like the character Patrick Bateman and it probably wouldn't be quoted as much as it is.
I did that with catch22 and slaughterhouse5, the latter is now my favorite book. Im not one who usually reads fiction but the movie was so good I had to ad of course the story is even better
Yeah, the movies weren't that good now that i remember, but they had the basic idea of the story so it was still interesting/funny if you hadn't read the book first otherwise it'd probably be a big disappointment like OP said below, I think they were made more like hollywood romance
We've got similar tastes. Both books are personal favourites of mine. I saw the film of Catch 22 after reading the book a few times and I was a bit disappointed.
Another good one is To Kill a mockingbird because I think the author only allowed 1 movie version to be made so she would know it was just right. Also, I did kind of the opposite for a Clockwork Orange, I asked my parents to get the movie cus I'd hear a lot on it but they said it was too disturbing, that was the only movie they never allowed me to watch... so I tried to read the book instead, and I'm usually open to anything but after the first few chapters, up to when they destroy the mans house ("whoever heard of a clockwork orange?")I just couldnt go on, I mean I know it's only fiction and it's a classic but the main characters made me so mad and disgusted...