|
Post by buffymanic on Mar 25, 2007 7:27:27 GMT 10
Many books have been remaid into films or TV series, there have been a few very successful cases and and many failures.
Do you think it is a good idea for a good book to be made into a film or is it best left to the written word? Would you rather read the book first or watch the movie?
|
|
|
Post by Alissa on Mar 25, 2007 7:35:59 GMT 10
I like when my favorite books are made into movies. For example, Pride and Prejudice, The Great Gatsby, and Their Eyes Were Watching God. These were excellent books that were made into good movies. As long as the movie does the book justice, I think it's a great idea. Plus movies for lit class= I'd rather read the book first because the movie makes more sense this way, and it won't ruin the ending of the book. Also, the book inevitably has a lot more to it than the director can stuff into a 2 hour theatrical period. So yes, I'd rather read the book first, unless it is the case of Harry Potter, where the books have gotten so long that I'm just waiting for the movies.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Mar 25, 2007 10:24:04 GMT 10
I also enjoy when books get turned into movies. Most of the times the movies are worse, but it's still fun to watch a movie after reading a book. You get to see what they changed. As long as the movie isn't pure trash, then I think it's good.
However, if I actually want to learn the story, I would definitely read the book. If I just wanted a short summary of say, a really long book, I'd see the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Amber on Mar 27, 2007 10:39:39 GMT 10
I enjoy books turned into movies, but only if they're accurate. It's best if the author of the book(s) is helping out with the movie, so the director doesn't take very important parts out while making the movie that are crucial to the storyline. Some books are good as movies, others, well...aren't so good.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 31, 2007 1:40:44 GMT 10
I don't quite like it when books are turned into a movie. One reason being that they cram a 200 page book into a 2 hour movie. In doing so, the story loses it's appeal and essence as the directors would cut out a lot of stuff just to fit into a 2 hour timeslot. If the movie keeps everything that the book has and it's accurate, then I'm all for a book turing into a movie. But these days, it's hard to find a movie where it gives the book justice. I also find it's easier to relate and understand the characters a lot more by reading a book than watching the movie. You get to know what goes on in the head of the character or know what he/she is thinking when you read the book version. Doesn't happen when you watch the movie though. But books where there is a lot of action or horror, I think it's best to watch the movie version of it as it would be quite tough to imagine all the action and suspense while reading the book. And it's interesting to see a different interpretation of a certain scene or storyline. But in general, I would rather read the book version than watch the movie version.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Apr 1, 2007 19:07:02 GMT 10
but sometimes they make really good movies from books, james bond for example, also l.o.t.r. there are a lot of people out there who are not great reader myself included, but just because i cant read that well dosnt mean i should miss out on a good story, im all for books to films
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Apr 2, 2007 23:47:01 GMT 10
I like when my favorite books are made into movies. For example, Pride and Prejudice, The Great Gatsby, Blargh, Great Gatsby! Soo boring. "OH WOW SHIRTS!" There's been quite a few great ones - A Clockwork Orange, The Exocist, Forest Gump, Girl Interrupted, GoodFellas, Interview with the Vampire, Little Women (aww I love this movie so much) The Parent Trap , The Princess Bride, Silence of the Lambs, The Talented Mr. Ripley, To Kill A Mockingbird, James Bond, The Virgin Suicides, The Devil Wears Prada, Carrie, The SHining, The Bourne Identity, A Scanner Darkly...lots and lots! Usually I try to read the book first, but sometimes it's annoying when they leave stuff out. As to whether books should be made into movies, I think it depends on the book. Books like The Da Vinci Code were practically made to be a movie... Also I agree with you Paul - for example, LOTR - I've read the first book and it was sooo hard to get through, and I probably would not had read it if I didn't have to (it was for uni). The movies mean I haven't missed out on the wonderful story. I prefer the movie to the book, in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Apr 3, 2007 6:29:52 GMT 10
Too bad the movie sucked. It could have been so much better. I hated the Great Gatsby too. It bored the crap out of me. I don't mind when books are made to film. I like seeing how it can be translated on screen and sometimes I get a better understanding out of the story after watching it on screen. Most of the time, I do prefer the books, though.
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Apr 5, 2007 16:04:08 GMT 10
Mostly I like when books are turned into films, as long as they stay true to the story and the casting isnt bad and the directer doesn't take 'liberties' with the story. Some movies are better than the books - LOTR being a big one, but mostly I prefer the books.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Sept 14, 2007 22:43:25 GMT 10
I generally prefer the books, but some movies do them justice. As for being "true" to the book, I think they definitely need to in spirit. That said, with the different mediums, things will need to change, especially when it comes to pacing, and needing to simplify bits for the shorter span of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Jan 11, 2008 8:14:02 GMT 10
So can anyone think of any movies that were better than the books? (Aside from LOTR - thats a given )
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Jan 11, 2008 12:06:44 GMT 10
I definitely liked the film version of Bridget Jones' Diary more than the book.
|
|
|
Post by Beck on Jan 11, 2008 13:48:34 GMT 10
Really? I preferred the books, but that usually happens when I've read the book first. I did enjoy the movie though.
|
|
|
Post by Loz on Jan 11, 2008 18:34:28 GMT 10
I liked the first Bridget Jones' Diary film better than the book. I think The Notebook film is far superior to the book. And the film of Sense and Sensibility i enjoy a fair bit more than the book. Which being Jane Austen is a pretty impressive thing really
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jan 11, 2008 22:40:46 GMT 10
I'll go with American Psycho being better as a movie than a book. Much as I love the book (and I do), the movie wasn't as "extreme". The violence wasn't as horrid in the movie, which allowed the story and social commentary to shine. Naturally, the producers felt the need to release a completely unnecessary sequel that actually sold out the first movie, but that's a rant for another day.
|
|
|
Post by Shaun on Mar 5, 2008 12:26:56 GMT 10
Except Lord of the Rings and James Bond, I have always preferred the books. But books where there is a lot of action or horror, I think it's best to watch the movie version of it as it would be quite tough to imagine all the action and suspense while reading the book. I disagree. I like horror movies but some scenes can come across too fake or corny and it takes away from the horror. I don't miss the suspense or horror when reading a book, and onscreen it doesn't always work as well.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Mar 5, 2008 21:47:46 GMT 10
Horror is a tough thing to pull off on screen and keep it scary. But when you're reading it, your imagination can run wild, allowing you to get scared.
|
|
|
Post by Loz on Mar 6, 2008 17:16:52 GMT 10
While i've never gone and put a book in the freezer or anything, i've been well and truly creeped out by a book. Its called using your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Lizzie on Mar 6, 2008 18:20:13 GMT 10
Hah, nice reference.
I've definitely been scared by books. One that immediately comes to mind is the first book in the Ellie series by John Marsden (the scene with her parents.
|
|