# The Book versus The Movie



## Sunny (Nov 14, 2011)

In your opinion would you rather read a book before watching the movie? Or, would you rather watch the movie and then read the book? Do you find books are generally better than the movie?

I would rather read a book before watching the movie. I guess a movie just can't jam everything into it that a book can. Plus I miss out on the thoughts and feelings of the characters. I usually do like the books better than the movie, except for "The Notebook" by Nicholas Sparks. I loooooved the movie, but thought the book was only so-so. It might be because I watched the movie first, but who knows. 

There is a new movie release coming out soon that I've been waiting so long to see. "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins is set to be released March 25, 2012. I'm so super excited to see it. The trailer looks amazing. I know it won't live up to the book, but I'm still hoping for the best. Here's the clip for anyone who's read the book and would be interested in seeing the trailer. 

[video=youtube;4S9a5V9ODuY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9a5V9ODuY[/video]


----------



## beanlord56 (Nov 14, 2011)

Normally, I read the book before the movie, the exception being _The Lord of the Rings_. I feel that the book is always better than the movie in most aspects, and the movie is better in a few others. There are a few where the book was great, but movie is out right horrible. Two examples that come to mind are Eragon and The Lightning Thief.


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 15, 2011)

Yeah, it just depends on how well the book is adapted. The thing about books is that they often pack in a whole lot of filler that a screenwriter can cut without damaging the plot, which means that a movie can move better than a book (LOTR is a prime example of this). At the same time though, a movie can botch a book horribly in attempting to make it fit a certain timeframe or style of film. Then... yeah. Things can get ugly.

Personally, I think the book is almost always better, as if you think about it, only really good books usually end up as movies. And in books, you also get more character work (which does count as filler in moves, somewhat), and I love me a great supporting cast in an story. Would Scott Pilgrim have been that much fun without Kim?

The Hunger Games has hope, I think, mostly because of Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. I'm certainly going to see it at some point.


----------



## seyelint (Nov 15, 2011)

Ouch, that is a hard one to answer for me. Most times if I read a book first, I'm disappointed in the film. The reason is as you explained (everything can't be jammed into a film) and often times those little bits of information make the story better, fill the scenes out.

On the other hand, sometimes with pictures you get a broader view of the surroundings, you can see the weather, see people walking by, so see the background rather than a sheet of white paper behind the words.

Many times I've been disappointed by films, but other times . . . not so much.

The Stalker (directed by Andrey Zarkovskij -  novel written by Arkadij Strugatskij -  is a great film which worked for me. It is one that I have watched before I have read the book.

S


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

beanlord56 said:


> Normally, I read the book before the movie, the exception being _The Lord of the Rings_. I feel that the book is always better than the movie in most aspects, and the movie is better in a few others. There are a few where the book was great, but movie is out right horrible. Two examples that come to mind are Eragon and The Lightning Thief.


Hey beanlord56. I agree with you on The Lightning Thief. I never read Eragon, so I wouldn't be able to say. I did like The Lightning thief, but it just wasn't as good as the book. Did you read that whole series? I only read the first book. I've meant to read more, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.



Vertigo said:


> Yeah, it just depends on how well the book is adapted. The thing about books is that they often pack in a whole lot of filler that a screenwriter can cut without damaging the plot, which means that a movie can move better than a book (LOTR is a prime example of this). At the same time though, a movie can botch a book horribly in attempting to make it fit a certain timeframe or style of film. Then... yeah. Things can get ugly.
> 
> Personally, I think the book is almost always better, as if you think about it, only really good books usually end up as movies. And in books, you also get more character work (which does count as filler in moves, somewhat), and I love me a great supporting cast in an story. Would Scott Pilgrim have been that much fun without Kim?
> 
> The Hunger Games has hope, I think, mostly because of Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. I'm certainly going to see it at some point.


Hi Vertigo. LOTR is Lord Of The Rings right? lol. Sorry... ;0). I loved those movies, but God, I think I'd be bored stiff trying to read through them. If you think the movie is better than the books, I'll go with that and assume I'm not missing much anyway. lol. 

And I agree. I think Woody Harrelson is going to be awesome. I don't know why, but the part that got me the most in that clip was when everyone was in the town watching on the screen and Gayle was sitting all alone in the field with his knees pulled up to his chest. I'm emotional, and I LOVE Gayle, so that part almost had me in tears! ha ha. I can't wait to watch it. 



seyelint said:


> Ouch, that is a hard one to answer for me. Most times if I read a book first, I'm disappointed in the film. The reason is as you explained (everything can't be jammed into a film) and often times those little bits of information make the story better, fill the scenes out.
> 
> On the other hand, sometimes with pictures you get a broader view of the surroundings, you can see the weather, see people walking by, so see the background rather than a sheet of white paper behind the words.
> 
> ...



Hello Seyelint. I guess I never really thought about all the extra stuff you get to see that they can add in a movie. If an author doesn't describe a scene enough, I guess a movie can play that out so you see every detail. However, I hate when a director adds a scene into a movie that wasn't even in the book. I hate when something happpens to a character that wasn't even hinted at in the book.

I wonder if that's what makes the difference in liking the movie more than the book. Seeing the movie first?


----------



## seyelint (Nov 15, 2011)

Well, as you said, when they add (sometimes I believe others opinions cause this) it can ruin a book's original story.  But I like sound, I like those other senses being stimulated. I know my imagination can fill in most but I've seen writers write with only a few of the five senses which lessens the impact for me. Certain films I enjoyed more than books, hard to believe I know.

Interesting thread, great replies

S


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

Maybe it depends on the budget of the movie as well? Like Lord Of The Rings obviously had a very large bugdet and the special affects were amazing, therefore, making the movies amazing. 

Now I'll talk about a book made to movie, that most people love to hate, but I love. (well the books anyway). Twilight. They didn't have a great budget to work with, therefore, the movie kind of stunk for special affects and the extras money can give to a big budget film. The meadow scene was stupid, it looked nothing like in the book. (Well, what I imagined it looked like anyway.) There was never a scene in the book where they went on class trip to a green house, but it was in the movie. (why add that?) It was stupid. They added a lot of stupid stuff, but so much was also cut out. I know for a person who didn't read those books, or love them, they would think the movie was stupid and not get the hype. I guess I would have loved the movie regardless of how it turned out. The bad budget, some bad acting, stupid added scenes, missing awesome scenes, but to see your favorite characters come to life, is awesome enough.


----------



## seyelint (Nov 15, 2011)

I have never read a Twilight book, nor seen one of their films (it is just because I don't like pretty-boy/girl vampires and such) 

I have to respect the writer, well done on such a popular series. 

Yes, I understand when producers and such add scenes for no reason(or they seem to have no good reason) Often I wonder why, but would have to secure a director/producer in restraints before their answer would no doubt come forth.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

Oh I wish I could erase my mind just so I could read them over again! ha ha... I've read them all 5 times now, so I'm thinking I'll wait a little bit to read them again. ;0)

I hated vampires, I actually hated reading before my sister finally talked me into reading them. She begged for a month before I finally gave in. She pleaded one day, and hit the right spot. Telling me how much of a hopeless romantic I am, that I would fall in love! She was right. Love, Love, Love! ha ha

It's true. I wish they would say WTF they were thinking when adding something that had no business being in the movie!!! lol


----------



## seyelint (Nov 15, 2011)

often I hear it in the background playing on the television, but I walked in one day to a guy all sparkling and well that was enough to scurry me from the room. I am not saying they are badly written books, because I have never read the series, but with that many fans it must have appeal. 

5 times :O that made me giggle.


----------



## beanlord56 (Nov 15, 2011)

Sunny said:


> Hey beanlord56. I agree with you on The Lightning Thief. I never read Eragon, so I wouldn't be able to say. I did like The Lightning thief, but it just wasn't as good as the book. Did you read that whole series? I only read the first book. I've meant to read more, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.



I thought _Eragon_ was fantastic. Despite its astonishing similarities to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, I felt that it was still original. The film however made me vomit in a manner similar to when I saw aberration known as The Last Airbender. The Lightning Thief film had the same effect on me. I read all the Percy Jackson novels, as well as both books from the spin-off series _The Heroes of Olympus _that are currently out, and I loved them all. I would recommend the rest of the book_,_ and _Eragon_, but the latter only if you're into unnecessarily descriptive, mega-high (not just high) fantasy.

And you've read _Twilight_ five times? Pssh. I've read the first three Harry Potter novels at least ten times each. The other four, a maximum of thrice.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

Seyelint. 

LOL...Yup. 5 times. The way he sparkles is kind of cheesy, but hey, it's Edward. "This is the skin of a killer, Bella!" (said in my best Robert Pattinson voice!)ha ha... Beautiful skin that sparkles like diamonds - really scary!! ;0)

Hey, it's for Young Adults and it's good for me. I don't think I'll ever grow up!!! ha ha.... 2 hot supernatual boys (enemies by nature) fighting for the love of one lucky average looking girl... It's perfect. Edward can't touch her because he wants to drink her blood, but all he wants to do is be with her at the same time... The ultimate in Forbidden love. I love it. Forbidden love, it's a classic. ;0)


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

Hey Beanlord,

I think I watched Eragon once. Is that the one where the boy finds the dragon egg on the shore? lol.. I kind of remember it, if it is. I usually have to have some sort of romance in a book to keep me interested, so I'm not really sure why I loved the first Percy Jackson book, but I did. My best friend and my sister have the whole set and want me to read the rest of them. I will at some point. Hey, do you think they'll come out with any more movies for that series?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 15, 2011)

Depends. If it's Dickens I'd probably never read the book...


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

Bloggsworth, Have you ever read a Dickens book? I haven't.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Nov 15, 2011)

Sunny said:


> Bloggsworth, Have you ever read a Dickens book? I haven't.



At school we had, for the English Literature exams, read Dickens and Chaucer - As aversion therapy it worked very well...


----------



## beanlord56 (Nov 15, 2011)

Sunny said:


> Hey Beanlord,
> 
> I think I watched Eragon once. Is that the one where the boy finds the dragon egg on the shore? lol.. I kind of remember it, if it is. I usually have to have some sort of romance in a book to keep me interested, so I'm not really sure why I loved the first Percy Jackson book, but I did. My best friend and my sister have the whole set and want me to read the rest of them. I will at some point. Hey, do you think they'll come out with any more movies for that series?



Eragon found Sapphira's egg in the mountains. Close, but no cigar.

Percy Jackson does have romance, but it starts out as cheesy adolescent romance, but by _The Heroes of Olympus_, its more cheesy teen romance.

Unfortunately, The Sea of Monsters film comes out next year, supposedly. The good part: Chris Columbus (who directed, wrote, and produced The Lightning Thief) isn't directing or writing. The bad news: he's still producing.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 15, 2011)

The best adaptations aim to capture the spirit of the book. Invariably, some  people are disappointed because the movie doesn't include something they  think it important. I think you have to go into the movie with an open  mind, because the movie will often fall short if you try to make direct  comparisons. The thing is, there is no "filler" in a good novel, as someone said, it's all there for some purpose -- so it's usually a challenge to decide what has to go or what can be condensed.

_Revolutionary Road_ is one of my favorite books -- as soon  as the movie got under way, I could see it was going to be more from the  POV of the wife than the husband, and I started to question it and do some nitpicking. But  then I got caught up in it, and I put comparisons aside. I didn't even think about what was "missing" until afterward. The thing that  supirsed me was, the book ends in a very strange note -- from the POV of  a minor character -- and the movie did the same. It was probably a WTF  moment for people who didn't read the book, but I thought it was great. In addition to the story, the performances were very good too, and the production design captured the era and location perfectly. So it was a very good film in it's own right -- apart from the book.


----------



## seyelint (Nov 15, 2011)

Ha  May romantics never fade.  The sparkles just remind me of those liquid tans gone wrong. I had a friend who turned into a walking orange using that stuff.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

beanlord56 said:


> Eragon found Sapphira's egg in the mountains. Close, but no cigar.
> 
> Percy Jackson does have romance, but it starts out as cheesy adolescent romance, but by _The Heroes of Olympus_, its more cheesy teen romance.
> 
> Unfortunately, The Sea of Monsters film comes out next year, supposedly. The good part: Chris Columbus (who directed, wrote, and produced The Lightning Thief) isn't directing or writing. The bad news: he's still producing.



Ha Ha Ha.... Well, I tried to guess right. I swear I did watch a movie where a boy found a dragon egg on the side of the riverbed. lol ... 

Ooooh... if there's cheesy romance later on in the books, maybe I'll be picking them up sooner than I thought... Hmmmm.. Thanks for telling me! :0)

Well, maybe The Sea of Monsters will be a better film than the first one. I mean, The Lightning Thief wasn't terrible or anything. The boy was adorable, and he was a good little actor. I said the same thing about "New Moon" thinking thank goodness Catherine Hardwick isn't directing this one. And it turned out to be better than Twilight, so maybe we'll luck out again. Honestly though, I think some of that had to do with a bigger budget.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

Seyelint that is HILARIOUS!!! ha ha... I used the bottle tanners before... I can't help myself. I'm like a freakin ghost in the summer. I'm so white I'm almost translucent! ha ha.. I refuse to bake myself in the sun and become a leather purse, however. So orange skin it is!! lol. It's brutal around your elbows and knees, it looks like you were outside playing in some sort of effing orange clay!!! ha ha... I'm thinking of trying the spray tanning places next summer. One can only hope I won't be a walking orange!!! ;0)


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

JosephB said:


> The best adaptations aim to capture the spirit of the book. Invariably, some people are disappointed because the movie doesn't include something they think it important. I think you have to go into the movie with an open mind, because the movie will often fall short if you try to make direct comparisons. The thing is, there is no "filler" in a good novel, as someone said, it's all there for some purpose -- so it's usually a challenge to decide what has to go or what can be condensed.
> 
> _Revolutionary Road_ is one of my favorite books -- as soon as the movie got under way, I could see it was going to be more from the POV of the wife than the husband, and I started to question it and do some nitpicking. But then I got caught up in it, and I put comparisons aside. I didn't even think about what was "missing" until afterward. The thing that supirsed me was, the book ends in a very strange note -- from the POV of a minor character -- and the movie did the same. It was probably a WTF moment for people who didn't read the book, but I thought it was great. In addition to the story, the performances were very good too, and the production design captured the era and location perfectly. So it was a very good film in it's own right -- apart from the book.



Hey Joseph,

I never did read that book, and after watching the movie I don't think I could. God, that movie ripped out my heart. It was so so so sad. I cried and cried, and at the end I was kind of angry at the movie. I thought well... that was F****ed up. It was good, but God, it was sad.


----------



## seyelint (Nov 15, 2011)

lol careful or you'll end up looking like someone bingo dabbed your joints


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

Ha Ha... it's so true! I've tried to avoid those areas after the first year!!! lol... Your elbows and knees just look dirty. (Lemon Juice works well with a lot elbow grease!)


----------



## seyelint (Nov 15, 2011)

lol humans


----------



## Sunny (Nov 15, 2011)

We are a strange species. lol


----------



## Tiamat (Nov 15, 2011)

I tend to go out of my way to read the book first, and 99% of the time, I'm glad I did.  Some examples...

The Time Traveler's Wife.  I saw the trailer for the movie, and promptly bought the book.  To this day, it's one of my favorites, but when I finally did watch the movie (nearly a year later), I didn't care for it.

Eat. Pray. Love.  Same thing as above--don't care for the movie but I love the book.

I see a lot of people discussing Twilight and Eragon.  My thoughts on Twilight is that the movies are a good adaptation of the books.  (I feel the same way about Harry Potter).  Some things were added, removed, or changed, but on the whole, it worked.  The story line and the characters came alive on screen (better in Harry Potter, I thought).  But Eragon... Frankly, I think Eragon got the movie it deserved, which is to say that I thought both the movie and the book were a bit hokey, to say the least.

The 1% of movies that I actually thought far better than their books would be The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Tolkien wasn't a writer, per se.  He was a linguist.  That was his passion; he just liked to tell stories.  Personally, I don't care for seventeen pages of description on Lothlorien, but on that same note, those seventeen pages of description made for a hell of a good movie adaptation.


----------



## Rustgold (Nov 16, 2011)

Most (if not all - only saying most as there's no such things as absolutes even if you can't think of an exception) times when they've made a movie out of a book, the movies are poor at best.  You could go through a whole list, but I think you'd struggle to find a movie disaster worse than Dune.  Seriously, if you want your work totally screwed up, write a book and then sell the rights for a movie.  Guaranteed septic material every time.

Definitely read the book first, that way you'll truly see how bad the movies are.


----------



## seyelint (Nov 16, 2011)

You have to understand, a film has to compete with your imagination. So it is limited to audio and visual stimulation. A book on the other hand has your imagination which has no limitations and though written in words -  is produced by you.

I am sure some films are based on scripts, life experiences not written in books.

It's 5am I rarely make sense at this time


----------



## JosephB (Nov 16, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> Most (if not all - only saying most as there's no such things as absolutes even if you can't think of an exception) times when they've made a movie out of a book, the movies are poor at best.  You could go through a whole list, but I think you'd struggle to find a movie disaster worse than Dune.  Seriously, if you want your work totally screwed up, write a book and then sell the rights for a movie.  Guaranteed septic material every time.
> 
> Definitely read the book first, that way you'll truly see how bad the movies are.



The quality of movie adaptations is all over the map. There have been many brilliant adaptions over the years, along with some good ones, not so good ones and some real stinkers -- and every shade of gray in between. So there's no reason to make the giant leap that an adaptation is going to be "septic material every time." And it's perfectly possible to judge the movie on it's own merits. The problem is when people -- maybe you -- can't get past the fact that liberties must be taken, things need to be left out or condensed in some way. Scenes, subplots or characters might have to go or be merged -- for obvious reasons. No movie can be 100% faithful to the book -- and you're never going to please everyone who has read it.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 16, 2011)

I think TV shows are the same. True Blood for instance was made from The Sookie Stackhouse series. It has gone way off track from the books, but it's fabulous anyway. I guess the TV version can't keep to the exact plot as the books. The Vampire Diaries is another one that is way different than the books. (Thank goodness.) The books were not great, but my God, I love the TV show. So I guess, the books aren't always better.


----------



## Rustgold (Nov 17, 2011)

JosephB said:


> The problem is when people -- maybe you -- can't get past the fact that liberties must be taken, things need to be left out or condensed in some way. Scenes, subplots or characters might have to go or be merged -- for obvious reasons. No movie can be 100% faithful to the book -- and you're never going to please everyone who has read it.


Who said anything about 100% faithfulness?  I didn't.
So kindly don't make such insinuations.



Sunny said:


> The Vampire Diaries is another one that is way different than the books. (Thank goodness.) The books were not great, but my God, I love the TV show. So I guess, the books aren't always better.


Does it actually share anything in common beside the name and it's got vampires in it?  If not then you can't call it an adaption of the books _(I remember giving up after 20 odd pages)_.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 17, 2011)

No -- I didn't say you said that. I was saying why some people might not be satisfied with a movie made from a novel. And note where I said, "Maybe you."

You said that a movie made from a book is "guaranteed septic material every time." So you're the one putting things in absolute terms -- despite your initial and very weak attempt to qualify things. And obviously, you're grossly overstating -- most would agree that there have been many successful movies made from novels made over the years.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 17, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> Does it actually share anything in common beside the name and it's got vampires in it? If not then you can't call it an adaption of the books _(I remember giving up after 20 odd pages)_.



I guess the big parts of the book are the same. In the books the MC "Elena" had a little kid sister. In the show she's got a brother around her age. The TV show is the same as the book as far as the love triangle goes. The two vampire brothers are in love with the same girl. One bad guy, one good guy. Except the bad brother isn't really that bad. The MC is missing one good friend in the show and some stuff like that. But the majority of it is the same, I suppose. The books are just really poor compared to the show, forsure! 

I couldn't stand the love story in the books. The only time they were affectionate was when he was drinking her blood. That was supposed to be the "steamy" parts. No kissing and stuff that would normally appeal to most people in throws of passion. You know, your first love. The descriptions of him drinking her blood didn't appeal to me. I don't think that sounds like fun, and I definitely couldn't relate, or imagine how it would feel good, so that right there turned me off the books.


----------



## john_c (Nov 19, 2011)

Depends on the book. If it's fiction that is not literature, I rather see the movie or just spend my time doing something else. If the book is good literature, I would rather read the book. I remember seeing The Verdict with Paul Newman when it first came out. I thought it was a great movie. I read the book after seeing the movie. The book was trash. What made the difference is that David Mamet wrote the screenplay. It seems like books that can tell a decent story but are not literature make better movies than books that literature.


----------



## Jon M (Nov 19, 2011)

Fight Club is probably the only movie I've seen that is as good as or better than the book. Lord of the Rings is up there, too.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 19, 2011)

If I know both are good, I'd watch the movie first, then read the book.  I have trouble visualizing things, so seeing the movie beforehand really enhances the reading experience afterwards.


----------



## Ol' Fartsy (Nov 24, 2011)

Hey Sunny, I also prefer to read the book before seeing the movie. The book is always better than the movie with a few exceptions is true. Take Jurassic Park, great book, bad movie, great SFX at the time.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 24, 2011)

Hey Ol' Fartsy,

You didn't like the Jurassic Park movies? I loved them. I never read the books though. I've probably watched those movies 30 times over. Lol. They're what I like to put on when it's cold and snowing outside and I want to curl up on my couch in front of the fireplace. For some reason they're comfort for me. ;0)


----------



## Mr mitchell (Nov 25, 2011)

For me I pefer reading the books. Sometimes there are good adapations, but then there had been some stinkers. The castings are not always right. Let me tell you an example: They are going to make a Jack Reacher film. They have got Tom Curise in the role and for me it isn't going to work. Yes, he is a hollowood star. But to me he haven't got the right hight to start with. Jack Reacher is six foot-five and Mr Curise is short, around five foot five? I can't understand that casting office. 

Let me say this, they made a TV progamme called Sleepyhead and Scardy Cat. They are based on Mark Billingham's novels. The studio makes some silly choices, all of the charaters were english but then, they had an Irish man playing Tom Throne's police partner. It stupid really. Another one they changed the boss whom is in charge. In the books the charater is a man but in the TV progamme is a women. They are really clueless.


There are my two cents.


Mr Mitchell


----------



## Sunny (Nov 25, 2011)

I guess the majority of us like reading the books more. And you're right, sometimes the casting seems waaaaayyyy off.


----------



## Ol' Fartsy (Nov 26, 2011)

Hey Sunny,I never said that I disliked the Jurassic Park movies. There are some things in the JP movies that make you go "Huh?" Take when Dr. Alan Grant, Tim & Lex Murphy are at the JP fence and Tim is clinging to the fence. Both Lex and Alan are trying to get Tim of before the fence is electrified, that scene, when viewed, should not happen. Because you don't fly off an electric fence when you get shocked. Common sense, nice SFX though.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 26, 2011)

Oh... Okay. I thought you didn't like it. And you're right with that scene. It was really quite scary the first time I saw it though. I was frustrated with the kid after that. Wouldn't you get stuck to the fence if it started to electrify you?


----------



## Ol' Fartsy (Nov 26, 2011)

Not nessicarily stuck, but you could not be pryed off. I understand that Stephen Spielberg (yes he filmed E.T. the extra-terrestrial) made it as best as he could in '93 and had to shorten the electric fence scene, for time, but common sense says don't go near an electric fence. I like the action, though.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 27, 2011)

I love action films too... But I do love romantic comedies the best!


----------



## Sam (Nov 27, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> .  Seriously, if you want your work totally screwed up, write a book and then sell the rights for a movie.  Guaranteed septic material every time.
> 
> Definitely read the book first, that way you'll truly see how bad the movies are.



_The Godfather _is widely renowned as one of the greatest movies of all time. Mario Puzo wrote the book.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 27, 2011)

No Country for Old Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, Trainspotting, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Incredible Lightness of Being, LA Confidential, The Heart is  Lonely Hunter, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Jaws -- the list goes on.


----------



## CFFTB (Nov 27, 2011)

I prefer the book before the movie. The Shining is one example. Stephen King said he never liked the Kubrick version. He said it really didn't show the disintegration of the family, & truthfully, the way Nicholson played it, Jack Torrance seemed almost detached from the beginning. 

So King made another one for TV. Steve Webber was Jack Torrance in this one, but this version didn't scare me like the Kubrick version. The hotel, while closer to the hotel that King actually stayed in when he got the story idea, didn't convey the vastness of the place, & how you can get lost & isolated from each other in a place like that. The musical score, the nuances of the different characters - even Lloyd the bartender - just didn't come across as chilling in King's version. 
Even the hedge animals. By the time they translated it to screen, the animals seemed a bit low budget. A little spooky, but still LB. I liked the book better, in some ways even better than the Kubrick version of the movie. 

The Godfather is a perfect example of the movie being much better than the book. The book went too far into the personal lives of the secondary & even background characters. We don't really need to know what happens to Sonny's mistress after he dies, but she goes to Vegas, gets a delicate female operation, & it describes her hopes for the future. 

It's the things they left in the film that are most powerful. We don't need to see the behind the scenes machinations of why Don Corleone does what he does, or why Michael does what he does. We know by the end of the movie that these are not nice guys. They love their family, but The Family comes first. Coppola pulled it of beautifully.

The Amityville Horror was pretty much even steven for me. I read the book first & it scared the hell out of me. I had to turn on all the lights on my way from the family room & upstairs to the bedroom when I put it down for the night. The movie version (the excellent version with James Brolin & Margot Kidder) also scared me. They didn't have to make things so obvious as they do now. Probably that way with most movies these days.


----------



## WDLady (Dec 12, 2011)

Most times I prefer the books before the movies.  There are some rare instances where the movies are actually better than the books or the movies get me interested in reading the novels, which turned out not so good.  For example: Interview with a Vampire was a very good movie and eventually I decided to read the book...which sadly, I didn't like and found it a bit tedious to get through.  I finished reading it, but it wasn't anything like the movie I saw.  However, I love all three of the Chronicles of Narnia movies and read all the books, for they all remind me of my childhood and I grew up reading the series. It just depends sometimes on the director, the script/story, the actors, and production value.  Sometimes the book translates better on film and sometimes it doesn't.  :/


----------



## Chaeronia (Mar 26, 2012)

Sunny said:


> In your opinion would you rather read a book before watching the movie? Or, would you rather watch the movie and then read the book? Do you find books are generally better than the movie?
> 
> I would rather read a book before watching the movie. I guess a movie just can't jam everything into it that a book can. Plus I miss out on the thoughts and feelings of the characters. I usually do like the books better than the movie, except for "The Notebook" by Nicholas Sparks. I loooooved the movie, but thought the book was only so-so. It might be because I watched the movie first, but who knows.
> 
> ...



I went to see this last night.  It was okay, but, even as only a lukewarm fan of the book, I thought it lacked something in comparison.  Spoilers:

Actors were fine (if a little overfed), the depiction of the city and arena was well-realised.  I enjoyed the training scenes and most of pre-arena build up.  But, once in the thick of it, I was disappointed with the lack of time spent on the relationship between the two leads, as well as with Katniss and Rue.  Rue's tear-jerk 'burial' didn't feel deserved at all.  And this _sodding_ shaky-cam trend still refuses to die, or at least be used in considered moderation.  The fight scenes were poor, unemphatic, bemusing affairs.  I understand the need to not show blood, which this technique certainly helps with, but its overuse was off-putting and cop-out.  This cinematographical need to immerse the viewer into the action really doesn't wash; it just distracts and confuses.


----------



## abuistrago (Mar 26, 2012)

I guess it all depends on the movie and the book. I have no preference in reading one before the other. If I liked the movie I'll probably read the book and viceversa. I hated most of the Harry Potter movies but that's probably because I love the books (I've read each of them at least three times in English and at least one in Spanish) and spent half the movies calling out mistakes. I agree with other comments on LOTR. I tried reading the books after I saw the first movie. I couldn't and that made me feel like a failure. I was just too much information and I don't know if the fact that english is not my first language made it even more difficult to read or not. I tried, I really did, and I just had to put it down and wait for the other movies. I heard The Hunger Games is a good series but haven't gotten around to reading it yet, so I'll probably wait on the movie (I'm so proud of myself. I didn't read Chaeronia's spoiler  )


----------



## jasonmb (Mar 26, 2012)

Movies are fun to watch because of the special effects and all that, but in my opinion you just can't get the same depth to the storyline in a movie as you can a book, and you can't relate as well with the characters. A book offers so much more and movies tendency to leave out a lot of little side things from the novel.


----------



## Sunny (Mar 26, 2012)

Chaeronia said:


> I went to see this last night. It was okay, but, even as only a lukewarm fan of the book, I thought it lacked something in comparison. Spoilers:
> 
> Actors were fine (if a little overfed), the depiction of the city and arena was well-realised. I enjoyed the training scenes and most of pre-arena build up. But, once in the thick of it, I was disappointed with the lack of time spent on the relationship between the two leads, as well as with Katniss and Rue. Rue's tear-jerk 'burial' didn't feel deserved at all. And this _sodding_ shaky-cam trend still refuses to die, or at least be used in considered moderation. The fight scenes were poor, unemphatic, bemusing affairs. I understand the need to not show blood, which this technique certainly helps with, but its overuse was off-putting and cop-out. This cinematographical need to immerse the viewer into the action really doesn't wash; it just distracts and confuses.


Oh, I just went to watch the movie last night as well. And, I LOVED it. I had my Hunger Games nail polish on, and we all went out and bought our Mocking Jay pins like the nerds we are! But, besides that silly stuff, I thought the movie was great. I thought the director did an amazing job with the effects. I nearly jumped out of my skin a few times, and that's hard to do with me. I wasn't in love with the scenes between Peeta and Katniss, but that's just because I like Gale more. Lol. But I thought the acting was superb, and I liked the action scenes. I actually thought it was a little too graphic. I wasn't expecting the killing to start off so brutal. The teens were even more brutal on the screen, than I pictured in my head, while reading for some reason.The part with Rue, had me in tears, and I sobbed just like I did in the books. So, for me, and the group of people I was with... well, we loved the experience of the movie. ;0)


----------



## Chaeronia (Mar 27, 2012)

Sunny said:


> Oh, I just went to watch the movie last night as well. And, I LOVED it. I had my Hunger Games nail polish on, and we all went out and bought our Mocking Jay pins like the nerds we are! But, besides that silly stuff, I thought the movie was great. I thought the director did an amazing job with the effects. I nearly jumped out of my skin a few times, and that's hard to do with me. I wasn't in love with the scenes between Peeta and Katniss, but that's just because I like Gale more. Lol. But I thought the acting was superb, and I liked the action scenes. I actually thought it was a little too graphic. I wasn't expecting the killing to start off so brutal. The teens were even more brutal on the screen, than I pictured in my head, while reading for some reason.The part with Rue, had me in tears, and I sobbed just like I did in the books. So, for me, and the group of people I was with... well, we loved the experience of the movie. ;0)



I'm glad you liked it.  I've seen that you're a big fan of the books and for you to be so pleased about its movie conversion speaks volumes.

I think what the film does best is maintain that sense of pervasive and voyeuristic dread throughout the first half of the film, right up until the entrants go their separate ways after the initial combat.  It's a tense opening hour or so that crescendos really well with the opening arena scene.  

I think with films or books that have a clearly defined central conceit, such as The Hunger Games, the journey to realising that conceit is often more enjoyable than seeing it in play.  Once the genie is out of the bottle things can go a bit flat, and I found that here.  The book picks up the slack through the relationship of Katniss and Peeta - a more complex balance of pragmatism versus genuine feeling than depicted in the film - and Katniss's friendship with Rue.  I thought these were underdrawn in the film, where even an extra five or ten minutes might have made a big difference. 

Still, I found it a worthy adaptation despite a few issues, and it's opened to good reviews and great box office takings.


----------



## blyish (Mar 27, 2012)

More often than not, the movie is a disappointment. I LOVED The Hunger Games movie, though. Really liked the books and was afraid they were going to ruin them during the adaptation, but no, I think they did a good job. Things actually looked like they did in my head when I was reading the book.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 30, 2012)

The Hunger Games movie was pretty good. They were very faithful to the book. Almost like they had to, really -- can you imagine the bloodbath that would have ensued if the movie had deviated even a little?

I don't know that I liked reading the book before seeing the movie. While watching The Hunger Games, I often had difficulty appreciating the film on its own merits. Instead I was comparing it to the book, seeing how it measured up, and that's no way to watch a film. 

And, um . . . I kind of have a crush on Jennifer Lawrence now. :love_heart:


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 30, 2012)

Jon M said:


> The Hunger Games movie was pretty good. They were very faithful to the book. Almost like they had to, really -- can you imagine the bloodbath that would have ensued if the movie had deviated even a little?
> 
> I don't know that I liked reading the book before seeing the movie. While watching The Hunger Games, I often had difficulty appreciating the film on its own merits. Instead I was comparing it to the book, seeing how it measured up, and that's no way to watch a film.
> 
> And, um . . . I kind of have a crush on Jennifer Lawrence now. :love_heart:



[video=youtube;FpWgDAB_tFY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpWgDAB_tFY[/video]

 I give Gale an A for effort.


----------

