Book vs. Film

Gaze

Gaze

Donor
MBTI
INFPishy
So, how would you compare film adapations of favorite books to the novels*question mark*

For example, I just saw the film The Help by Kathryn Stockette but I've read only 1.3 of the book. I like the novel because it adds dimension to the characters and fleshes out the storyline compared to the film. I don't think the film did a great job of explaining the motives behind some of the character's actions. The backstory for some of the characters was very simplistic such as Minny's. I think the book would've been better adapted as a mini series.
 
The Notebook. The film was beautiful in it's own way, but there is a definite difference in where the story develops. I love both the film and book (and the sequel to the book).
 
I always love the book much more than the movie. The harry potter movies were fairly well done I must say. But aside from that I keep flashing back to the movie adaptations of to kill a mocking bird and of all the ones of anna karinina and romeo and juliet, Deeply disappointing and don't measure up at all.

The 2001 adaptation of the count of monte cristo was pretty good though I must say.
 
I want to reread Jane Eyre and watch the recent adaptation to see how it compares. hmm.

[video=youtube;C8J6Cjn06kA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8J6Cjn06kA[/video]
 
99% of the time I'd say there will always be a discrepancy between the book and the movie, and the movie will be better (unless the book was so bad you can't help but make it better - I'm looking at you, Twilight!).

There are often huge discrepancies between books and movies and it usually has a lot to do with time and content. Sometimes movies want to make characters more - or less - sympathetic due to the overall tone of the movie, and sometimes ideas just won't work due to restrictions in budget or the era (read any of the famous noir books 0f the 1940s and then see their film adaptions; major differences there).

If I see a movie I like I'll often see if a book was published first, and I'll usually like the book better than the movie. As for the Help, the story seemed more interesting to me and I actually read the book before I saw the movie. It brings a new perspective to it.

To be honest, it's probably better to read the book first, if possible - that way, the movie will be more of a dessert to the meal (if the movie adaptation's done right).
 
Film. You know the phrase, "A picture's worth 1,000 words"? Too many authors get bogged down on such miniscule details when they write, the story completely loses its pace. I remember reading a book about the Titanic... A night to Remember, I think it was... there was an entire chapter dedicated to describing the silverware falling off the tables!!?! Meanwhile, in 1997, the movie Titanic did that in about 3 seconds and it had the same exact effect.

At worst, I find that movies that skip over parts of books, can still be entertaining. Reading the book of the same name is just another version of that same entertainment. At best, I'd rather get some stories over with in that 2 hour block than have to dedicate a weeks worth of free time to reading a book that loses its pace half way through.
 
the Southern Vampire Series. . books. .vs. . True Blood. . .
seriously HBO. . you did read the books right? there is no comparision. . the series is a totaly different story. . they took the characters and crafted an entirely different tale. . gave the characters different lives. .turned good guys into bad guys. . why? the book ereies is so good ane the seiries so bad. .if you read the books. . if not. .it's ok I suppose. .
 
Books are engrossing
Films are entertaining


With few exceptions, you can't expect a film to do what a book does. They're both good.
 
I have to agree with Flavus Aquila - I treat the experience of reading a book and watching a movie as different from one another. There have been many times when watching a film was more satisfying for me (i.e. Chocolat) and many times when reading the book made the film pale in comparison (i.e. any rendition of Dorian Gray). On the whole though, I find that each can bring different things to the table. Films can give you images and action that you can't get from some of the most gifted authors. But, a book should give you more psychological satisfaction - more well rounded characters. I think as time marches on and the evolution of these two art forms intertwines more deeply, we will see more films and books resembling each other more closely in nature.
 
StudebakerHawk said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4y2L5F0Q5s
Click to expand...

Interesting. If she is telling the truth, and someone made a ton of money from making my life into a book without asking my consent for using personal experiences from my life as a reference, I would be upset as well. Imagine seeing your life played out onscreen and having to pay to see it in a novel and onscreen in a film and not get a cent from an income made from them.

This is why the field of intellectual property law is so complicated and interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top