2006-06-17 06:10:40 · 11 answers · asked by The Arch Angel Michael 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I believe that what separates the books from the movies is an abundance of sensory description, which makes you feel a part of the fictional world. In movies you might see the rows of sunflowers in the distant and the breeze passing through the dogwoods, but you are too busy watching the lead actors stroll through the park. In the book you smell what they smell and are immersed in the place itself. In a sense, you're the lead character and their experiences are yours. That, I believe, is why one is almost always disappointed after reading a great book, and then seeing the movie. Its all about the senses.
2006-06-17 06:17:07 · answer #1 · answered by Matt 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A movie presents you with the director's interpretation of the book. That means the decisions about all the things in the book that call on the reader's imagination have already been made, so the viewer doesn't get to participate in the experience of the movie the same way the reader gets to participate in experiencing the story in a book. That being so, most people I know will say they prefer the book version to the movie because the book becomes a customized experience drawing on their own personal imaginations.
2006-06-17 06:16:12 · answer #2 · answered by Scribe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a good question. I think it's mostly because if you read the book, and then watch the movie, you notice that the movie leaves out most of the story from the book. And the story is also changed alot too. But when you read, you get this mental video going in your head and it is alot better understood than the actual movie, because then you're watching the mental video, that's what you imagine the movie would be like, then it's totally different.
2006-06-17 06:15:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The depth and complexity isn't there in the movie version. You can't fit a whole book into a two hour movie. My favorite book to movie is Howard's End though, not that you asked!
2006-06-17 06:15:49 · answer #4 · answered by Bridget 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are several movies that match up to the books they are meant to adapt. Fight Club, The Shining, Clockwork Orange, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas are a few that come to mind.
2006-06-17 06:16:27 · answer #5 · answered by braininabox 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The interpretation can never be as good as the original. The writer/Author and the director come from different backgrounds. Different perceptions, goals, intentions.
Hi, this is beag_e_pawan, I received ur email, "What exercise are you referring to?", but reply could not be sent for the following reason "Oops Your email did not go through because the recipient\'s email address has not been confirmed".
2006-06-19 10:45:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is simply a time constraint. You just can not fit the detail of a book into 2 12/ hours (give or take).
2006-06-17 06:24:18 · answer #7 · answered by birdlover 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they cut out some of the details to make the movie to avoid a long movie
2006-06-17 09:50:46 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's like this: I say tree. What kind of tree did you visualize?
My mental version of a tree will always be different from your mental image, even if I said the tree was oak.
2006-06-17 06:34:09 · answer #9 · answered by Doctor Schlock 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because you have to shred the detail, background, and thoughts of the characters.
2006-06-17 06:12:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋