Do you say you liked the book better or was the movie exactly how you imagined the book? Give some examples.
2006-10-01 15:29:27 · 16 answers · asked by cecil0524 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
i have a problem with how common genre-crossing is. why must a book be made into a movie in the first place? what's the deal with novelizations? what is up with all the movies being made into musicals? why can't the art be appreciated for what it is? some things just shouldn't be anything but what they are. i'm not against it entirely, but it's turned into a giant mess these days.
that being said, i find book-to-movie "purists" rather annoying. of course some things need to be changed--it's a different genre altogether! movies work completely and totally different than books.
but it is terribly irritating when you've read a book and you see the movie, and they leave out extremely vital plot points. when i went to see the third harry potter movie, i had to explain half the plot to my boyfriend, who hadn't read the books.
books are longer and give way to more detail and usually more nuance, so the books almost always are better. but every once in a while, a movie will get it just right, or even more rare is the movie that gets it better than the book. read "logan's run" and then see the movie and you'll know what i mean. i also found watching the lord of the rings trilogy far, far more enjoyable than slogging through those awful books. and i love to read.
2006-10-01 15:47:06 · answer #1 · answered by woodpecker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the majority of the time, the movie never measures up to the book. You can understand why sort of, if they put ALL of the book in , the movie would be 10 hours long. But some manage to really do it well, here are my favorite book to movie translations:
Dances with wolves
Misery
The Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile
The Godfather
Harry Potter
Presumed Innocent
there are more, but I cant think of them right now.
2006-10-01 15:37:16 · answer #2 · answered by Coco 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Movies never compare to books, imo. Off the top of my head some examples are: "Gone With the Wind", they left out two of Scarlett's three children, for one thing! "Flowers in the Attic," I only saw that movie when it came out in 1988 or 89, and it was AWFUL! The book was incredible and I was so disappointed in the movie! And "The Firm," another awesome book and a loooong and boring movie, if I recall correctly my husband and I left the theater before it was over. There are many great movies, of course, but books are just so much better.
2006-10-01 15:41:11 · answer #3 · answered by cynshyn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've only seen one movie that was better than the book---Jaws. There was a romantic angle in the book that slowed it down. Steven Speilberg had the good sense to eliminate it and, as a result, the movie had no slow spots. It was just one compelling horror/adventure tale. The Godfather was a well made film but the book left it in the dust, in my opinion. One of my favorite books was "Catch-22" but the movie just couldn't do it justice, although there were some fine actors in the film.
2006-10-01 16:26:20 · answer #4 · answered by wildmanmoon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually the books are by far better. I've only seen a few movies that are as good as the books. (The Lion the Witch and The Wardrobe and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). I also think that The Wizard of Oz was a FAR better movie then book.
2006-10-01 15:41:36 · answer #5 · answered by isayssoccer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THe movie is seldom the way it is imagined by most people. I try to see the movie version first and then read the book. It works better for me and I am able to see the compensation made for the movie in a better light.
2006-10-01 19:46:03 · answer #6 · answered by the Goddess Angel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think movies can complement books if done well. In the case of Lord of the Rings, Aragorn was 87 and Frodo was in this 50's so I'm glad they took some license. In addition, If they had to include all of the characters in all of the scenes, each movie would be 6 hours long.
I think LOTR and the Harry Potter movies are labors of love for those who are making them and I don't mind if they use artistic license.
2006-10-01 16:54:17 · answer #7 · answered by scourgeoftheleft 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The books are almost always better. The movies have to cut A LOT of stuff from them to fit into a desired time-frame (and they tend to make pathetic additions to make the movie more commercial).
A great example of this are the Lord of the Rings movies. All 3 of those are great movies, but the book is SO much better! Plus, Liv Tyler's character has a relatively small part in the book, but her character is much more expanded in the movies just because of who she is.
2006-10-01 15:37:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sometimes well, sometimes poorly. There is no one answer for all these situations. But one thing is true, I believe: A movie can be worse than or as good as, but never better than, the book it came from.
Potter movies aren't as good as the books. To Kill a Mockingbird was fantastic both as book and movie.
2006-10-01 15:39:43 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Books are always better. However, Lord of the Rings were such well done movies, I say they are better than the books. The books are AMAZING, don't get me wrong...but people got bored of the books, as they can be outdated for some people.
2006-10-01 16:17:40 · answer #10 · answered by hvjhv 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋