2006-11-20 01:08:00 · 8 answers · asked by Kharen 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Both r entertainment forms and tell stories. But while reading a book the reader creates the scenario in his mind, but in a movie, the director does it all on celluloid. In that way watching movie requires less exertion of brain than does reading books. Reading book invokes our imagination, but watching movie does this rarely. The viewer has a better and deeper hold on the situation than the reader, becoz he gets something extra like background music, lighting effects etc. So he does'nt need 2 b imaginative.
2006-11-20 01:23:51 · answer #1 · answered by Banglacat 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
which ones? I have been pleased and disappointed in the movies made from the Harry Potter books. Although I have enjoyed all the books, the third movie was a great disappointment...all I believe do to the change in directors. The fourth movie was a great improvement. When you speak about The DaVinci Code, well I am glad it had been a long time since I had read the book. I truly didn't feel that Tom Hanks was the appropriate person to play the lead. Although I have enjoyed his performances in the past and I think he is a great actor he is not the person I pictured as Robert in the book. He is just not edgy enough... How about Stephen King's The Shinning? Now there was a movie casted to type beautifully.
Who could discuss this without mentioning the Lord of the Rings? The movies were beyond any expectations anyone had and so true to the book on which they were based it defies description. These films are, by far, the best book to movies I have ever seen...and the amount of material was enormous! It has to be very hard to translate a book into a movie...balancing the need of the media and the expectations of faithfull readers...
2006-11-20 02:24:17 · answer #2 · answered by Barbiq 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I recently saw the movie "The DaVinci Code" and I had read the book twice before the movie was released. I thought that Ron Howard, the director if the movie, did a truly fantastic job keeping the film true to the book. Because of that I was actually disappointed with the film! The acting was superb, the casting was spot-on, and the pacing in the movie matched that of the book. All this hard work bored me...there was no cinematic surprises for me, nothing extraordinary. The book was well written with great detail, and Howard left all of that intact and chose not embellish in places that he might have.
The one thing that saved the movie for me was the realization that all of the Bashing and Hoopla about the book being inaccurate was undeserved. I say this because it was so easy to see that in the film, which is still telling a fictional story, most of what alarmed people was expressed by one character in dialog only. It was this character whose ideas were misconstrued as facts. But it was, for me, a situation where the book was certainly a better romp than the film, but in this one rare exception, there was that one revelation the movie showed me that the book did not.
2006-11-20 01:23:12 · answer #3 · answered by The Mystic One 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Marley & Me by John Grogan long previous With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell The Shining by Stephen King It by Stephen King the secret existence of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd Bastard Out of Carolina by Dorothy Allison Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden
2016-12-10 12:21:50 · answer #4 · answered by fearson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Forest Gump movie is worlds better than the Forest Gump book!!!!
2006-11-20 08:58:44 · answer #5 · answered by "Marian" the Librarian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is an incomplete question. Which book? Which movie?
Pull yourself together, man!
2006-11-20 01:23:41 · answer #6 · answered by martino 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
movie
2006-11-20 01:09:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
no you do a triple summersault for me!
2006-11-20 01:38:43 · answer #8 · answered by catweazle 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋