Export thread
Why is the book sacred?
#1
strawman
strawman
Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.
So people always complain that the movies never match the books.
Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions? What is intrinsically wrong with having 5 different versions of Red Riding hood, and several different versions of, say, Lord of the Rings?
Got me thinking - why do we hold books sacred when we go to see the movie? Why are people so upset when there are major changes to the story line?
At best all I can come up with is that it's a "raping my childhood" thing - the book can obviously contain a lot more, and/or one's imagination is significantly better (or at least more dear to oneself) than what can be produced in a movie, and so people naturally become more attached to the book version.
Then I start to wonder if it's partially that as humans we instinctively notice differences (it's a survival trait) and attempt to reconcile them (ie, caveman left cave with spear, came back with meal, caveman left without spear, came back hungry, or didn't come back).
So - aside from poorly made movies (which may just be one's clouded judgement due to story changes anyway...) are there books that have been done well as movies, but the changes bother you, and why?
So people always complain that the movies never match the books.
Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions? What is intrinsically wrong with having 5 different versions of Red Riding hood, and several different versions of, say, Lord of the Rings?
Got me thinking - why do we hold books sacred when we go to see the movie? Why are people so upset when there are major changes to the story line?
At best all I can come up with is that it's a "raping my childhood" thing - the book can obviously contain a lot more, and/or one's imagination is significantly better (or at least more dear to oneself) than what can be produced in a movie, and so people naturally become more attached to the book version.
Then I start to wonder if it's partially that as humans we instinctively notice differences (it's a survival trait) and attempt to reconcile them (ie, caveman left cave with spear, came back with meal, caveman left without spear, came back hungry, or didn't come back).
So - aside from poorly made movies (which may just be one's clouded judgement due to story changes anyway...) are there books that have been done well as movies, but the changes bother you, and why?
#2
Chibibar
Chibibar
Changes never bother me. I treat the book and movies as two separate medium. There is NO way a book can be 100% convert to a movie without missing something. A human mind can imagine quite a bit that could cost millions in special effects. When a person reads a book, there might be some "fave" part that a reader might love. When it is not part of the movie, they cried "raped my childhood" but another reader might like the movie cause his/her part was in the movie.
So in short, changes doesn't bother me between books and movies. It is just different medium of telling a story.
So in short, changes doesn't bother me between books and movies. It is just different medium of telling a story.
#3
chakz
chakz
Good question. I don't know- Sometimes it can be because when key elements of the plot are changed it changes what the stories about and causes it to have a different effect on the viewer- Take "I am legend" for instance. Its pretty easy to tell what its about- role reversal between vampires and humans. The version with the "bonus" ending does a pretty good job of maintaining the effect but the original one ruined the whole point of the story. Now not all movies make such drastic, not to mention idiotic, changes the the story but even then a minor change here and there can have a pretty nasty effect on the story as a whole.
Personally I don't always need a movie to follow a book word for scene. I think lord of the rings did a damn fine job of presenting Tolkien's master piece while maintaining the integrity of the story and there several events (some more important than others) were left out or changed. So there perhaps it matters whether or not the change is detrimental to the whole?
I think the real question is how much can you change it before it becomes a completely different story?
Personally I don't always need a movie to follow a book word for scene. I think lord of the rings did a damn fine job of presenting Tolkien's master piece while maintaining the integrity of the story and there several events (some more important than others) were left out or changed. So there perhaps it matters whether or not the change is detrimental to the whole?
I think the real question is how much can you change it before it becomes a completely different story?
#4
PatrThom
PatrThom
I think it's more that there are times when it is done very well, and times when it is done horribly. Unfortunately, the latter makes the stronger impression, so our memories get skewed in that direction, and we tend to remember that change = horrible.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#5
Dusty668
Dusty668
That was always my problem. Or like in Cujo when they completely changed the ending of the story, it was supposed to be terror then tragedy. The movie made it just freaking out in a car.I think the real question is how much can you change it before it becomes a completely different story?
#6
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Because books are for smart people and movies are for dumb people. What better way to scoff at people than turning your nose in the air and saying, "the book was better."Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.
So people always complain that the movies never match the books.
Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions? What is intrinsically wrong with having 5 different versions of Red Riding hood, and several different versions of, say, Lord of the Rings?
Got me thinking - why do we hold books sacred when we go to see the movie? Why are people so upset when there are major changes to the story line?
At best all I can come up with is that it's a "raping my childhood" thing - the book can obviously contain a lot more, and/or one's imagination is significantly better (or at least more dear to oneself) than what can be produced in a movie, and so people naturally become more attached to the book version.
Then I start to wonder if it's partially that as humans we instinctively notice differences (it's a survival trait) and attempt to reconcile them (ie, caveman left cave with spear, came back with meal, caveman left without spear, came back hungry, or didn't come back).
So - aside from poorly made movies (which may just be one's clouded judgement due to story changes anyway...) are there books that have been done well as movies, but the changes bother you, and why?
#7
Covar
Covar
Depends on the movie. Sometimes a movie does a good job of preserving the feel and the themes of the book. Other times a movie will not. This is made worse when story elements are taken out that are important to the story or the message.
I find whether or not I like a movie made from a book depends on whether I saw the movie first (Wizard of Oz, Big Fish, Stardust) or read the book first (Watchmen, Harry Potter series, To Kill a Mockingbird). Only real exception that I can think of is Lord of the Rings, which despite the changes (Faramir in the theatrical cut pissed me off to no end) were excellent movies that did justice to the original works.
I find whether or not I like a movie made from a book depends on whether I saw the movie first (Wizard of Oz, Big Fish, Stardust) or read the book first (Watchmen, Harry Potter series, To Kill a Mockingbird). Only real exception that I can think of is Lord of the Rings, which despite the changes (Faramir in the theatrical cut pissed me off to no end) were excellent movies that did justice to the original works.
#8
Silver Jelly
Silver Jelly
If something works as a novel, it probably is tailored to work as one: changing the medium means changing the work of art itself, and it's difficult to tune it as well as it was tuned to be the original, successful format.
#9
Shannow
Shannow
Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.
#10
bhamv3
bhamv3
Someone, I forget who, might've been Michael Crichton, once said he would never read a book first and then watch the movie version, because it's never quite how he imagined it in his head. I think that might be the issue for most people who hold the book sacred - they find the movie version to be too different from how they imagined it, from what they wanted to see.
#11
Green_Lantern
it is very hard to translate the written character to a acted character, the book can give you are more intimate view of that character soul and trueself and lets you to visualize it in a way that (to you) properly fits the description, while a actor will give you a visualization, and you have to understand it.
Plus, there is the just problem with time, I understand that no ones wants to stay watching the same movie for 6 hours, but still you miss stuff that needs to be let out.
---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------
Green_Lantern
EXACTLY!Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.
it is very hard to translate the written character to a acted character, the book can give you are more intimate view of that character soul and trueself and lets you to visualize it in a way that (to you) properly fits the description, while a actor will give you a visualization, and you have to understand it.
Plus, there is the just problem with time, I understand that no ones wants to stay watching the same movie for 6 hours, but still you miss stuff that needs to be let out.
---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------
Yes, I do notice that I always enjoy both versions better, if I see the movie first and read the book later (like Bicentenal Man), but seeing the movie usually spoilers much of the joy of reading, so I usuallly stick with the book first movie later pattern.Someone, I forget who, might've been Michael Crichton, once said he would never read a book first and then watch the movie version, because it's never quite how he imagined it in his head. I think that might be the issue for most people who hold the book sacred - they find the movie version to be too different from how they imagined it, from what they wanted to see.
#12
Bowielee
Frankly, I liked I Robot as an action flick, they just should have completely dis-associated it from any of Isaac Asimov's work.
Bowielee
This is also my issue. I love many book adaptations that "purists" hated. I really don't mind concessions made during the translation from one medium to another, but then you have examples like I Robot or I Am Legend, where they are so significantly changed from the source material that they are almost unidentifiable as even being the original story.That was always my problem. Or like in Cujo when they completely changed the ending of the story, it was supposed to be terror then tragedy. The movie made it just freaking out in a car.I think the real question is how much can you change it before it becomes a completely different story?
Frankly, I liked I Robot as an action flick, they just should have completely dis-associated it from any of Isaac Asimov's work.
#13
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Michael Crichton also self admitted that he sucked at doing screenplay writing.Someone, I forget who, might've been Michael Crichton, once said he would never read a book first and then watch the movie version, because it's never quite how he imagined it in his head. I think that might be the issue for most people who hold the book sacred - they find the movie version to be too different from how they imagined it, from what they wanted to see.
#14
fade
fade
I think the answer's simple. The book author made it up. It's his/her story, not the movie writer/director's. It bothers me when a screenwriter tampers with the original vision and calls it the same thing. It's not any longer. Little changes don't bother me. The obviously required changes needed to bring the book to screen don't either. I don't even mind demographically targeted changes like the black Kingpin or the swapping of Glorfindel for Arwen. What does bother me are the changes that either fundamentally alter the plot or the character of the players. Like the constant hobbit crying, esp. from Sam. The temptation of Faramir completely negated the entire purpose of that scene. Stuff like that does bother me. The original is....well the original. I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.
All that being said, there are some occasions where the movie is better than the book. The aforementioned Princess Bride is one. The original 80's TMNT cartoon was another for me. BUT the book is still the original.
All that being said, there are some occasions where the movie is better than the book. The aforementioned Princess Bride is one. The original 80's TMNT cartoon was another for me. BUT the book is still the original.
#15
Eriol
Also the comment above about not having the thoughts of the characters also can have a large impact. How many times in the LotR movies did you think "why the hell did they just decide to DO that?" The answer is in the books, but unfortunately motivations are almost non-existent in the movies. But of course then they change the characters too, so it's totally shot. Hence why I was NOT a fan of the LotR movies.
And then there's the "reboot" approach to a movie. One great example where this worked is The Hunt for Red October. If you've read the book and seen the movie, you realize the creators of the movie decided to "let's keep the general idea of a defecting submarine with a silent drive, and throw out the specific plot." But they also kept the same general characters, and made sure that all their motivations made sense in the movie itself. You didn't need the book to understand them. It's one of the best examples IMO of a great book made into a great movie, but having only a "thematic" relationship between the two. It was done right.
Eriol
I agree with this. When you change the characters into completely different types and roles, then why didn't you just make a new one? It's the lack of continuity between them so that they are no longer the same in spirit rather than merely translations between mediums.What does bother me are the changes that either fundamentally alter the plot or the character of the players. Like the constant hobbit crying, esp. from Sam. The temptation of Faramir completely negated the entire purpose of that scene. Stuff like that does bother me. The original is....well the original. I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.
Also the comment above about not having the thoughts of the characters also can have a large impact. How many times in the LotR movies did you think "why the hell did they just decide to DO that?" The answer is in the books, but unfortunately motivations are almost non-existent in the movies. But of course then they change the characters too, so it's totally shot. Hence why I was NOT a fan of the LotR movies.
And then there's the "reboot" approach to a movie. One great example where this worked is The Hunt for Red October. If you've read the book and seen the movie, you realize the creators of the movie decided to "let's keep the general idea of a defecting submarine with a silent drive, and throw out the specific plot." But they also kept the same general characters, and made sure that all their motivations made sense in the movie itself. You didn't need the book to understand them. It's one of the best examples IMO of a great book made into a great movie, but having only a "thematic" relationship between the two. It was done right.
#16
Bowielee
Bowielee
Some movies can be great by being an almost shot by shot translation. They're rare, though. Misery comes to mind. It was a great film with only one real change I can think of from the book. Other than that one change, the dialogue is almost word for word from the book.
#17
@Li3n
[/QUOTE]
Because if you made a new one you'd miss out on all that free publicity...
@Li3n
I agree with this. When you change the characters into completely different types and roles, then why didn't you just make a new one?What does bother me are the changes that either fundamentally alter the plot or the character of the players. Like the constant hobbit crying, esp. from Sam. The temptation of Faramir completely negated the entire purpose of that scene. Stuff like that does bother me. The original is....well the original. I don't think it's anything more complicated than that.
[/QUOTE]
Because if you made a new one you'd miss out on all that free publicity...
#18
Dusty668
Dusty668
Sometimes they do pass it though, Running Man, (dunno why I am stuck on Steven king movies for this thread but there it is.) I had no problems with the movie version, mainly because the story (not novel way too short, barely one scene in a movie) had 3 common plot points, a game show with death and life at stake, the name of the main character, and the name of the story.
Ta Frikken Da.
So, Cujo ticked me off for years, Running Man, great movie.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep to Blade Runner, great movie, a little bothered because of all the similarities, but Daryl Hannah & Joanna Cassidy were so freaking hot...
Ta Frikken Da.
So, Cujo ticked me off for years, Running Man, great movie.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep to Blade Runner, great movie, a little bothered because of all the similarities, but Daryl Hannah & Joanna Cassidy were so freaking hot...
#19
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
The Last Unicorn is another. Except for the singing, it's an almost perfect translation.Some movies can be great by being an almost shot by shot translation. They're rare, though. Misery comes to mind.
--Patrick
#20
fade
fade
And the entire ending.
#21
JCM
a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)
b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).
Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.
JCM
Its not a problem, its just that whenever an adaptation is made, 2 things happen-Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.
So people always complain that the movies never match the books.
Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions?
a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)
b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).
Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.
#22
Dei
Dei
I still remember going to see "The Lost World" with 3 friends + me who had read the book and one friend who didn't read the book. The one friend who didn't read the book could not figure out why we found the movie so humorously bad.
#23
Philosopher B.
Also ... books smell nice.
Philosopher B.
This. ^Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.
Also ... books smell nice.
#24
fade
a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)
b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).
Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.[/QUOTE]
I actually preferred the first Hellsing series.
fade
Its not a problem, its just that whenever an adaptation is made, 2 things happen-Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.
So people always complain that the movies never match the books.
Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions?
a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)
b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).
Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.[/QUOTE]
I actually preferred the first Hellsing series.
#25
JCM
a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)
b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).
Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.[/QUOTE]
I actually preferred the first Hellsing series.[/QUOTE]I lost interest the second they shoved a weird bald guy as main villain, and had Alucards "uber" attack be melted hair.
Comparing that to the manga and Ova´s display of how damn powerfful he is, the whole Nazi vs Vatican vs Hellsing grudge match, and such awesome stuff as-
Again, like with Full Metal Alchemist, the anime wasnt bad at all, it just didnt reach 10% of the greatness that the later manga story did, and now with the OVAS, that is being corrected.
Dont even get me started on the pathetic two anime arcs after Rurouni Kenshin stopped following the manga.
JCM
Its not a problem, its just that whenever an adaptation is made, 2 things happen-Maybe this belongs in media madness? I dunno.
So people always complain that the movies never match the books.
Going through Fullmetal Alchemist, though, apparently the author purposefully changed the story between the manga and the show. The implication being that it's not strictly necessary, but why not have two different versions?
a) Its very inferior to the original (take the Full Metal Alchemist anime's psychoboohoah crap vs the awesome twists and revelations in the manga, or off my head-- Hellsing's terrible anime, Red Dragon's Manhunter flick or any pre-Peter Jackson Hobbit/LOTR)
b) Sometimes somebody else will re-do it again adapting it better, and the first will be pretty much forgotten (take the first FMA anime, Hellsing, Manhunter or LOTR after newer and better versions come out).
Of course, mind you, once in a while an adaptation is so big-budget and hyped that one will be stuck with the good and bad forever (take the worse Harry Potter movies), and once in a while something is adapted damn well (Old Boy, Peter Jackson's LOTR or The Green Mile) that a later version will never be made.[/QUOTE]
I actually preferred the first Hellsing series.[/QUOTE]I lost interest the second they shoved a weird bald guy as main villain, and had Alucards "uber" attack be melted hair.
Comparing that to the manga and Ova´s display of how damn powerfful he is, the whole Nazi vs Vatican vs Hellsing grudge match, and such awesome stuff as-
Alucard turning back into Vlad the Impaler armor and all, with every soul he drank blood from returning to fight for him as his army
Anderson using the thorn of Christ and the last fight between him and Alucard
Walter betraying Hellsing and revealing himslef to be a traitor
Anderson using the thorn of Christ and the last fight between him and Alucard
Walter betraying Hellsing and revealing himslef to be a traitor
Dont even get me started on the pathetic two anime arcs after Rurouni Kenshin stopped following the manga.
#26
ElJuski
ElJuski
There's a lot of little intricacies when you're dealing with adaptations, because of the two very different mediums of the art itself, and also, the business behind the art.
Books usually have time to unfold at their own pace, for better or for worse. Many books have multiple themes to explore, multiple characters to develop...and they have the time to do it. It sometimes can be difficult to take the sprawling text, ideas, images and themes and to compress it into a two-plus hour film. Movies, in that sense, have to be leaner.
Another thing is the difference between the author and the director. The author creates visual images in your imagination. He writes to produce images and to elicit emotion from the reader. The director uses actual images to convey what the audience sees and feels. Sometimes, the director interprets--or chooses to change--the author's vision (assuming for the better). This double-creation sometimes doesn't match audience expectation (and sometimes it makes it better).
And that's not getting into the business-making side of Hollywood, which hedges bets on ticket sales, and will strong-arm movies one way or another.
As far as movies that could be said to be better than the book, however, I'd say:
-Fight Club (about the same as the book, but the cast, script, and director really made the story pop)
-Jurassic Park (Spielberg's vision was perfect; the movie condenses a lot of the boring Michael Chrichton science blather)
-No Country For Old Men (though it's really a tie; again, the Coens adapted the book practically word for word)
And yeah, tons more. I guess the point is, it's not about something being changed, its whether that change was necessary or detracting from the experience of the story. You have to wonder, "Why the fuck DID Gaiman change Beowulf so drastically?" instead of just hating on it, as is.
---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------
Also, I've heard that Dexter the TV Series kicks the shit out of Dexter the book series.
Books usually have time to unfold at their own pace, for better or for worse. Many books have multiple themes to explore, multiple characters to develop...and they have the time to do it. It sometimes can be difficult to take the sprawling text, ideas, images and themes and to compress it into a two-plus hour film. Movies, in that sense, have to be leaner.
Another thing is the difference between the author and the director. The author creates visual images in your imagination. He writes to produce images and to elicit emotion from the reader. The director uses actual images to convey what the audience sees and feels. Sometimes, the director interprets--or chooses to change--the author's vision (assuming for the better). This double-creation sometimes doesn't match audience expectation (and sometimes it makes it better).
And that's not getting into the business-making side of Hollywood, which hedges bets on ticket sales, and will strong-arm movies one way or another.
As far as movies that could be said to be better than the book, however, I'd say:
-Fight Club (about the same as the book, but the cast, script, and director really made the story pop)
-Jurassic Park (Spielberg's vision was perfect; the movie condenses a lot of the boring Michael Chrichton science blather)
-No Country For Old Men (though it's really a tie; again, the Coens adapted the book practically word for word)
And yeah, tons more. I guess the point is, it's not about something being changed, its whether that change was necessary or detracting from the experience of the story. You have to wonder, "Why the fuck DID Gaiman change Beowulf so drastically?" instead of just hating on it, as is.
---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------
Also, I've heard that Dexter the TV Series kicks the shit out of Dexter the book series.
#27
Espy
Espy
I don't see how any book could capture the awesome that is Michael C. Hall's Dexter.
#28
filmfanatic
filmfanatic
Trust me, the books are bad. By the third book, it is revealed that
. Yeah, it's really bad.
Dexter's Dark Passenger is in fact an ancient spirit of evil, possibly an offspring of the ancient god Moloch, that has persisted throughout history and influenced many animals and people
#29
Espy
Espy
Oh good lord. That is so dumb.
#30
fade
fade
I can't for the life of me figure out what this sentence means. The book and movie deviated, but even Dick thought the movie version (what he saw of it) was awesome. He lauded the screenwriters for writing the rest of the story, and for getting the visuals almost dead on.Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep to Blade Runner, great movie, a little bothered because of all the similarities, but Daryl Hannah & Joanna Cassidy were so freaking hot...
#31
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
Have any of you watched the movie and then read the book and still like the book better?
I kind of think that it is a matter of perspective. There are very few movie re-makes that I like. The original will always stand out for me. Even if technically, the re-make is a better movie, I usually like the original better. Same goes for books vs. movie. To me, the book is the original, and the movie is the re-make. I know they are different mediums, but they're both about telling a story. Books can give you depth of character better, but movies can sometimes give better visualizations
If I have watched the movie first and then read the book, I am usually a bit underwhelmed, and vice-versa. It's just a matter of perspective for me.
I kind of think that it is a matter of perspective. There are very few movie re-makes that I like. The original will always stand out for me. Even if technically, the re-make is a better movie, I usually like the original better. Same goes for books vs. movie. To me, the book is the original, and the movie is the re-make. I know they are different mediums, but they're both about telling a story. Books can give you depth of character better, but movies can sometimes give better visualizations
If I have watched the movie first and then read the book, I am usually a bit underwhelmed, and vice-versa. It's just a matter of perspective for me.
#32
@Li3n
Kept myself from reading the book with the express intention not to have the film ruined. As FotR was a good film i went and got the books... couldn't stop at the first volume so for the next two movies the flaws where easier to spot...
Heck, even the extended edition seemed too short.
@Li3n
LotR... while i had heard of the book before i was under the impression it was SF as i 1st heard about it in an introduction/foreword of a SF book. Only when i heard about a film coming out and saw some stuff on it i realised it wasn't.Have any of you watched the movie and then read the book and still like the book better?
Kept myself from reading the book with the express intention not to have the film ruined. As FotR was a good film i went and got the books... couldn't stop at the first volume so for the next two movies the flaws where easier to spot...
Heck, even the extended edition seemed too short.
#33
Cajungal
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.
Cajungal
This. ^Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.
#34
Philosopher B.
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Philosopher B.
This. ^Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
#35
Green_Lantern
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Ironically this can be my only problem with books, or more specifically, I can't read old books because I am allergic
Green_Lantern
This. ^Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Ironically this can be my only problem with books, or more specifically, I can't read old books because I am allergic
#36
Cajungal
Cajungal
Trust me, the books are bad. By the third book, it is revealed thatYeah, it's really bad.
I'm sad now.
#37
filmfanatic
filmfanatic
Trust me, the books are bad. By the third book, it is revealed thatYeah, it's really bad.
I'm sad now.[/QUOTE]
Don't be sad. You have the awesomeness of the show and Michael C. Hall to cheer you up!
Don't be sad. You have the awesomeness of the show and Michael C. Hall to cheer you up!
#38
Bowielee
Bowielee
I love the tactile and olfactory sensation of reading a dogeared old book as well. That slightly musty smell wafting from every page. Yeah, I enjoy my e-books, but you still can't beat the experience of actually reading a physical book.
#39
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I kinda hold books sacred as objects. I still have every non-textbook that I've ever purchased. I even have about half of my textbooks.
My brothers get a little pissed off at me every time I ask them to help me move, and they end up carrying about a ton of paper around.
My brothers get a little pissed off at me every time I ask them to help me move, and they end up carrying about a ton of paper around.
#40
Philosopher B.
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Ironically this can be my only problem with books, or more specifically, I can't read old books because I am allergic[/QUOTE]
Aww man, that sucks! It would kill me if I had that problem. I've got piles of old books from various booksales; they each have their own unique smell and character.
Philosopher B.
This. ^Internal character motivations, thoughts and dialogue many times does not make it to the movie medium, but are central to the book.
Also ... books smell nice.[/QUOTE]
...whereas I can't get much of a smell out of my DVDs.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Ironically this can be my only problem with books, or more specifically, I can't read old books because I am allergic
[/QUOTE]Aww man, that sucks!
It would kill me if I had that problem. I've got piles of old books from various booksales; they each have their own unique smell and character.
#41
fade
fade
I like books, but then I was in the bank vault when a nuclear holocaust happened. Completely oblivious to fallout, I scrambled out to find the library mostly intact, but then I broke my glasses. It wasn't fair. There was time now.
Wack wack wack wack.
Wack wack wack wack.
#42
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
.I like books, but then I was in the bank vault when a nuclear holocaust happened. Completely oblivious to fallout, I scrambled out to find the library mostly intact, but then I broke my glasses. It wasn't fair. There was time now.
Wack wack wack wack.
#43
Green_Lantern
[/QUOTE]
I thoughed that futurama made that up, good to know the truth.
(I still think it sounds lame as a premise)
Green_Lantern
.I like books, but then I was in the bank vault when a nuclear holocaust happened. Completely oblivious to fallout, I scrambled out to find the library mostly intact, but then I broke my glasses. It wasn't fair. There was time now.
Wack wack wack wack.
I thoughed that futurama made that up, good to know the truth.
(I still think it sounds lame as a premise)
#44
Bowielee
Bowielee
There are at least 4 Twilight Zone episodes that everyone should watch. (I mean, they should watch the whole series, but these are the tops.)
Burgess Meredith as the last man alive.
Agnes Moorhead being attacked by the little aliens (LOVE the twist at the end)
William Shatner and the gremlin on the plane.
And finally Bill Mumy(sp?) as the child with the power to do anything he wants with his mind.
If you don't know who Bill Mumy is, he played Will Robinson in the original Lost in Space and Lenier in Babylon 5.
Burgess Meredith as the last man alive.
Agnes Moorhead being attacked by the little aliens (LOVE the twist at the end)
William Shatner and the gremlin on the plane.
And finally Bill Mumy(sp?) as the child with the power to do anything he wants with his mind.
If you don't know who Bill Mumy is, he played Will Robinson in the original Lost in Space and Lenier in Babylon 5.
#45
PatrThom
PatrThom
I'm a bit biased.
View attachment 373
That's about 1/3 of our books, the rest are in storage.
And that's the total after we donated about five or six thousand to charity a couple years ago.
--Patrick
View attachment 373
That's about 1/3 of our books, the rest are in storage.
And that's the total after we donated about five or six thousand to charity a couple years ago.
--Patrick
Attachments
-
76.7 KB Views: 236
#46
Philosopher B.
Philosopher B.
... adopt me.
#47
fade
fade
Oh, so it's a private library fight you want, eh?I'm a bit biased.
View attachment 373
That's about 1/3 of our books, the rest are in storage.
And that's the total after we donated about five or six thousand to charity a couple years ago.
--Patrick
#48
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Y'know, someone at work said the same thing after seeing this picture.... adopt me.
It's not a fight I want. Just more books.Oh, so it's a private library fight you want, eh?
--Patrick
#49
Soliloquy
(shame that comic had to end)
Soliloquy
Huh. I wonder if that had any influence on Minus.And finally Bill Mumy(sp?) as the child with the power to do anything he wants with his mind.
(shame that comic had to end)
#50
Cajungal
Cajungal
I like the "Mr. Death" episode.There are at least 4 Twilight Zone episodes that everyone should watch. (I mean, they should watch the whole series, but these are the tops.)
Burgess Meredith as the last man alive.
Agnes Moorhead being attacked by the little aliens (LOVE the twist at the end)
William Shatner and the gremlin on the plane.
And finally Bill Mumy(sp?) as the child with the power to do anything he wants with his mind.
If you don't know who Bill Mumy is, he played Will Robinson in the original Lost in Space and Lenier in Babylon 5.
#51
fade
fade
Don't forget the Mardi Gras mask episode. I loved that one. Oh, and the one with the soldier and the ballerina trapped in the weird open-topped chamber. And the mannequins.
Pretty much every episode.
Pretty much every episode.
#52
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Now the real question. Have you actually read them all?I'm a bit biased.
View attachment 373
That's about 1/3 of our books, the rest are in storage.
And that's the total after we donated about five or six thousand to charity a couple years ago.
--Patrick
#53
Cajungal
Cajungal
Also great. It's just such a good show. Love it when the scifi channel runs a marathon.Don't forget the Mardi Gras mask episode. I loved that one. Oh, and the one with the soldier and the ballerina trapped in the weird open-topped chamber. And the mannequins.
Pretty much every episode.
#54
Bowielee
Bowielee
Yes, people should watch the whole series. The ones I pointed out are the most referred to in pop culture.
I also loved the one about the wild west tonic salesman and the one with William Shatner as an actor in the diner with the fortune telling devices on the tables. Also the one where all the power goes out in the town.
I also loved the one about the wild west tonic salesman and the one with William Shatner as an actor in the diner with the fortune telling devices on the tables. Also the one where all the power goes out in the town.
#55
Green_Lantern
Green_Lantern
Another things: Books tend to have more artistic integrity than movies, simply because there are much less non-artists (or just people) controlling its development. Did you know or remember that they tried to make Harry Potter a American in the movies? just because they wanted to make a buck.
#56
@Li3n
Weird, sound to me like they wanted to do the exact opposite... just ask the people behind the Constantine film.
@Li3n
Did you know or remember that they tried to make Harry Potter a American in the movies? just because they wanted to make a buck.
Weird, sound to me like they wanted to do the exact opposite... just ask the people behind the Constantine film.
#57
Bowielee
Bowielee
Honestly, Constantine wouldn't have been half bad if they had cast ANYONE else in the lead role.
#58
fade
fade
I actually liked the Constantine movie. I never read the comic, so I wasn't influenced (though I've heard the complaints). For one, I don't think I've ever heard anyone pronounce it "con-stan-TYN", so that one was pretty low on my don't-care list. I also can't say that I minded it focusing on Judeo-Christian pantheons, because it would've been too much to do multiple religions. Esp if you wanted to sell it to the US.
(see CG? I said I liked something)
(see CG? I said I liked something)
#59
Cajungal
Cajungal
O.OI actually liked the Constantine movie. I never read the comic, so I wasn't influenced (though I've heard the complaints). For one, I don't think I've ever heard anyone pronounce it "con-stan-TYN", so that one was pretty low on my don't-care list. I also can't say that I minded it focusing on Judeo-Christian pantheons, because it would've been too much to do multiple religions. Esp if you wanted to sell it to the US.
(see CG? I said I liked something)
#60
PatrThom
This past year, we finally went through and culled all the duplicates. This resulted in about another 1500 books donated to a library in her hometown. So what we have left is a pretty respectable collection of titles, even if the majority of them do happen to be SF/F.
--Patrick
PatrThom
No, but that's not surprising. For a while, Kati was selling books online in order to work from home. When she stopped, we donated everything that neither of us wanted to keep. Additionally, we combined our 'keeper' collections...and I haven't read much of her collection (nor do I ever think I will), and vice versa just due to different interests (I'm not big into Regency romances, she doesn't care about *nix administration, that sort of thing).Now the real question. Have you actually read them all?
This past year, we finally went through and culled all the duplicates. This resulted in about another 1500 books donated to a library in her hometown. So what we have left is a pretty respectable collection of titles, even if the majority of them do happen to be SF/F.
--Patrick