register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

Books Vs Movies

Off Topic » Books Vs Movies (Posts 1 to 10 of 10)

  1.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorSunil
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009
    I believe there will be always quite friendly war between book readers and movie goers. Sometimes, some people may think movies are better than books or books are better than movies. Perhaps it should be taken in to the account of individuals’ opinions. I can remember now that when I was in college, one of my friends was crazy about reading books, especially novels. He told me once that J.R.R.Tolkien ( Author of LOTR ) firmly believed that movies would definitely spoil or damage the image and reputation of the books. During his time, Hollywood filmmakers approached him to get the rights but he denied and hated the movies. To be honest, his books became more popular because of this cinema. In fact, I didn’t know any information about Mr.Tolkien until the release of the movie LOTR trilogy. The truth is cinema’s contribution towards literature is tremendous and astonishing. On some occasion, filmmakers do fail to make a good adaptation from the books. So, that leads to bad impression of the book. For instance, last year, we saw “The Prince Caspian”, though the movie had good special effects and music but critics and novel readers found it totally uninspired and ridiculous one. Eventually, movie didn’t do well at the box office. But it often happens.

    Adaptation plays a vital role in movies which are based on books. If there is no proper adaptation, movie looks vulnerable. I would like to tell you another e.g first installment of Harry Potter series, “Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone” I totally disliked the movie because there was no adaptation at all. The whole book transformed to big screen without any minor changes. That’s awful. Basically, books are different from movies, when you transform the book into big screen, there should be changes with sensible adaptation, that makes movie so beautiful and wonderful. That’s why, Peter Jackson’s LOTR is far more superior than Harry Potter movies. I really admire and appreciate Peter Jackson’s vision and perception of Tolkien’s world of men, dwarves, elf and hobbits.

    MUSIC AND OTHER: Everybody knows that for the excellent filmmaking you definitely need all tools which would raise the quality of the movie to the higher level. Cinematography, visual effects, art direction, costume design, sound effects, casting, direction, production, screenplay adaptation, script etc.. which is very necessary. Apart from these, we all know music plays a very vital role, especially movies based on novels/books. In that case, I would like to share my pick up for the best score for the movies based on the books.

    1.The Lord of the Rings trilogy by Howard Shore
    2.Harry Potter (1,2,3) by John Williams
    3.Harry Potter and the Goblet of fire by Patrick Doyle
    4.The Chronicles of Narnia (1,2) by Harry Gregson Williams

    Oh! My God, I am finding very difficult to recollect now, I request you guys to tell me more about movies based on books, apart from the above.

    I am finding very difficult to come to a conclusion about this topic. Overall, it always depends upon individual’s opinion.
    So, what’s your opinion? Do you think movies are better than books or books are better than movies?

    Have a nice day!
    Racism, Prejudices and discrimination exists everywhere.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemonStar
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009 edited
    So far Peter Jackson's LoTR movies are my favourites. In my opinion they killed the Harry Potter movie series by changing the directors and composers so much, and leaving gaping holes in the plot of the books (I like 3 though). The Narnia movies are good entertainment though.
    •  
      CommentAuthorkeky
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009
    Sunil wrote

    So, what’s your opinion? Do you think movies are better than books or books are better than movies?



    More often than not the books are better but there are many cases when the movies are the better. Cold Mountain and Into the Wild come to my mind from the past years when the movies were so much better than the books - at least in my opinion. Actually, I preferred the two Narnia films to the novels too; the novels were very short and Lewis' style just isn't my piece of cake while the movies were more epic, the characters were more alive and had much more emotions.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009 edited
    I wouldn't say The Lord Of The Rings books have become more popular through the films: I think it's been the third best selling series of books in the WORLD (following the Bible and Winnie The Pooh) for about twenty-odd years. That said, I would definitely grant that the films have brought the books to the attention of a new, younger audience.

    Generally I would say a book is the richer medium. A book can spend a great deal more time for character development and is able to convey inner dialogue and descriptions a film cannot. And of course no film maker is a match for your personal imagination. smile

    However, I would say that another example of the film being better than the book would be Peter Benchley's Jaws, due -in no small part- to Williams apocayptic Jaws Theme.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009
    It's a sweeping generalisation, but in general I think it's hard for a film of a great novel to come close. It's a completely different experience, at least - a 120-minute film of a 600-page novel obviously can't tell you everything the book does, and one presumes there's a reason that the novelist put that much stuff in there!
    http://www.movie-wave.net | http://facebook.com/moviewave
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009 edited
    I totally agree with Martijn regarding JAWS, Spielberg got rid of some of the flannel such as the Police chiefs wife have a fling with the marine biologist and the rip-off Moby Dick ending. I'd say the film ( a true classic IMO ) is far, far, FAR better than the book.

    Stephen King's / Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption is a perfect example of book and film being equal with the film doing real justice ( "justice" geddit!?? biggrin ..... shame ) to the book. The same goes for the adaptation of King's The Body which was filmed as Stand By Me, another brilliant film.

    Worst King adaptation IMO is Pet Semetary....scary book....laughable, crappy film.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009
    Southall wrote
    It's a sweeping generalisation, but in general I think it's hard for a film of a great novel to come close. It's a completely different experience, at least - a 120-minute film of a 600-page novel obviously can't tell you everything the book does, and one presumes there's a reason that the novelist put that much stuff in there!


    I have to agree with James. Two completely different mediums which should be regarded isolated and independently, and not inter-compared.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009
    I think it's pretty hard to avoid ALL comparisons when you're making a film of a book.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2009
    Well, it's an adaptation of the same story, but for a different medium. Why compare the two different end-results? You cannot realistically expect a 120-minute limited AUDIO-VISUAL experience to produce comparable results with a WRITTEN experience of variable and significantly different time-span which is also rendered according to the person reading it each time? A movie's a movie, what you see is what it is, the director's vision. The book can be anything you imagine it to be, anything you want it to be.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    Well, it's an adaptation of the same story, but for a different medium. Why compare the two different end-results? You cannot realistically expect a 120-minute limited AUDIO-VISUAL experience to produce comparable results with a WRITTEN experience of variable and significantly different time-span which is also rendered according to the person reading it each time? A movie's a movie, what you see is what it is, the director's vision. The book can be anything you imagine it to be, anything you want it to be.


    I think it is a lot more than what you're explaining. Let's use The Lost Weekend as an example. As great as Billy Wilder is as a director he has to be concerned with the bottom line as far as dollars are concerned. The film won picture of the year among the Oscars and was well received so Billy did his job. The book was completely different! The movie, though touching upon a depressing subject (alcoholism) had somewhat of a happy ending. There was a love interest which was important for the film but nothing in the book. At the end of the book he drinks himself into oblivion and death is imminent. This is what usually happens to an alcoholic. They just die. I don't think the film would have been successful if he had gone according to the book. In fact few care to even want to read the book. The almighty dollar is numero uno.
    listen to more classical music!

1 to 10 of 10

  1.