bobbyburns
New Member
understandable.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Best & Worst
- Thread starter Jenem
- Start date
VTChEwbecca
kickbox
Definitely ought to try again, Martin. 2001 is an interesting movie.
Litany
Active Member
The problem with 2001 is that it's always on so late at night, so by the time you reach the psychedelic bit, which really does go on far too long, you're too exhausted to be bothered sitting though it. That said, the rest of it is a fantastic film. First time I saw it was before I read the book, and I hated it, couldn't see what all the fuss was about. So I read the book and then watched the film, and now I love it. I think the two need to go together. A lot of people I know that have only seen the film don't like it nearly as much as those who've seen it and read the book as well.
The Princess Bride is one of my favourite films of all time, but the book was dreadful. The 'sequel' that you can send away for was pretty funny though.
The Princess Bride is one of my favourite films of all time, but the book was dreadful. The 'sequel' that you can send away for was pretty funny though.
Halo
New Member
Martin said:'Scuse me?!
Don't tell me you prefer the miniseries done by King himself, because that stank!
Kubrick did a massive job with The Shining!
Cheers, Martin
Yes, King's mini series was poor also - no-one has filmed The Shining properly yet, in my opinion. And I don't like Kubrick's films, so there!
I still can't see what all the fuss is about 2001 A Space Odyssey - I found it very dull. Still, each to their own.
Jenem
kickbox
Halo said:
I'm with you, Halo. I had such expectations for 2001 and found it such a letdown. My problem must be that I'm a product of my generation - one that's been used to special effects and mind blowing animation. Doesn't help that my husband is an animator. Anyway, what was with the 20 minute ship-docking scene? I watched about half of it then had to FF. The dramatic scenes were dull and the end, while holding true to the book, just seemed to be boring as well. It was like the movie sucked all the excitement I had about the plot right out of me.
Jenem
kickbox
VTChEwbecca said:
I agree with you on your first point, but not on the second. It depends on the book, of course, and IMHO there is no reason why Sense & Sensibility couldn't have been more true. The Marianne and Col. Brandon relationship really threw me off in the movie. Maybe I need to reread the book, but Marianne just seemed so happy with him in the movie. In the book that didn't occur til the last few lines (and still, only in reference). She certainly wasn't swept away with him when he rescued her from the rain after she found out about Willoughby. This discrepancy seemed important to me because Marianne's personality and her feelings towards him in the book were somewhat disdainful. It felt like a forced happy ending for the benefit of the audience.
VTChEwbecca
kickbox
Jenem said:
I don't know...for a time she was disdainful, but in the book it seemed that she did start to lighten up towards Col. Brandon. while she may not have been all smiles, as she was in the movie, I think she did begin to feel for him before the last few lines of the book.
I still think one cannot completely translate a book to film...you're always going to lose something, because you cannot completely translate the thought process from a book to images on film. Books provide a fuller picture of events than movies can.
Litany
Active Member
It's similar to how actors in silent movies would have to constantly over emote to get their feelings across to the audience. They were unable to get their emotions across without words and so had to waggle their arms and eyebrows about a lot. With books adaptations, you're going to miss out on a lot of thought processes that the reader is privvy to, but that a film audience isn't, unless you have a running commentary. So the film has to be changed, and certain parts have to be exaggerated, and the evil criminal mastermind still has to waggle his eyebrows.VTChEwbecca said:
But sometimes, the bits the film adaptations lack make them better than the original books and you end up with Lord of the Rings.
bobbyburns
New Member
Jenem said:
your expectations ruined it then.
Jenem
kickbox
VTChEwbecca said:
I think it depends on the book and, with that, how complex the emotions are. For example, if you've ever read a Wilbur Smith book you can imagine how easily that it could be translated into a movie without missing anything. There are pretty basic emotions in many books which we've seen weak adaptations of.
But even with complex emotions, Hollywood directors and actors pride themselves on delivering emotion and substance and we're continually disappointed when it comes to adaptations. If they can deliver non-adaption (word?) movies that deliver a full range of emotions and concepts, why can't we expect the same from a movie? It just seems like we excuse the lack of effort/ability because we think we can't expect more. Why can't we expect them to find a way to get the point across? We pay enough at the movie theatre for it!
Perhaps I've been spoilt for all adaptations since Pride & Prejudice.
YIKES - maybe if hollywood delivered as i've ranted above then the desire to read would be wiped out. ok ok, scratch the hollywood bit
VTChEwbecca
kickbox
Jenem said:I think it depends on the book and, with that, how complex the emotions are. For example, if you've ever read a Wilbur Smith book you can imagine how easily that it could be translated into a movie without missing anything. There are pretty basic emotions in many books which we've seen weak adaptations of.
But even with complex emotions, Hollywood directors and actors pride themselves on delivering emotion and substance and we're continually disappointed when it comes to adaptations. If they can deliver non-adaption (word?) movies that deliver a full range of emotions and concepts, why can't we expect the same from a movie? It just seems like we excuse the lack of effort/ability because we think we can't expect more. Why can't we expect them to find a way to get the point across? We pay enough at the movie theatre for it!
Perhaps I've been spoilt for all adaptations since Pride & Prejudice.
YIKES - maybe if hollywood delivered as i've ranted above then the desire to read would be wiped out. ok ok, scratch the hollywood bit
This is why I rarely watch movies. I prefer books for several reasons. I don't think its possible to thoroughly recreate what a book provides, even with Pride and Prejudice, which I think was excellent and the best adaptation I've seen. Movies take away something that books provide: the imaginative step. With a book, you can fill in all the little details with your mind, whereas a movie just blasts you in the face and ears with images and sounds that are supposedly all-encompassing. I like that imaginative bit. There are certain adaptations which I will refuse to see, if they come to pass (one being the Dragonriders of Pern series)....I've so fully created the world of the book in my mind, that no adaptation could live up to what I've imagined.
I guess it partly depends on the reader/viewer, and how they interpret the movies and books.
bobbyburns
New Member
it's not that it's impossible, it's just not always successful. and on the other hand, some films would be ruined if they were written into books.
I guess im with chewie. I think movies and books are two totally different things, each alien to the other. Movies are on average 2 hours long. Can you imagine putting most books into something that is just 2 hours long? Books contain sound and sight just the same as movies. But with books you have so much more. A great span of time. You have the thoughts and emotions of all the characters. Some books work as movies but most books, I would say, are impossible to translate. Sure, you can get the spirit of the book as with LOTR but its not actually the book, is it? The book is different and you can never take that book and turn it into a movie. Movies can only show, never tell.
regards
SillyWabbit
regards
SillyWabbit
VTChEwbecca
kickbox
I agree with you on some films being ruined when written into books. Some movies are made to be movies....they're made for the big screen. The two mediums are very different, and not always cross-compatible.bobbyburns said:
However, I still don't think its possible to gather all the nuances from a book and pack them into a movie.
bobbyburns
New Member
SillyWabbit said:
a film adaptation can be two hours long but can show thirty pages worth of description in one shot. but there are some limits. take james joyce: I think ulysses would be really tough to make in one film, but I could see each episode being shot as a series (kind of like twin peaks). it wouldn't be the same, I know. but it could be just as interesting.
VTChEwbecca said:
try reading gravity's rainbow. it's like watching a film.
Jenem
kickbox
some books are simple enough that they should be able to translate well. others are complex and it's more difficult. in both cases, we see shoddy films when we should be able to expect more.
i agree, chewbecca, there are also cases where the readers perception of the book affects their opinion of the movie, their expectations are high because of how much they enjoyed the book (in my case, 2001). or they perceive things in a character that doesn't come out onscreen.
i agree, chewbecca, there are also cases where the readers perception of the book affects their opinion of the movie, their expectations are high because of how much they enjoyed the book (in my case, 2001). or they perceive things in a character that doesn't come out onscreen.
bobbyburns
New Member
I appreciate the effort that goes into making a film. even those shitty movie-on-a-stick hollywood blockbusters are pretty amazing achievements. and the best films were made by people who were working with almost nothing. you can't translate that into a novel, it's a different medium. it's not any better than a film, and it's not any better than a painting or a statue or a stained glass window. it's not any worse either. just different.