-
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.
The BIG Question...
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
phil_t
New Member
Martin,
I think it depends entirely on how you define 'turn into a film' - it is impossible to do a film that follows the book verbatim, in fact i think it would be stupid to attempt this, a movie does not flow in the same way that a book does, but i think that it is very possible to do a good 'adaptation' of the book for a movie. There have been numerous good movies 'based' on books, see the recent Lord of the Rings trilogy and (in my opinion) the Harry Potter movies - both of these series have followed the books closely but also made changes that were necessary for the transition from page to screen. The main problem as i see it is that a book allows the reader to be completely creative about how the scenes in the book are played out, no one person reads a scene in a book and imagines it the same way - the problem movies have is that you have to SHOW the audience the scene, therefore it becomes the directors view of how the scene is played, which doesnt necessarily match your own, hence some people will not enjoy the movie no matter how close to the book, and no matter how well acted/directed.
Of course some movies are just rubbish and dont follow the book at all in any sense (cough, Timeline
)
Phil
I think it depends entirely on how you define 'turn into a film' - it is impossible to do a film that follows the book verbatim, in fact i think it would be stupid to attempt this, a movie does not flow in the same way that a book does, but i think that it is very possible to do a good 'adaptation' of the book for a movie. There have been numerous good movies 'based' on books, see the recent Lord of the Rings trilogy and (in my opinion) the Harry Potter movies - both of these series have followed the books closely but also made changes that were necessary for the transition from page to screen. The main problem as i see it is that a book allows the reader to be completely creative about how the scenes in the book are played out, no one person reads a scene in a book and imagines it the same way - the problem movies have is that you have to SHOW the audience the scene, therefore it becomes the directors view of how the scene is played, which doesnt necessarily match your own, hence some people will not enjoy the movie no matter how close to the book, and no matter how well acted/directed.
Of course some movies are just rubbish and dont follow the book at all in any sense (cough, Timeline
)Phil
Martin
Active Member
Very good answer, Phil!
I tend to agree with you on your 'Adaptation-theory'. And errr... that's all I have to say about that, really.
One thing you mentioned was that almost always certain facets of a book are left out when they are made into a film. However, in 'The Shawshank Redemption', in my humble opinion the best film ever made, the story was made a little meatier, storylines and characters were actually added to the story. I haven't a clue to what my point is, but I just thought I'd mention that.
That, and Peter Jackson is God.
Cheers, (a pointless) Martin
I tend to agree with you on your 'Adaptation-theory'. And errr... that's all I have to say about that, really.
One thing you mentioned was that almost always certain facets of a book are left out when they are made into a film. However, in 'The Shawshank Redemption', in my humble opinion the best film ever made, the story was made a little meatier, storylines and characters were actually added to the story. I haven't a clue to what my point is, but I just thought I'd mention that.
That, and Peter Jackson is God.
Cheers, (a pointless) Martin
I definately agree with the above. One thing that always bugs me is when I watch a movie before I read the book (must admit it doesn't happen that often). I find it impossible to imagine any of the characters differently to how they were portrayed in the movie.
On a slightly different point, The Shawshank Redemption is one of the very few movies that I would class as being 'better' than the book. The book was however a novella so rather than the director having the problem of having to leave lots of stuff out, he was free to flesh out the book and develop the characters further.
What other movies would you class as being better than the book on which they were based?
On a slightly different point, The Shawshank Redemption is one of the very few movies that I would class as being 'better' than the book. The book was however a novella so rather than the director having the problem of having to leave lots of stuff out, he was free to flesh out the book and develop the characters further.
What other movies would you class as being better than the book on which they were based?
fluffy bunny
Member
Every type of 'art' has its own strengths and weaknesses be it book, comic, film, theatre etc. The best books play to the strengths of the medium (as do the best films). As for comparing books with films, it's like comparing apples and oranges and shouldn't be done. Try turning a painting into a descriptive page 
The best conversions from 1 medium to the other realise the assets and limitations of the medium they're being converted into and adapt accordingly (case in point Fight Club- not many of us would have been able to adapt that book into that film).
On the edit: nuts phil_t's already nicked the essence of my post
The best conversions from 1 medium to the other realise the assets and limitations of the medium they're being converted into and adapt accordingly (case in point Fight Club- not many of us would have been able to adapt that book into that film).
On the edit: nuts phil_t's already nicked the essence of my post
Jenem
kickbox
depending on the book, it is hard to do - but i don't think impossible - why should it be? many books don't invite interpretation. they tell a story, they describe characters - the author doesn't necessarily leave elements so open that there is no way they can be accurately portrayed on film. even thoughts can be relayed. concepts are the difficult thing to portray. books containing complex concepts are one example of books next-to-impossible to translate to film. so i say "yes"...depending...
VTChEwbecca
kickbox
I agree with Phil's adaptation theory. I don't think many books can be completely translated to film without change, but that doesn't mean that the film is bad, just different. I think some adaptations are much better than others, obviously LOTR and the BBC's version of Pride & Prejudice is up there, as well.
I agree with fluffy bunn that the two mediums are completely different, and comparing movies to books is often unfair, however comparing the movie version of a story to a book version of the story is a valid comparrison, imo. Its interesting to see how a producer views the story in a book compared to how I viewed that same story when I read the book. Its also interesting, at least to me, to see which parts of the book have been kept or modified or left out entirely during the presentation of the film.
For my own enjoyment, I prefer books, only because I enjoy letting my imagination roam, which is hindered by watching films, but that does not mean that I don't appreciate and acknowledge the skill in making a good film.
I agree with fluffy bunn that the two mediums are completely different, and comparing movies to books is often unfair, however comparing the movie version of a story to a book version of the story is a valid comparrison, imo. Its interesting to see how a producer views the story in a book compared to how I viewed that same story when I read the book. Its also interesting, at least to me, to see which parts of the book have been kept or modified or left out entirely during the presentation of the film.
For my own enjoyment, I prefer books, only because I enjoy letting my imagination roam, which is hindered by watching films, but that does not mean that I don't appreciate and acknowledge the skill in making a good film.