Lately, I have noticed that movies that are based on books, quite frankly suck. I am very disappointed. Usually I end up liking or loving the book and then I become excited for the movie. However, when I see the movie, it's terrible. Have you had the same experience I have had?
Books into Movies
10/23/2010
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Usually. Anything that was written by Bob Heinlein turned into a movie/series (Starship Troopers, Red Planet, etc). Always disappointed that Tom is always dropped from movie interpretations of 'Lord of the Rings' (his scene is an illustration of the power of the Ring on those who never want power).
I think the only two movies that translated incredibly well from book to movie were Jaws (the writing was so dry that a movie actually made it better) and The Last Unicorn animated movie (there was little to improve upon and nothing that could be altered without ruining the story).
I think the only two movies that translated incredibly well from book to movie were Jaws (the writing was so dry that a movie actually made it better) and The Last Unicorn animated movie (there was little to improve upon and nothing that could be altered without ruining the story).
10/23/2010
It's very difficult to translate from one to another; with books people create the characters in their minds, this is how XYZ should look and this is what ABC looks like. With films, you are seeing the imaginings of someone else in an incredibly abridged form--you can never have the entirety of the book, something always gets cut, and that changes things.
Sometimes they're better, sometimes they're not. I try to view and appreciate the movies as completely unrelated to the books.
Sometimes they're better, sometimes they're not. I try to view and appreciate the movies as completely unrelated to the books.
10/23/2010
1. The Prestige turned out good.
2. I like the Harry Potter films, dammit.
3. Hollywood can't come up with any new, original ideas so they have to constantly recycle old material.
2. I like the Harry Potter films, dammit.
3. Hollywood can't come up with any new, original ideas so they have to constantly recycle old material.
10/23/2010
There are some that I like, but most times the book is so much better. I usually try not to see a movie too soon after I have read the book, if I do the disappointment is just that much worse. I also try very hard to look at the movie as a stand alone, not comparing it to the book, because it just cannot live up to it. I don't think it's always that the movie sucks, it's just that it cannot compare to the book since the book has so much more time. A book you read over days or even weeks sometimes, while a book has only 2 hours. Also sometimes a book focuses more on emotions and that can be hard (or boring) to truly convey on film, and so it gets cut and cut and made to be something that people would want to watch. Unfortunately for us book lovers it can never compare!
I think the last one that I was outraged by was "The Other Boleyn Girl". The book was absolutely outstanding, and then I watched the movie and it ruined it.
"The Time Traveler's Wife" turned out to be a decent movie, but the book was just outstanding, and it's a favorite book of mine..though I would never watch the movie again. The movie just couldn't pull through the unbelievable love that the character's shared as well.
One example of two totally different takes on something but both outstanding is True Blood, it's only very (VERY!) loosely based off the Sookie Stackhouse series of books, but I love both the books and the series even though they're hardly anything alike after season 1.
I think the last one that I was outraged by was "The Other Boleyn Girl". The book was absolutely outstanding, and then I watched the movie and it ruined it.
"The Time Traveler's Wife" turned out to be a decent movie, but the book was just outstanding, and it's a favorite book of mine..though I would never watch the movie again. The movie just couldn't pull through the unbelievable love that the character's shared as well.
One example of two totally different takes on something but both outstanding is True Blood, it's only very (VERY!) loosely based off the Sookie Stackhouse series of books, but I love both the books and the series even though they're hardly anything alike after season 1.
10/23/2010
Quote:
Woohoo, True Blood!
Originally posted by
Alicia
There are some that I like, but most times the book is so much better. I usually try not to see a movie too soon after I have read the book, if I do the disappointment is just that much worse. I also try very hard to look at the movie as a stand
...
more
There are some that I like, but most times the book is so much better. I usually try not to see a movie too soon after I have read the book, if I do the disappointment is just that much worse. I also try very hard to look at the movie as a stand alone, not comparing it to the book, because it just cannot live up to it. I don't think it's always that the movie sucks, it's just that it cannot compare to the book since the book has so much more time. A book you read over days or even weeks sometimes, while a book has only 2 hours. Also sometimes a book focuses more on emotions and that can be hard (or boring) to truly convey on film, and so it gets cut and cut and made to be something that people would want to watch. Unfortunately for us book lovers it can never compare!
I think the last one that I was outraged by was "The Other Boleyn Girl". The book was absolutely outstanding, and then I watched the movie and it ruined it.
"The Time Traveler's Wife" turned out to be a decent movie, but the book was just outstanding, and it's a favorite book of mine..though I would never watch the movie again. The movie just couldn't pull through the unbelievable love that the character's shared as well.
One example of two totally different takes on something but both outstanding is True Blood, it's only very (VERY!) loosely based off the Sookie Stackhouse series of books, but I love both the books and the series even though they're hardly anything alike after season 1. less
I think the last one that I was outraged by was "The Other Boleyn Girl". The book was absolutely outstanding, and then I watched the movie and it ruined it.
"The Time Traveler's Wife" turned out to be a decent movie, but the book was just outstanding, and it's a favorite book of mine..though I would never watch the movie again. The movie just couldn't pull through the unbelievable love that the character's shared as well.
One example of two totally different takes on something but both outstanding is True Blood, it's only very (VERY!) loosely based off the Sookie Stackhouse series of books, but I love both the books and the series even though they're hardly anything alike after season 1. less
This reminds me of the Dexter show and series of books. Honestly, even after reading all of the Dexter books, the show is much better. MUCH better. Even the author, Jeff Lindsay, has admitted the third book in the series sucked and the show is spectacular. The characters develop and change and everything is so beautifully intertwined, and the books seem like a crappy satire of Dexter and his family. It's weird.
10/23/2010
I think its a general rule of thumb that if you liked the book, you won't like the movie.
10/24/2010
Quote:
Yes I totally agree with you.
Originally posted by
lamira
Lately, I have noticed that movies that are based on books, quite frankly suck. I am very disappointed. Usually I end up liking or loving the book and then I become excited for the movie. However, when I see the movie, it's terrible. Have you
...
more
Lately, I have noticed that movies that are based on books, quite frankly suck. I am very disappointed. Usually I end up liking or loving the book and then I become excited for the movie. However, when I see the movie, it's terrible. Have you had the same experience I have had?
less
09/26/2011
Total posts: 8
Unique posters: 7