|
|
Post by GrumpyBigBee on Oct 6, 2006 11:50:31 GMT -5
I just read this book, my brother told me I should read it. It was great. I was surprised just how much some parts were different than the movie. I know that in most cases the book is way too big for movies and has to be changed or cut but there are some parts that should not have been changed in this account...
BUT AS ALWAYS... I reccomend you ALWAYS watch the movie before reading a book!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Oct 8, 2006 19:25:26 GMT -5
BUT AS ALWAYS... I reccomend you ALWAYS watch the movie before reading a book!!!! Boy, do I hope you were being sarcastic. |
|
|
|
Post by tystates on Oct 8, 2006 20:00:29 GMT -5
Yeah, me too. It's the other way around for the reasons you stated. I don't know about now but it used to be the book came out before the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildfire on Oct 9, 2006 15:56:17 GMT -5
I agree with Mark and Ty.. .unless the book is only a movie adaptation, I can't think of 1 single time were the movie of a story was better than a book... especially in the sci fi/fantasy genre... at best, you have thing like Harry Potter, which was a scarily accurate adaptation of the movie... at worst, you have Sum of all Fears, which took (IMO) a writers best stuff and turned into driven for the sake of having Ben Affleck as the star.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Oct 9, 2006 18:51:40 GMT -5
And also changing the terrorists' nationality so as not to offend Arab Americans.
Yeah, books are better than their movies. Then again, I read for a living. I would say that.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Oct 9, 2006 20:11:21 GMT -5
Believe it or not...I like to see the movie before reading the books. My wife is the other way.
But I like to see what they've cut out, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedragonreborn on Oct 9, 2006 22:07:09 GMT -5
I almost always read the book before seeing the movie, but I can see what Grumps might have meant. If you read the book first the movie usually disappoints. I don't know if that's what he was trying to say, but that's the way I took it
Rahl
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Oct 11, 2006 23:44:04 GMT -5
I have to see the movie first if I'm to enjoy it at all. If I read the book first I'm always horribly disappointed as nothing Hollywood comes up with will match what I pictured in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Oct 12, 2006 5:19:05 GMT -5
There is something to what you're saying, Mad Dog. And there have been a couple of occasions where I've gone to see the movie and been interested enough to read the book, but usually I try to do it the other way. Pretty rare for the movie to be better on balance, though. I remember when they did the 4-hour miniseries on TV for Stephen King's It, and the whole cool section about "the deadlights" was reduced to a 30-second bit where the characters were just seen staring into the eyes of that big spider thing. Even as a teenager, I about threw my remote at the TV on that one.
I've still never seen Enemy at the Gates although I read the book a few years ago when the movie came out. Evidently what was a small part of that book they highly embellished to make a movie out of it, but to me, the real story in that book was the German soldier who got married about a week before he left for the eastern front, fought for several years and only was home for about 10 days on furlough to see his wife, then got captured in the siege at Stalingrad and wasn't released by the Soviets until sometime in the mid-'50s. Over the course of about 15 years of marriage to his wife, he had seen her a total of maybe 20 days. The problem with that story from a Hollywood standpoint, of course, is that the soldier was a German, and although he wasn't a Nazi, he served them. But boy, can you imagine?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Oct 12, 2006 9:27:16 GMT -5
I think the Lord of the Rings has been the only movie that hasn't been a total disappointment after reading the book for me. And even then I had a lot of annoyances with various parts and characters that Hollywood decided to play up.
The other issue I have with movies is that you can't get into the character's head like the book allows.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredkc6cfb on Oct 13, 2006 1:35:08 GMT -5
The novel is awesome.
I read it many years ago in Jr High. Loved it. I keep meaning to re-read it, but haven't gotten around to it.
I saw the Shining movie by Kubrick before reading the novel by King and was massively disappointed by how much Kubrick omitted.
I was also disappointed that Jackson left out so many good parts of LOTR. But considering the size of the story and the need to whittle it down, I forgave him. Still, I wanted to see Tom Bombadil.
|
|
