What do you think about them? Are they good or do they just ruin the book?
Discuss.
Discuss.
Movies based on books
- Thread starter Samber
- Start date
|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
- Status
I think many movies based on books leave out many details and/or replace those missing details with things that didn't even happen. Leaving fans of the book upset. All in all, I think most of the time the books are better than the movies ever have the potential to be.
M
Miss Murder
Guest
Well, for the most part I've only have bad experiences with Movies based off of Books. Generally, in my opinion, the books are far better than the movies. ( Even though I don't enjoy reading all that often, as I believe I've pointed out before )
That is with the exception of the Harry Potter series, I guess. The movies are far better than the books in those particular cases.
However, some examples of the movie mess-ups are:
. Generally all of the Stephen King books that have been made into movies. The books are waaay - like way way way - better.
. "Blood and Chocolate". Simply put, the movie was absolutely nothing like the book except for the basic idea. The book was genius. But the movie bombed ... I didn't like it at all, really.
Just my own opinion, though ...
That is with the exception of the Harry Potter series, I guess. The movies are far better than the books in those particular cases.
However, some examples of the movie mess-ups are:
. Generally all of the Stephen King books that have been made into movies. The books are waaay - like way way way - better.
. "Blood and Chocolate". Simply put, the movie was absolutely nothing like the book except for the basic idea. The book was genius. But the movie bombed ... I didn't like it at all, really.
Just my own opinion, though ...
They don't totally ruin the book but they're not as good. I sometimes hate to see books turn into movies because I have high expectations
Lord of The Rings is one of the movies that just seemed to be perfect, but thats where it kind of ends harry potter movies are not as good as the books, series of unfortunate of events was a tragedy the books were so awsome and the movie was so lame I mean for god sake jim carry played as count olaf who's a serioues dude it just didn't make sense
Party Monster was actually better in the movie than the book.
i know no one's heard of that book but still...the movie was really good.
it depends on the director i think. if its a crappy director that no one's ever heard of then i think it will be a crappy movie.
i know no one's heard of that book but still...the movie was really good.
it depends on the director i think. if its a crappy director that no one's ever heard of then i think it will be a crappy movie.
Yeah, I liked those too. We'll see how they do on the movie.:huh:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,625
- Age
- 30
Haku said:
Yes, i love that trilogy, the movies were a success
movies that were once books usually suck if youve read the book
cause you picture it your mind but then it becomes a big let down if it doesnt met that standard
cause you picture it your mind but then it becomes a big let down if it doesnt met that standard
I liked Lord of the Rings as a Movie. Yessss Preciousssss! But then I read Eregon and saw the Movie. The movie was not as good as the book, all it really did was put definite pictures of characters to visualize when I read the book.
I happen to like movies that are based on books, especially if it's books I've read. Even if they don't get it exactly right (which is good. Gives us internet nerds something to bitch about), they're USUALLY in the right ballpark, and I always love seeing a visual representation of a book that I've enjoyed reading. When they don't make them exactly right, I don't feel that it ruins the series. I look at it this way: The books you loved are still the same, you got to see a movie that was, at the very least, enjoyable (one should hope) and was based on that book/series, and it introduces new people to the series because, let's face it, some people HATE reading. Movies are a good way to get them interested in the books.
A good example, for me, anyways, is the Harry Potter series. I absolutely hated the series without ever reading it. I thought it was a kiddy series and completely undeserving of my time. I saw the first movie in theatres and didn't like it much, watched the second with my friend and was rather indifferent, Thought the third was very good, and then I LOVED the fourth one. So much so that I started reading the books, beginning with the fourth. I now own all the books, have read them, and I've enjoyed mostly all of them (I'm not a big fan of 1, 2, and 3. They're well written, but I find them rather boring). After reading them and re-watching the movies, I find the movies hard to follow because they don't include a vast amount of things that I loved from the books. But I don't feel that's ruined the books in any way, shape, or form. The movies still got me into the series, and at least it gives me something Harry Potter related to enjoy on the big screen. It's nice to have that.
A good example, for me, anyways, is the Harry Potter series. I absolutely hated the series without ever reading it. I thought it was a kiddy series and completely undeserving of my time. I saw the first movie in theatres and didn't like it much, watched the second with my friend and was rather indifferent, Thought the third was very good, and then I LOVED the fourth one. So much so that I started reading the books, beginning with the fourth. I now own all the books, have read them, and I've enjoyed mostly all of them (I'm not a big fan of 1, 2, and 3. They're well written, but I find them rather boring). After reading them and re-watching the movies, I find the movies hard to follow because they don't include a vast amount of things that I loved from the books. But I don't feel that's ruined the books in any way, shape, or form. The movies still got me into the series, and at least it gives me something Harry Potter related to enjoy on the big screen. It's nice to have that.
To add to what Manchester Black was saying, I particularly enjoyed the 2005 Narnia movie.
The adaptation was fine, being that the length of the book allowed for them to add some new parts, like the London air-raids, the train ride to the country, the frozen river scene, a longer battle, and some little tidbits interspersed within the plot. There were some changed things too, which caught me a little off guard ( no Mr. Fox and friends having breakfast, and Rumblebuffin being unpetrified at Jadis's castle ), but they were scenes that weren't wholly important to the plot.
I had a fantastic theatre experience as well, and if you've ever seen Finding Neverland with Johnny Depp, you know I'm harkening to the play in the theatre near the end.
I think, with the advent of fantastic digital imagery, some of these old fantasies can be brought to a new audience and wholly enjoyed while bringing some magic and nostalgia to those who read them as books.
The adaptation was fine, being that the length of the book allowed for them to add some new parts, like the London air-raids, the train ride to the country, the frozen river scene, a longer battle, and some little tidbits interspersed within the plot. There were some changed things too, which caught me a little off guard ( no Mr. Fox and friends having breakfast, and Rumblebuffin being unpetrified at Jadis's castle ), but they were scenes that weren't wholly important to the plot.
I had a fantastic theatre experience as well, and if you've ever seen Finding Neverland with Johnny Depp, you know I'm harkening to the play in the theatre near the end.
I think, with the advent of fantastic digital imagery, some of these old fantasies can be brought to a new audience and wholly enjoyed while bringing some magic and nostalgia to those who read them as books.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,625
- Age
- 30
In my opinion, most books are better than their movies. But, some movies are better than the books.
Eragon was made into a movie. But the book is better.
I know what you mean there. I was totally uninterested in Eragon; but between my brother and watching the first ten minutes of the movie, I wanted to check out the book. So, being the person I am, I turned the movie off, got the book, and dove into Eragon's world.
But, being the person I am, when I went to watch the movie again, I was sadly disapointed, because, in my opinon, they completly trashed it. Oh well, it gave a good picture of Saphira at least!
I do the same thing with the Harry Potter movies; my brother said that the only reason I watch them is so I can tear them apart. But it's partly true! There's just so much missing from the movies that it hurts!
But if there's one that they did a good job on, it was Willy Wonka and the Chocalate Factory. I haven't read the book; but my mom says that that movie is one of the few instances where the movie is actually way better than the book.
~ Dream
I personally think that most of the time, the books are better that the movies based off them, but it is possible for such movies to be good. I also like the LOTR movies, even though I think the books are better and was frustrated at some of the changes they made. Yet, I still think the movies are good in their own right, and that they stay faithful to many things in the story. I guess I think that movies based on books should try to stay as faithful as possible to the original story, but that they also need to be able to be a good movie by itself apart from the book.
- Status