Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2

    "someone else's interpretation" with book adaptations, no, no, no.

    OK, the title doesn't describe this topic very well but here is the longer version:

    everybody always says that the book is always better than the movie because it's somebody else's interpretation of it, so it conflicts with your own. I say that's bullshit, if that were the case you wouldn't think the book is better if you watched the movie first, would you. because if you watched the movie first, that would be your interpretation. I at least have often watched a movie and thought; that was a very good movie, and then when I've read the book thought; wow the book was amazing , it was even better than the movie.

    so no, that is not why the book is always better than the movie. I think it is because books are better at telling a deep story and presenting rich characters than movies, so if a book is made into a movie something of the story is lost. movies on the other hand are better at action and description of visual things like how a character looks. that should mean that if an action movie would be made into a book, the movie would probably be better. a kind of example of this is James Bond, I have not read the bond books but not many have and that's why I took this as an example, the movies are massively more popular than the books, most people don't think about them being books originally when they watch bond. this is because their action movies or maybe action books.

  2. #2
    Lurnin' da Force Bodhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Califlorner
    Posts
    167

    Arrow no, no, no, no

    Well books are like apples and movies are like oranges: both fruit, but one clearly superior. NOT!

    I think the problem occurs when a movie tries to stay completely true to an author's words. A movie tells a story in a different way with added stimuli, so it should be an adaptation to a different medium.

    The transition to a visual image from language is enormous, so it makes sense that you can't please everyone.

    Your claim of depth and richness is not unsubstantiated. Novels are older as an art form.

    I think movie-producers are starting to learn where movies fare the best. But that doesn't stop them from milking old favorites or the latest fads. There's more moolah in the movie biz, so it gets more diluted or perverted as an art form.
    1 cup imagination. 2 cups jibber jabber. Mix and pour onto a bed of experience. Bake well.

  3. #3
    A mere player txshusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasn View Post
    OK, the title doesn't describe this topic very well but here is the longer version:

    everybody always says that the book is always better than the movie because it's somebody else's interpretation of it, so it conflicts with your own. I say that's bullshit, if that were the case you wouldn't think the book is better if you watched the movie first, would you. because if you watched the movie first, that would be your interpretation.
    Well, no. not IMHO.. the movie is still someone else's interpretation of the story. Your interpretation of the book will still be different. It may be tainted by what you saw on the screen (perhaps you can't get Sean Astin's face out of your mind when reading about Samwise Gamgee ), but with more going on in the book - normally - there will still be things you interpret for yourself to make the whole different. Take, for instance, books that have been made into movies more than once. You will likely see two completely different ideas - Dune is a great example, I think. Lynch's version (I hate) is way different in texture, script, characterization, costume, etc from the SyFy mini-series of a few years ago (Which I enjoyed tremendously). How then would you say one is your personal interpretation if you watched both before reading the book?

    As for the rest.. yeah... pretty much, although I will say that a good adaptation can create characters to a very enjoyable degree. Mainly because the movie is limited by time so it cuts book to the core of the story and thus focus more on fewer characters instead of spreading the wealth... so the more focus on the main character in a movie, the easier it is to translate that character properly from the book. Though, I agree the movie character is rarely as good as the book. My problem with most movies isn't really the character, but everything else around them; they tend to not incorporate subplots - which enhance books tremendously - they add love interests - which don't enhance anything, normally - and often change the ending to make it more feel-good. In Hollywood versions of books like Michael Chrichton's stuff, I also find that there is a lack of underlying scientific explanation to help understand the intricacies of the dilemma. (Congo, The Eaters of the Dead, Jurassic Park, Timeline, to name some.) Some movie adaptations get so chopped up that I think people who haven't read the book probably get lost somewhere in the middle. Harry Potter stuff and Ender's Game are two recent examples of times when I left the theater saying, "Man, I'm glad I read the book first." Ender's Game was especially disappointing. I thought a two movie set would have done it much more justice, especially when they had Bean's story to fall back on for subplot.

    All that goes into telling a richer story, as you say, and a greater depth.

    Bourne stuff is like the Bond stuff, I would say, as well. A franchise that transcended the books they sprang from.
    Last edited by txshusker; October 20th, 2014 at 12:18 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •