Books and Movies

[XGamerRichy]

penandpaper67

Fear Richy if u dare

In the cases of Eragon, I read the book before the film cam out, all throughout the movie I was critisizing it (On my birthday) because it was missing essential parts out if they wanted a sequel. Adding in things that didn't exist and generally messing up the story. (Massive sword fight and dragons. I don't think so, I mean, it was a terrible choice because the fight is supposed to be on the ground. Then Saphira saves the day by smashing the massive gem in the roof. stressed )

So yeah, that movie, although I like it now and I can watch it, I absolutely cannot stand that they bodged it up so badly. sweatdrop

OMG! I HATE THAT MOVIE! evil It was so horrible! I didn't even like it as a movie, not comparing it to the book. And I went to see it on my birthday too. whee

The only thing I agree with in the movie is Saphira herself. Yes her voice sounds a little young for what I expected her to sound like and sure she has feathery things on her wings, but otherwise, she's exactly as I imagined her. The other characters on the other hand are a different matter. (Blonde-haired Arya anyone? Black-haired more like!)  

[penandpaper67]

Fear Richy if u dare

penandpaper67

Fear Richy if u dare

In the cases of Eragon, I read the book before the film cam out, all throughout the movie I was critisizing it (On my birthday) because it was missing essential parts out if they wanted a sequel. Adding in things that didn't exist and generally messing up the story. (Massive sword fight and dragons. I don't think so, I mean, it was a terrible choice because the fight is supposed to be on the ground. Then Saphira saves the day by smashing the massive gem in the roof. stressed )

So yeah, that movie, although I like it now and I can watch it, I absolutely cannot stand that they bodged it up so badly. sweatdrop

OMG! I HATE THAT MOVIE! evil It was so horrible! I didn't even like it as a movie, not comparing it to the book. And I went to see it on my birthday too. whee

The only thing I agree with in the movie is Saphira herself. Yes her voice sounds a little young for what I expected her to sound like and sure she has feathery things on her wings, but otherwise, she's exactly as I imagined her. The other characters on the other hand are a different matter. (Blonde-haired Arya anyone? Black-haired more like!)

The characters were horrible! Arya especially..... The second movie will be so different that it won't be Eldest...... It will be Eragon 2! scream  

[XGamerRichy]

penandpaper67

Fear Richy if u dare

penandpaper67

Fear Richy if u dare

In the cases of Eragon, I read the book before the film cam out, all throughout the movie I was critisizing it (On my birthday) because it was missing essential parts out if they wanted a sequel. Adding in things that didn't exist and generally messing up the story. (Massive sword fight and dragons. I don't think so, I mean, it was a terrible choice because the fight is supposed to be on the ground. Then Saphira saves the day by smashing the massive gem in the roof. stressed )

So yeah, that movie, although I like it now and I can watch it, I absolutely cannot stand that they bodged it up so badly. sweatdrop

OMG! I HATE THAT MOVIE! evil It was so horrible! I didn't even like it as a movie, not comparing it to the book. And I went to see it on my birthday too. whee

The only thing I agree with in the movie is Saphira herself. Yes her voice sounds a little young for what I expected her to sound like and sure she has feathery things on her wings, but otherwise, she's exactly as I imagined her. The other characters on the other hand are a different matter. (Blonde-haired Arya anyone? Black-haired more like!)

The characters were horrible! Arya especially..... The second movie will be so different that it won't be Eldest...... It will be Eragon 2! scream

I know, Arya is a raven-haired elegant woman who was graceful. Movie version was graceful, but none of the other elements of Arya. Brom to me seemed too young. Eragon....Errmmm I think he was supposed to have brown hair not blonde.... Galbatorix never showed up in the bloody book so why the hell did he appear in the film? scream  

[irock708]

OK, first of all. Forrest Gump was originally a book. Not a lot of people know this, but then again, not a lot of people know that Fight Club was a book first either, and look at how popular that movie is.

Second point, I'm actually going to try my hand at script-writing at Script Frenzy this coming April. In preparation for Script Frenzy (and for script-writing itself), I did some research on script-writing. (If you can call looking it up on Wikipedia "research".) From what I read, it said that the key difference in a script and in a novel/book is that scripts focus on the action, while books focus on the thoughts of characters. Which is more or less true. Seriously, tell me a movie where all you can hear/see all the time is how the character is feeling. You'd get bored easily if you just watched your favorite character saying "Man, I feel excited" or "YAY I'M HAPPY" for a couple of hours.

My third case is, yes, films based on books definitely rely on the director's interpretation. I mean, they're the ones in charge. So they're the ones we can blame if a movie sucks! Yay!
But seriously, it's not just about the director's interpretation. There ARE time constraints, which is why they cut down the really long books to the simple plot map that we get taught in sixth grade. There's also things such as appealing to the audience. If a certain scene from the book could be looked at as offensive to some people, then maybe the director will take it out because he wouldn't want to offend the people watching his film. Someone said that directors just want to make money. Well. I'd say that's true for most of them, but not all. So it really depends on the director on what gets put on the final cut.

So now that I'm done with my argument...

I actually enjoyed the adaptation of the first two Harry Potter books. I started to read the books BECAUSE the films looked just so cool to me and I figured that reading the books would help me to understand what was going on and who was who and stuff. The third and fourth films weren't that great. The third had the most inaccurate script ever. As for the fourth, things were rushed waay too much. The fifth film... It had been years since I last read OotP, so I actually enjoyed it. But I know a lot of people who complained about it, lulz.

One book adaptation that was BAD was definitely A Series of Unfortunate Events. Poor Mr. Snicket. I'm soo glad I didn't pay $8 just to see that piece of crap. It was horribly disappointing.

Hm, as for books that I'd like to see be turned into movies...

The Catcher in the Rye is one, but that'll never happen and I know it won't... and that's it, really. All the other books that I'd like to see be turned into movies are already being turned into movies or is already a movie, which I'm really glad for biggrin
One of them I can't see when it comes out, though Dx
Darn rated R-ness <.<  

[Inepta]

know I'veread it, and I prefer film, for me a book was already great piece of screenplay...

And I watched Stardust yesterday and once again film was better than book (althought I don't know about in what realtion it is with comics, I don't like comics with exeption of Asterix...)  

[deceitful_hearts]

I usualy like film better, but there was one book-to-movie transition that made me want to kick sombody hard in the 'nads. That transition would be the book-to-movie of Clockwork orange. I did NOT at all like how it was done, right down to the corny slo-motion, the badly timed music that made it almost funny, the cutting out of the 2-3 male rape scenes (ok, maybe that was a good thing, but it was the ONLY good change), and more than anything, the fact that they got a 25 YEAR OLD to play a small 15 year old. Mcdowell was a good person for the part, and played it well, but they should have gotten a kid (although i know that having a kid film some of those scenes would raise even more contrevercy than the movie already had raised).  

[Volatile Rainbow]

I usually hate when I read the book first and then see the movie version. The exceptions to this are Lord of the Flies and A Scanner Darkly, because even though they differed somewhat from the novels, I enjoyed the movies (almost) as much as I did the books.

But I like to see the movie first, think, "Oh hey, that was pretty good," and then check out the books they were based on. Surprisingly, my views of the characters aren't twisted and formed by the movies--a complaint I've heard often from others.

But when I read the book first and then see the movie, I am invariably disappointed and a little pissed.  

[penandpaper67]

I think I am usually biased towards whatever I see/read first, unless the book or movie is infinitely better than the other. I usually end up reading the book first, especially if it was written before the movie was made.  

[Renette]

It really has nothing with how the director views a film - it's all in the screenwriter's view to do the actual interpretation, with some input from the director - and LITTLE input from the original writer. Usually, when the screenwriter works closely with the original writer of the book, then it is closer to the actual book than before. Sad, but true fact. Don't blame the director for the screenplay - blame the writer. Blame HIM for the poor quality acting. ^_^  

[PaintOnSilence]

good job irock, Forrest Gump is an Academy Award-winning 1994 drama film based on the 1986 novel of the same name by Winston Groom.

And Fight Club was good in both paper and film.

ANyway. It's not up to the directer t do anything but direct a script, unless they wrote the script odf course- bringing me to this- Screen writers are the ones responsable for these novel movies NOT the directers.

Yes Eragon sucked majorly if you read the book, but if you ahdn't readi ti first then the action from the movie drew you into the world of Eragon and you might've gone out and bought a copy of it in paper.

Movies are for entertainment. Books are as well, but books stretch the imagination nd aren't designed for intant gratification of a punch tot he face but the build of of emotion that turned into the character ocking his opponent rather visciously in his jaw.

Book are mental movies based on the senses and the trill of the build up to action.

Movies are pictures designed for instant entertainment.

Hmm..., I think I'd like to see one of Jhonen's comics turned into a movie..., he'd have to write it though, no one else can capture the minds of his carachters......., and it' have to be directed by my favourite: Tim Burton.  

[unknown_zoso05]

The only book(or play in this case) turned movie that was not that horribly changed was the Crusible. That was largely due to Arthur Miller actually working with movie script and direction.  

[Spooky Rider]

I agree with irock708. A Series of Unfortunate Events movie was one of the most horrible movies I've ever seen. I think even to end it in a cliff hanger after the 3 books were done in the movie would've been better. And what was with it with that stupid added spyglass part? And another bad thing about the movie is that Klaus didn't even wear glasses. And Voilet's lips were SO HUGE! They totally ruined the books series. I loved the book series! **Spoiler**The ending made me cry, when Kit Snicket died while giving birth.**Spoiler** crying The movie, however, made me cry in a different way!  

[penandpaper67]

I'm going to add a spoiler warning to your post, Spooky Rider. I agree with you completely. I hated the movie.