Discussions
Books Vs Movies
Posted by Prongs • 6/17/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: books, movies, stephen king, the shining
I recently read The Shining and then immediately rented the movie. I know the film is a cult classic but honestly the book kicks it a$$ up the block and around the corner.
So my question is do you ever want to read the books that are associated with the movies? Or would you rather not watch a movie after reading the book because you know it will not live up to it?
goodbooksinc.blogspot.com/
User Comments
-
I think you have to knowingly keep the 2 media types separate. A great case in point - the Bourne Trilogy.
The movies, on their own, were great! Matt Damon was an excellent action "hero". Unfortunately, aside from the movie titles, they had no relation to the books of the same name. The books, on their own, were great as well.
For me, if I was to compare the 2 against each other, I'd start to be unhappy with the whole lot!
Having said that and knowing how Hollywood can butcher a book just to sell lots of tickets ... if there's a movie that I've liked that was based on a book, I will go buy that book to see what it REALLY was all about.-
This is the point I was actually trying to make with a friend of mine. I believe in many cases it is important to try and keep the two separate, unless let's say in something like Harry Potter, it is almost a direct attempt to bring the book to life.
In the case of The Shining, Kubrick merely used King's work as a jumping off point for the screen play. The driving force behind the two stories is almost entirely separate, but the idea of a building possessing a man remains intact. While the book remains insanely dominant in my eyes in terms of character development, overall entertainment value, and down right 'scarability', Kubrick created a classic in its own right. I just believe that as far the the 'original' it is important to go back and see what inspired (in this case the movie) what ever came after it.
-
-
comeee onnn. Someone else
-
I personally would like to read the book before the movie. When I watched The Da Vinci Code everyone who read the book told me it was so much better. There are more details in the book sometimes, like a characters thoughts and so on.-
Well according to my one friend then 'the movie is ruined' because you have such high expectations. My friend is also dumb.
-
-
i say book first, then movie.-
I am just curious, did you read Lolita and then watch the movie haha. I love that book that is the only reason I ask.
-
just because you choose "prongs" (whatever the hell that is) as your id doesn't mean that i did the same. LOLITA is a F*cking name!!!!
-
Yea I am AWARE that it is a name seeing as it is the NAME OF THE PERSON THAT THE BOOK IS ABOUT. It is not a common name and most people that hear it immediately think of the more POPULAR book.
-
yes and the whole world read the book and decided that since someone named one of their characters that, they would never, ever name their child that name. Like with all other books? well i am Lolita, I am not an old man hungry slut. Got it? Good!
-
I am sure any one with the name Adolf feels your sentiments.
-
no, really. I love my name. What I can't stand is douches giving me grief over it.
-
-
I prefer books to movies... -
Yup, I've read many a book that became a movie. And I agree-- The Shining novel is really compelling.
I recently read Alice Hoffman's "Practical Magic" though, and liked it a lot less than the film. It didn't really have the momentum of the movie, and I didn't care for the characters very much.-
Hm interesting point. I felt that way about Fight Club. I honestly liked the movie more than the book. But I had seen the movie before reading it, so I am not sure if there was a bit of reverse psychology there.
-
-
That is actually very reassuring. That is how the animals behaved in the first half of the book, the 'red light green light' type of movement when you eye was turned. Even in the book once they actually came to life I was a bit turned off so I was all for the maze. The idea of being lost inside of it with Jack was truly terrifying. However I still prefer the climax of the book. I just wish both had been included. Sigh. I will have to check out the other versions for sure.
-
-
Usually, when I read a book, I seldom have the urge to watch the movie. Since I already have a visual image in my head of the book, the movies are usually underwhelming, although I understand that it is very hard to translate from one medium to the other. I loved the book, "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy, but I have no desire to see the movie at all. Just by watching the preview, I knew that it wasn't going to meet my expectations.-
Yea it really can be hard. Often I go in telling myself that I am going to desperate the two in my head. That is what I tried to do with The Shining but it really was hard. I just kept thinking about how many more things they could have included that would have made it better. Like there are 2 scences where Jack is speaking to a ghost of a bartender. In the book his wife and child are listening to his one sided conversation on the steps, and it makes his insanity all that more real. How hard would it have been to include just a quick shot of that in the movie to really drive the idea that he is crazy home!?
-
Prongs-- they may have, and I'm not sure, use the scene you describe in the Miniseries version of the Shining.
But honestly, I think Kubrick's adaptation worked better as a whole.
The problem when Stephen King writes screenplays for his own books is, he wants to include every little detail precisely as he wrote it in the book.
And even with computer animation, what's scary in his book ends up looking hokey on the screen, or it's all just too long and cumbersome to work as a scene for scene adaptation. -
Stephen King has so much psychological stress on his characters and so much mood in his settings that I cannot imagine how they could translate well onto the big (or small) screen. I liked Secret Window, for instance, but the movie bored me to death (even with Johnny Depp, I'm sorry to say). They just couldn't capture the atmosphere. -
I can agree with you on a couple of those sentiments. For example his CGI affects often come off as cheesy and really can kill the mood of what other wise might have been an excellent re-make (Kingdom Hospital any one?). I am glad that Kubrick decided to with a hedge maze rather than the hedge animals as originally written. While King is of course delusional to think that even 50% of a novels detail can make it into a movie, there are some general things that I feel he would have a right to be angry over. Mainly the down play of Jack's alchohalism, and Danny's premonitions about the future. In my opinion, Danny's premonitions in the book were what really made the climax so unique, and this was a huge difference compared to the climax of the movie. But overall I was still impressed with the movie as just that, a movie in its own right. I tried to keep them separate in my head going in, other wise I was sure to hate what ever I saw.
-
@ Legbamel
I agree that the depth of Jack's character and transformation would be hard to portray on screen, and I am not going to lie when I say Jack Nicholson was AMAZING with the 'crazy' scenes. But all in all he was just to crazy from the start. The transition seemed almost natural and obvious, as compared to the novel which is a mental battle of good vs. evil and strength vs. weakness. Nicholson was just all to crazy from the getgo. Even my little sister who has never read the book picked up on that from the beginning.
And I did love secrete window. The movie not so much. -
Prongs-- I hear you. And I am 100% with you on the hedge maze/versus hedge animals decision. They did use the topiary animals in the TV mini-series and did it more like cutaways, where each time the camera came back to the hedge animal, it was in a different position, but we never saw it really move.
That worked better than I'd expected it would. Because it had real potential to be absolutely silly.
-
-
I prefer to see the movie and never read the book. In fact unless forced to under torture I plan never to read another book again.-
Ha is there a particular book that put you in this mind set or is it just a general lack of desire for anything literary?
-
Books bore me stiff. All those words. I do read poetry sometimes, and I love aphorisms (I write them myself.) But I can't see the point in filling my head with somebody else's imagination and ideas. I'd rather just live and study my own life.
-
Ha good enough reasoning I guess. Books can be a nice counter balance though, and can help to further inspire your imagination on a greater scale. Maybe you just never found the right books to not 'bore you stiff' (and trust me I have read quite a few that have done that to me as well.)
-
The irony is, I was a PhD candidate in European Lit. So I've read a lot, and all the best stuff. But I found it was getting me nowhere, just filling my brain with a lot of nonsense. It's real life I'm after, actual experience, not fiction and imagination.
-
That is a refreshing point of a view and a bit of a Gonzo-esque mindset. Maybe when I am finished tackling most of the classics I will feel that way as well.
-
-
After I came out of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" movie, I was terribly disappointed. I re-read every HP book before the premier of every movie, my mistake! 1, 2 and 3 were awesome! 4 was ok. 5, oh boy!
I know the HP books are way to long for a movie to have everything but, that movie left a lot out. After that, I decided not to read any book made into a movie right before the movie. So, when I went to watch "Angels and Demons" I was not as disappointed as other people, I read the book when it came out and I didn't remember all the details.
I have not read "The Devil wears Prada" but a friend told me that the movie was better than the book. "Gone with the wind" despite being sooo long, or maybe because it is, makes justice to the book, that is incredible long and super-descriptive.-
You didn't like 5?? Wow that is interesting. It is hands down my favorite. I know A LOT was left out but I just felt as a whole they really stepped it up. I do the same thing which is probably a bad idea. I tend to re read right before the movie. Actually I am doing the same with HP right now getting ready for the 6th. Mainly because I have forgotten a lot of the details of 6, but maybe you are on to something here. I might decide to wait until after the movie to re read and see how I feel about the movie then.
-
I also hated 5. I thought it was flat footed, a little clumsily made, and visually unimpressive. I would much rather have the movie be an excellent movie on its own merits, like Prisoner of Azkahban, than be 100% faithful to every single detail of the book. I only ever compare the book to the movie if I notice they completely changed the plot of the book. Like having someone who dies in the novel, live in the movie.
-
-
That's exactly my plan Prongs, re-read the book after the movie. Especially considering that the director of 5 also directed 6, so I'm preparing myself to not expect much. After I watched 5 for the 4th or 5th time I started liking it, LOL. I guess by then I had forgotten the details of the book again ;-)
-
I felt the same way after seeing the 3rd one. I remember just sitting there looking like I had been stunned. I couldn't believe how little was included and how much I hated the changes that were made. As for the 5th one, the battle scene alone was enough to make me a huge fan. Dumbledor vs Voldie? EPIC. I just thought overall the cinematography had reached a whole new lever, and 6 is looking to follow. Have you seen the previews? I am hoping this is not a case where the trailer out does the film, because from what I have seen it looks to be quit the experience.
I really think I might follow your advice and wait until the movie is over though. I am just finishing up 4 now (for probably the 10th time) but I might just finish 5 and put 6 on hold.
-
-
Stephen King's The Mist is a case in point. Hoor of that magnitude will always work best in the minds eye, rather than a film makers interpretation.-
I have generally seen litter of King's work on film that I have enjoyed apart from the things that could be considered 'non-horror' such as Shawshank Redemption and The Body (Stand by Me). I think with out the burden of having to replicate the sci-fi effects, the screen writers were able to focus on what really matters, the blot themselves and the character evolution. Shawshank is hands down my favorite short story of all time, and the movie has to be in my top 5.
-
-
movies...
some books are boring...or maybe i dont like books.....hehehehehe -
Really I think instead of basing movies off of books they should base them off of short stories, like they did with BladeRunner, as that way the movie can actually live up to it as less material is presented.-
I can agree with you there. Bringing it back to King, Shawshank Redemption is hands down my favorite short story of allll time. It is also is in my top 5 of movies. So maybe you are on to something there.
-
-
I like it when a movie that looks like it's actually going to be good comes out for a book that I love. Sometimes if a movie is coming out I will make a conscious effort to read the book first.
But I DETEST film covers on books.-
Couldn't agree with you more there.
-
-
Am a moviegoer, and i understand that its too way different (the story) from a book. -
I'll read the book first, and I know that most of the time the movie won't live up to the book, but it won't deter me from watching the movie anyway. -
Kubrick cut a lot of stuff out, but as a film in itself, The Shining is great. Even King himself has grown to like it for what it is. The film of Pet Semetary (which King wrote the screenplay for) is pretty poor, I was surprized to discover the book was so good. Actually, Fred Gwynne is perfectly cast in the film. -
I go for books over movies, one because I am the director. I bring to life the characters, the setting, the ambiance the author describes in my mind's eye. Movies more often than not fall below your expectations, especially when you've read the book, because you have your own ideas. There are, of course, movies which do their book counterparts justice. -
i prefer to read the book and then watch the movie. i read angels and demons and then watched the movie a little time after it came out. i think that this makes the movie more interesting. i have done this to a john grisham novel and now i am looking for the godfather the partner and the da vinci code since i have read the books. FYI reading the book is better. the movie people never do the adaptations enough justice -
I like to read the book before seeing the movie. This is even true if the book is based on the movie. -
Fight Club movie was pretty damn good in my opinion, but the book was amazing. And if you haven't read it yet then you may have failed as a human being...
Books tend to be better than movies, but I usually end up reading a book after I've seen the movie.-
Fight Club was one of those weird exceptions for me where I think I liked the movie more honestly. Possibly because I saw the movie first, which begs the question which 'do people tend to like whatever they saw/read first, more than the other options?' Not really sure how I would have felt if I read the book first honestly.
-
I had a weird reaction to Fight Club. I initially hated it. Then, it grew on me and grew on me and grew on me.
I really liked it until 9/11. After which, I could never watch that movie again.
-
-
Well, books and movies are not competition... I mean movies have an entirely different method than a book. When you write a book, the whole point is that it's intimate. It's detailed, it's from one or several perspectives that are explained down the minute smallest point. You read a book to absorb and so on. A movie is for entertainment. Fast entertainment. It lasts 2-3 hours and it's not to map out some huge depiction of thousands of tiny events. It has a plot, and beginning middle and end like a book but it's not a book. I think when you compare the two, your going to come out disappointed because it's like comparing skydiving with jumping on a trampoline. -
I'm much more of a book person- most films are based on books, not the other way around, and the original is usually the best.
Eileen -
One of the reasons that I hate to see a movie before I read a book is that I can't get the image of whoever was cast as the character out of my head when I'm read the book after I see the movie. Then again, crappy casting drives me crazy. Who the hell thought thought Brendan Fraser could pull off Inkheart?! (Paul Bettany as Dustfinger really grew on me, though.)
Edited to clarify that Mr. Fraser certainly could not do Mo justice, although the story was badly-mangled enough that he was adequate for the part he played. Not great, mind you, but what can you expect for a film in which the American guy raised his daughter with an English accent in Europe?-
I have the exact same problem. I think that was my huge problem with Fight Club. I couldn't not hear Edward Norton's voice while reading. not that it is a bad voice to listen too...haha
-
-
I like to read mostly but (comedy, romantic )movies are good when I want to kick back and want to put my mind on a pause. -
Although, there are many atrocious films of good (and even great) books, there are some great films made of mediocre or even bad books.
Case in point: "The Godfather." The book is a lurid, well-paced, potboiler. But the film is magnificent.
Also, although I love the book (story), I would rank Tarkovsky's Solaris higher amongst films than I would rank Lem's story amongst books.
Kubrick's 2001 is I think a better film than Clarke's book.-
My friend just actually finished th book and said she liked it well enough but that the movie just takes all the amazing parts and puts it into visuals. So I guess what really matters is the integrity that is kept, and the amount of interesting things that are kept/added as well.
-
-
I prefer movie.....because it takes only 2-3 hours.....but the time you spends on the books is more than that.....ha... -
I think a film of a novel is an opportunity to explore it in new ways as film is a totally different experience: films that acknowledge this and openly tell the story in a different way, or build on a small element of a book, or that bring some new but consistent ideas to the table, are often much better than films that try to cram the whole novel in. A good novel/film pair I often think of is The Prestige - the novel's structure of parallel accounts is replaced in the film with a broken timeline, while the central twist of the novel is slightly re-thought and actually makes more sense.-
Great point. I enjoyed the movie I might have to check out the book now!
-
scifigene: along similar lines, I definitely think that innumerable bad films come from a sense that what with the book being so good, it would be impossible to fail to make a mangificent film using such A-material. So often this fails to be the case. So, on the one hand, yes, sometimes films go wrong, precisely by ignoring the greatness of the book and coming up with arbitrary drivel in its place. But I think the majority of book-film-tie-ins go wrong, because the director forgets that he or she is making a film and just thinks, okay, I'll just point the character at the novel and hope it's aura is translated to the camera by osmosis.
Best,
Mal.
-
-
Harry Potter - loved the books.. couldn't stand the movies(Emma Watson aside)
Q and A - Absolutely loved the book.. the movie(Slumdog Millionaire) was horrible..
For those who are passionate about books, the movies will always be a let down. Unless you have a director who is passionately connected to the material(like Peter Jackson), Great books will always make lousy movies.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
