Thread Tools

lena
*^_^*
8244.06
Send a message via AIM to lena
lena is offline
 
#1
Old 03-23-2007, 06:21 PM

(I was unsure as to whether this thread belonged in Books or Media~ feel free to move if needed)

Just recently I finished both "A Walk to Remember" and "The Notebook" by Nicholas Sparks after viewing the movies. I fell in love with the characters on screen, and expected the books to bring even more dimension to them. But I was terribly disappointed after finishing the novels, I thought the movie adaptations did a MUCH better job with the story and portraying the characters (surprising!).
Granted, I'm not a huge romance reader, but even I could tell that the characters were as flat as they came. The books were even sappier than the movies and the writing turned out to be pretty mediocre.
[/end rant]

Ever had the experience of diving into a book after watching the movie, only to end up disappointed?
Discuss it here~

ScarletStratholme
\ (•◡•) /
39.47
ScarletStratholme is offline
 
#2
Old 03-23-2007, 06:59 PM

*cough* lotr *cough*

siaasgn
(。⌒∇⌒)&...
4650.70
siaasgn is offline
 
#3
Old 03-23-2007, 07:26 PM

haha - I've never been able to slog through the LOTR series - I always get 1/2 through the 1st book and forget the whole thing

the movies were amazing tho

jellysundae
bork and means

Assistant Administrator
4859.09
jellysundae is offline
 
#4
Old 03-23-2007, 08:09 PM

aw! LoTR is an amazing book.

i can't get used to you people who've only ever thought of it as 3 books, it was only ever printed as 1 originally.
i've owned a copy for nearly 20 years, and have read it over and over again, i can open it anywhere and be lost in it within a few pages.

and i can't get into the films at all, because i know the story so well, and have my own mental images of the characters i find them really hard to watch.

Chimama
⊙ω⊙
387.20
Chimama is offline
 
#5
Old 03-23-2007, 10:27 PM

IMHO the movie "An Interview With a Vampire" was far and away better than the book. I am not a big Tom Cruise follower/fan and never have been but I thought he did an amazing job of portraying Lestat as I pictured him from the rest of that Vampire series.

xdark_secretsx
(◎_◎;)
853.53
xdark_secretsx is offline
 
#6
Old 03-23-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimama
IMHO the movie "An Interview With a Vampire" was far and away better than the book. I am not a big Tom Cruise follower/fan and never have been but I thought he did an amazing job of portraying Lestat as I pictured him from the rest of that Vampire series.
I think I may have to agree with you on that.

Even though I haven't read "Queen of the Damned", I have watched the movie.. and from many of the fans of the book I can see how they don't like how. I watched the movie and thought of it as another vampire movie and not from a book. It's completely opposite from what this topic is about. Being that the book is most likely better than the movie.

jellysundae
bork and means

Assistant Administrator
4859.09
jellysundae is offline
 
#7
Old 03-24-2007, 12:33 AM

on that i do agree, i've seen the film and quite enjoyed it, but i found the book rather hard going, though i really don't like Tom Cruise as Lestat, he's too short and ugly to play him, plus he looks hideous with blonde hair.

it's a shame Rutger Hauer isn't younger, he'd have been excellent as Lestat
i wouldn't watch any other vampire chronicle films though, because i love the other books and i wouldn't want them spoiled for me.

Aerysta
⊙ω⊙
146.60
Aerysta is offline
 
#8
Old 03-24-2007, 02:45 AM

From what I hear, Lord of the Rings is one of those where the book is really dry for the first half, and then you get into a lot of the action. That said, if you're not inclined to the fantasy genre to begin with, then it can still be difficult to make it through if you're just a casual fan of the films.

Aliena
(^._.^)ノ
3.00
Aliena is offline
 
#9
Old 03-24-2007, 04:42 AM

Nicolas Sparks is kind of a fluffy writer. His stories are always sweet and easy to read - they're kind of feel good with less depth to them, in my opinion. I actually preferred the book versions of those to the movies, especially, for instance, A Walk to Remember - the ending was completely different in the book than in the movie.

Generally, I don't compare books to movies because I think they're entertaining in their own way. The two media are so different, that even though they're telling the same tale, it's almost as if they're two entirely separate entities. I do admit, I loved the LotR movies much more than the books. It was kind of neat reading the books after seeing the movies, but they were a little on the dry side, I thought.

stilettolover
Dead Account Holder
19.40
Send a message via AIM to stilettolover
stilettolover is offline
 
#10
Old 03-24-2007, 04:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerysta
From what I hear, Lord of the Rings is one of those where the book is really dry for the first half, and then you get into a lot of the action. That said, if you're not inclined to the fantasy genre to begin with, then it can still be difficult to make it through if you're just a casual fan of the films.
It is. Most of the first book is really, really slow. It sets up little things that come into play later on. They cut all those extra parts out of the movie.


I can't think of any movie that's better than the book it was based on. Uhh.. Uh.... *Wanders off*

Alegretto
\ (•◡•) /
968.70
Send a message via AIM to Alegretto Send a message via MSN to Alegretto
Alegretto is offline
 
#11
Old 03-24-2007, 05:15 AM

Hrm. I'm going to have to join the legions who say Lord of the Rings. Why? I just simply couldn't stand Tolkien's dry, repetitive writing. yes yes, the concept is brilliant and all that delightful stuff. But he's soooo dry. ;_;

c0rpse
⊙ω⊙
37.57
c0rpse is offline
 
#12
Old 03-24-2007, 05:40 AM

Eek, I really haven't seen as many movies based off books as i should~ xP
But most of them turn out with them being equal in greatness when taken in different perspectives. But I've got to admit that I like the movies based off of Anne Rice's novels better then the novels them self's. I haven't even been able to read more then a chapter in her books, but find myself watching the movies over and over again. Im sure if i were to pass that chapter hum then maybe her books would seem as interesting, but, meah. I agree with Aliena when they mentioned the two media being so different, that even though they're telling the same tale, it's almost as if they're two entirely separate entities.

Marguerite Blakeney
Kidnapped by Tumblr
25191.10
Marguerite Blakeney is offline
 
#13
Old 03-24-2007, 06:56 AM

Yeah sometimes it happens.

My English class just recently read and watched Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me/The Body, both by Stephen King and though the novels are great, the movies are more understandable and it's more entertaining to see something visually rather than just picturing it. That's my opinion at least.

Donna
(。⌒∇⌒)&...
14096.34
Send a message via MSN to Donna
Donna is offline
 
#14
Old 03-24-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite Blakeney
Yeah sometimes it happens.

My English class just recently read and watched Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me/The Body, both by Stephen King and though the novels are great, the movies are more understandable and it's more entertaining to see something visually rather than just picturing it. That's my opinion at least.
Yeah, reading the novels help to understand the movie better. But I thought there were good and bad points to either novel or movie. I happen to think that the Standy By Me/Body movie was better than the book, though from the book, I imagined different images. I thought Vern would be...hmm maybe about the same, and then Chris would have been chubbier, Gordie look like Teddy in the movie, and Teddy look like Gordie in the movie. Except switch the glasses/hearing aids. :/

Marguerite Blakeney
Kidnapped by Tumblr
25191.10
Marguerite Blakeney is offline
 
#15
Old 03-24-2007, 07:07 AM

It's true actually the Stand By Me movie was better than the book, albeit much shorter since it seemed about an hour long in total.

Shawshank Redemption--the movie vs. the book. In the end of the movie we actually see Red getting to Zihuatanejo, though in the book we just read that Red wants to see his friend again.

Donna
(。⌒∇⌒)&...
14096.34
Send a message via MSN to Donna
Donna is offline
 
#16
Old 03-24-2007, 07:12 AM

Yeah I noticed it was much shorter as well. And it was quite entertaining seeing all these actors I've known at younger ages. xD Though the leech scene didn't affect me as much as the book. Probably because it didn't bust when he took it off.

Hmm. Shawshank. I liked both, for different reasons. I guess the movie is better with the book though since I think I understood it better. If I just saw the movie, I think I would have been confused as to any point in making it. I love the quotes in both though. You already know them. The "Alexandre Dumbass" one in the movie and the "shiiiit oh shit it's shit!!!" one in the book. xD

secretdae007
The Colors of a Dae
5987.65
secretdae007 is offline
 
#17
Old 03-24-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimama
IMHO the movie "An Interview With a Vampire" was far and away better than the book. I am not a big Tom Cruise follower/fan and never have been but I thought he did an amazing job of portraying Lestat as I pictured him from the rest of that Vampire series.
I love that movie... I personally think Tom Cruise plays the hero too much then the somewhat bad guy...

As to A Walk To Remember (movie), I thought it was way better than the book. Where the book made me teary eyed, the movie made me bawl xD

Chimama
⊙ω⊙
387.20
Chimama is offline
 
#18
Old 03-25-2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite Blakeney
It's true actually the Stand By Me movie was better than the book, albeit much shorter since it seemed about an hour long in total.
I know I am likely in the minority but I have never understood what all the big deal about Steven King was.
I have actually found that with alot of King's books. I cannot read them, but some of his movies are alomst watchable. I did like "Stand By Me" as a movie but the only book of his I ever halfway enjoyed was "The Talisman" but that could be because it was co-written by Peter Straub who I do enjoy.

Donna
(。⌒∇⌒)&...
14096.34
Send a message via MSN to Donna
Donna is offline
 
#19
Old 03-25-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimama
I know I am likely in the minority but I have never understood what all the big deal about Steven King was.
I have actually found that with alot of King's books. I cannot read them, but some of his movies are alomst watchable. I did like "Stand By Me" as a movie but the only book of his I ever halfway enjoyed was "The Talisman" but that could be because it was co-written by Peter Straub who I do enjoy.
I thought the same thing. The teacher says his writing is fabulous and detailed, but when I read the book, it didn't seem special to me. I actually expected so much more! o.o;
Well, the only book I liked was "Rose Red", and extremely enjoyed the movie as well, and was later compelled to read the diary of Ellen Rimbauer.

Noir Kalenthiel
ʘ‿ʘ
8350.84
Send a message via MSN to Noir Kalenthiel Send a message via Yahoo to Noir Kalenthiel
Noir Kalenthiel is offline
 
#20
Old 03-27-2007, 10:25 AM

I went through a long period of time in my teen years where all I read was Anne Rice books and all the other gothy authors out there. One movie though that was made from an Anne Rice book that was definitely not as good, was Queen of the Damned. Compared to the book, it was horrible.

But in a strange turn, I liked Interview with a Vampire, the movie, much more than the book. Louis was just too whiny for me in the book. He tended to kinda grate on my nerves. I loved Lestat's comment of "Louis... always whining!" It fit my impression of the character from the book perfectly.

The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy did come out well, but for those of us who read it when we were young and hiding under the bed sheets with a flashlight, adventuring along with Frodo and the gang, it just wasn't the same. For me it kinda ruined the books. *shrugs* I may seem like a oldie by saying that....

The Harry Potter films.... well, for one the books are my guilty pleasure... a 22 year old reading what is supposed to be a kids book? *rolls eyes* THough admittedly, the books have definitely become more and more mature with each sequential book.

But the movies, I find to be banal and tend to have poor acting. I think Daniel Radcliffe is a rather stilted actor. Yes he looks the part, but other than that, the kid seems stiff. The lines that they have some of the kids say are just poorly done. They seem corny and pathetic. True, some of these lines are in the books, but really...... *sigh*

*grins* I think I have ranted on enough.....

Airuin
Dead Account Holder
0.80
Airuin is offline
 
#21
Old 03-27-2007, 10:58 PM

Some movie versions are more convenient than poring through the book, but I think most movies "lack something" when it comes to the translation of a given book into that media. The director's, editor's, actors' interpretations of the book are just naturally different than what I see in my head while reading the book, and it just doesn't compare. Sometimes it's nice to see somebody else's interpretation, and occasionally I come away with "wow", but it's more often the idea of "well, that was quite different", even if the movie or scene was absolutely true to the book.

kafine
⊙ω⊙
676.41
kafine is offline
 
#22
Old 03-27-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jellysundae
and i can't get into the films at all, because i know the story so well, and have my own mental images of the characters i find them really hard to watch.
I was the same way. I read it when I was pretty young (probably too young to really appreciate it) and I found that my mental image of the world and the characters was so deeply engrained that I didn't like the films very much at all.

Simplixity
(っ◕‿◕)&...
1485.59
Simplixity is offline
 
#23
Old 03-29-2007, 07:32 PM

I just realized a book that I read in the seventh grade -Where the Red Fern Grows- does anyone else know which book I'm talking about?

Well, I remember reading the book in class, and loving it because it was so emotional and such an exciting plot. Then, as a reward, the teacher let us watch the movie at the end of the year, and it was absolutely horrible. If a person had never read the book, they would've hate it if they watched the movie first.

jellysundae
bork and means

Assistant Administrator
4859.09
jellysundae is offline
 
#24
Old 03-30-2007, 03:27 AM

hmm, i seem to remember a disney film about a red fern, it grew where a dog had died and the other dog sat there and pined for it.

that film made me sob my little 6 year old heart out.

i told my Mum i wanted to write to Disney and tell them off for making such sad films :oops:

Mama Juru
Why you crying?
Assistant Administrator
156155.52
Mama Juru is offline
 
#25
Old 03-30-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite Blakeney
It's true actually the Stand By Me movie was better than the book, albeit much shorter since it seemed about an hour long in total.
I know I am likely in the minority but I have never understood what all the big deal about Steven King was.
I have actually found that with alot of King's books. I cannot read them, but some of his movies are alomst watchable. I did like "Stand By Me" as a movie but the only book of his I ever halfway enjoyed was "The Talisman" but that could be because it was co-written by Peter Straub who I do enjoy.
I loved Stand By Me, both the movie and the book, although I do agree with you about Steven King's writing. Most of the books strike me as being thrown together because he has to meet some kind of deadline. For me it just doesn't flow.

 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

 
Forum Jump

no new posts