No I meant I read the books before watching the films but I was aware of who the actors in the films where.
So even though I hadn't seen the films yet, I still pictured the actors in my mind when I was reading.
Reading a Book or Watching a Film!
- Thread starter on
- Start date
No I meant I read the books before watching the films but I was aware of who the actors in the films where.
So even though I hadn't seen the films yet, I still pictured the actors in my mind when I was reading.
I find that film adaptations of books can influence some people to read them. For instance after I saw Serpico with Al Pacino I immediately got the book by Peter Maas. The book as opposed to the movie of course went into more detail about Frank Serpico's life and there were no composite characters just real people. The book was fantastic and honestly one of the best books I have ever read but the film version is just as good because all the major events that took place in the book happened in the movie and this is one of Al Pacino's best roles. I recommend both. :thumbsup:
on
Closed Account
No I meant I read the books before watching the films but I was aware of who the actors in the films where.
So even though I hadn't seen the films yet, I still pictured the actors in my mind when I was reading.
fair enough, that seems a creative enough approach,
METAL HEAD
Closed Account
the stephen king books are too dam big i prefer the flims.
i have also herd that the jarassic park books were way better then the flims?
just have not found the time too sit and read them yet
i have also herd that the jarassic park books were way better then the flims?
just have not found the time too sit and read them yet
Or learn how to spell it seems!!
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
I enjoy both. Most of the time, the books are much better than the movies, but sometimes, they add to them.
2001 and 2010, for example. Both movies were quite excellent - classics, in fact. But the books even more so.
At times (rarely), the movies can actually be better. I really was not impressed with Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? It was an OK book...but I thought Blade Runner actually added a whole lot to it.
2001 and 2010, for example. Both movies were quite excellent - classics, in fact. But the books even more so.
At times (rarely), the movies can actually be better. I really was not impressed with Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? It was an OK book...but I thought Blade Runner actually added a whole lot to it.
I've frequently said the book is always better than the film but my father (all 70 years of him) disagrees with me.
He says Jaws was not a very good book...but the movie was awesome.
I never read the book so I don't know. But I'll take his word for it.
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
I've frequently said the book is always better than the film but my father (all 70 years of him) disagrees with me.
He says Jaws was not a very good book...but the movie was awesome.
I never read the book so I don't know. But I'll take his word for it.
There is another one. Jaws was an awful book.
So I bumped a 6-year-old thread but I used the search function before starting a thread, so suck it.
Usually, I prefer the book to the film but there are some notable exceptions.
I've read the 3 volumes of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (it's not a trilogy ffs) twice since I first read it as a kid. So much of Tolkien's work is laying out a mythology and delving into it's language. He basically created an entire elvish language and alphabet including multiple dialects. This guy was into the language thing. I admire his enthusiasm and I guess that was his field of study, but it doesn't make for good reading by his audience in IMO. Peter Jackson did such a masterful work with the LoTR films and cut out some of the stuff that simply didn't belong in the story like Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire which was totally anticlimactic and reminds me of DLC in videogames today - yes, it's fun and you're thankful for it, but it adds nothing to the story and in some cases detracts from it. Also that scene at the river with Arwen (Liv Tyler) and the Black Riders was one of the greatest in movie history IMO and gave me the chills and much better than in the book (it wasn't even her but some throwaway character).
Another example is Tom Clancy. I enjoy his movies but his books are such a chore to read. They go so deep into the technical minutiae at times you just want to skip pages. For instance, in his book The Sum of All Fears he goes into a step by step tutorial on how a nuclear device is put together.
But yeah.
Usually, I prefer the book to the film but there are some notable exceptions.
I've read the 3 volumes of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (it's not a trilogy ffs) twice since I first read it as a kid. So much of Tolkien's work is laying out a mythology and delving into it's language. He basically created an entire elvish language and alphabet including multiple dialects. This guy was into the language thing. I admire his enthusiasm and I guess that was his field of study, but it doesn't make for good reading by his audience in IMO. Peter Jackson did such a masterful work with the LoTR films and cut out some of the stuff that simply didn't belong in the story like Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire which was totally anticlimactic and reminds me of DLC in videogames today - yes, it's fun and you're thankful for it, but it adds nothing to the story and in some cases detracts from it. Also that scene at the river with Arwen (Liv Tyler) and the Black Riders was one of the greatest in movie history IMO and gave me the chills and much better than in the book (it wasn't even her but some throwaway character).
Another example is Tom Clancy. I enjoy his movies but his books are such a chore to read. They go so deep into the technical minutiae at times you just want to skip pages. For instance, in his book The Sum of All Fears he goes into a step by step tutorial on how a nuclear device is put together.
But yeah.
Luxman
#TRE45ON
Another one is Catch-22, I couldn't read it because there was so much detail.
The movie was OK, and I preferred it to reading the book.
I'd rather watch a movie than read the book, even though the book is usually better than the movie.
It's mainly a matter of time, 2 hours for a movie instead of 8+ hours for the book.
The movie was OK, and I preferred it to reading the book.
I'd rather watch a movie than read the book, even though the book is usually better than the movie.
It's mainly a matter of time, 2 hours for a movie instead of 8+ hours for the book.
And probably the greatest example of a film being greater than the book is Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. I guess Stephen King wasn't happy with the film but he should be thankful because it is by far the best movie adaptation (the rest are pretty much crap) of any of his novels. If there's any doubt, just compare Kubrick's Shining to the tv mini-series that was true to the book. There's no comparison.
The book was good, the film was genius. And the casting was perfect of course.
The book was good, the film was genius. And the casting was perfect of course.
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
I like movies better because you don't have to read a movie. I know some movies are made by foreigners using foreigner talk and I prefer those dubbed to remove the reading part.
Similar threads
