Boards
book vs. film
when it comes to books made into films, which do you normally prefer or think is better?
eg. Trainspotting - I preferred the film although there were major differences in the general storylines and characters shown.
when it comes to books made into films, which do you normally prefer or think is better?
eg. Trainspotting - I preferred the film although there were major differences in the general storylines and characters shown.
...
The book of the Matrix was really crap. The CGI was totally unconvincing.
aw
i LOVED the book of trainspotting, whereas i only loved the film.
usually i prefer books, cause i can take my time and get really involved with all the characters. They also tend to go into a lot more depth that films can't really, being pretty short. SO, books. But i do love films, and sometimes they can bring out the best from the book they are based on.
i prefer books usually
your in control and you can make it how you want to make it, films are restricted. Although very good, sometimes not as good as your mind can make it.
i generally prefer the films.
a picture tells a thousand words, etc.
I meant examples of books or films you preferred
but sure!
and yeah, I liked Trainspotitng but I prefer the film, it has a betetr flow to it really.
I think I prefer books
for the same reason.
I like to be able to put my own interpretation into the story. In fact, I don't think I've ever preferred a film over any book that I've read.
...
Slightly off topic - but once I read the books of Red Dwarf, I couldn't really watch the series anymore. Just seemed lightweight.
Yeah
I much prefer the books of Red Dwarf.
YES
they are probably the best thing ever :) just ask Andrew Dalkin, he has mine just now :)
i prefer to see what the artist's intention was
i don't hate books or anything, but films allow so much artistic expression.
kubrick almost always adapted from books, but his visions of the books i find more entertaining than the books themselves.
But films are mostly
someone else's impression of a book, which annoys me, especially if it's a book that's very open to interpretation.
thing is
i don't see why books should be open to interpretation.
in my mind, most of the time that's just lazy writing.
nah
being open to interpretation makes you able to be much more involved with the characters. it allows you to construct your own world around the writers and it makes reading a lot more of a personal experience than watching a film.
i didn't mean to be so firm there.
i find that books often leave things TOO open to interpretation, and it can often give me the impression that the artist/author didn't have much of an interpretation themself.
which is bad.
it may be more personal to read a book, but i can come up with my own interpretations any time, and i like to hear other people's.
but the story is created by the author!
there has to be some level of coherence there.
if a writer stops short of letting their own feelings known on a matter, i think they haven't written it properly.
^
this
There are rare occasions where that works though
Like the beginning of Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (which I think makes the book a lot better than it would have been without it) and, in relation to films, some of the (rare) good commentaries on DVDs.
not at all
i think that through actually fleshing out a text enough an author will let their feelings be known. it's not imposing at all, it's just coherency.
you don't have complete control over the text unless you're writing it.
all i mean is that if a writer can't tell me what they personally believe in, and their motivations behind what they've written then i feel the text is incoherent. i can make my own mind up on what it says, but without knowing what the author feels i have an incomplete feeling.
i feel it detracts from the book not knowing what their point was.
i think it's impossible to come to a conclusion without that.
but having things dictated to you
can leave you feeling really cold.
I agree that it's good to be a little bit didactic, but if you were told exactly what to think all the way through the book wouldn't it become really boring?
For me reading books is about recreating the world inside my head and so everything becomes much more real. If i was told what to think the whole way through reading it it wouldn't affect me half as much. Innit.
i'm not saying it's good to be told what to think
but i want to know what the creator thinks.
there's a difference between being told what to feel and knowing what someone else feels.
Open to interpretation
Films require far less from their audience, so their interpretations are generally pretty ham-fisted. In my experience (although there are exceptions, especially Japanese films), the director will hammer a point home, rather than leave it decide for themselves - not to mention the subtleties in the text that are impossible to convey.
i'd call those sub-par films.
..
Perhaps, but books convey some things that are impossible in films, eg. unreliable narration. I can't think of anything that can be conveyed in film but not text (exluding the images, obviously) that doesn't hit you immediately on a gut level.
often i find
books have to be very explicit in the way they describe certain actions.
my favourite moments in film are usually examples of 'pure cinema' where there's no dialogue and the whole scene is played out entirely through facial expressions and gestures.
the immediacy of a facial expression is far more powerful that a sentence, and usually leaves more to the imagination in my experience.
..
Good point - it is difficult to imagine faces.
i'm largely thinking of films like
Taxi Driver, The Godfather, Le mepris, Le samourai, The Bicycle Thieves etc. where a single facial expression carries as much weight as a punch in the face.
i read the Godfather, and i preferred the film.
i think much of the 'films are never as good as the books' argument comes from the fact that people read the books first and their 'vision' is contradicted by the film.
You would get absolutley 'pwned'
in an english lit seminar.
I can imagine if someone ever tried to argue
even vaguely that any text (bar a few) isn't completely open to individual interpretation in one of my seminars they would have a room full of people shouting at them.
Unless they were VERY good at arguing.
everything is open to individual interpretation
but if an author cannot get their own opinion across then it's not good, in my opinion.
I don't think it's possible
to write anything without expressing your own opinion on some level.
But for the sake of argument - Why should they attempt to do that?
I would have serious admiration for someone who could write something totally ambiguous, with no trace of their own opinion at all, just because it would be such a huge accomplishment.
it's not so black and white.
obviously an element of what you believe comes across in anything, but i think failure to express that in a coherent manner detracts from the final product.
i still think films can portray emotions in a more concise way, mind.
yes
and i think the problem with films is that it's very easy to get it wrong.
When they get it right though, it can be amazing.
yeah, of course :)
i meant in the interpretation of a book, mostly, but i suppose that if a film veers from the text it can be both a good and a bad thing.
but yeah, arguing which is better is ultimately futile cause it's so subjective, both through personal taste and how good the filmmaker/writer is.
heh
whilst i'd agree with the first point, i'd say that a film can portray your example far more easily whilst still allowing for some interpretation, which a thorough description won't do.
I was going to raise that poitn about Virginia Woolf -
apparantly she was very influenced by cinema in terms of narrative.
Mrs Dalloway being set within one day and the way the narrative instantaneously switches from one character to another, for example is a lot like how you have cuts between scenes in a film all leading up to a climactic collision of circumstances.
I suspect the fact that
I'm doing modernism at the moment is probably influencing my stance quite significantly though...
Yeah, it's true.
I tried to supress that stuff as much as I could. I find Romanticism so tedious sometimes - There are moments that are incredible beyond words but overall it just grates on me.
The Prelude = :'(
Yeah, that's the thing.
Clearly the epic poem (done well) at the time would've been amazing. It's just hard to look at it retrospectively given how much it's been parodied. I think in contrast to modernism as well, romantic writers didn't have access to so much knowledge and, I suppose 'things' in general so it's hard for us to relate to in our circumstances.
Joyce is incredible. Reading Ulysses makes me want to give up on life because I will never come close to achieving anything like that. It's overwhelmingly good.
ps. we had to read ALL of the prelude. :(((((
they're completely
different formats. and i can get thinks out of both. so why choose?
because you HAVE
to, otherwise i'll stab you in the face
but its such a good face
:-(
Funny face!
it tasted so good
just like mine
if youve read the book
then the films usually pale in comparison, because they obviously have to miss out a lot of stuff.
but when a film gets it right i much prefer them.
a good example is fight club
the film is like 1000000x better than the book
yes, i totally agree
but it IS quite rare that a film gets it right.
Sleepers is one of my favourite ever books
The film is nowhere near as good. Has anybody read Jurassic Park? I've always thought that the film surely has to be better?
the Jurassic Park book
suffers because Michael Crichton likes to show off on how much research he's done, so you get pages and pages of DNA code and stuff. It's totally pointless.
yeh
it's utterly meaningless to anyone who doesn't have a degree in genetics though. He may as well have just mashed the keys with his face.
The Da Vinci Code
film was good but the book's loads better. it's a real page turner!
:-)
American Psycho
Saw the film first, I love it. I read the book love that too. But they're different. I couldn't say one was bettter than the other...
Book book book
Book
Book's better for violence.
But i love Christian Bale.
agreed
Nicholas Pilegi's Wise Guys > Goodfella.
Book
is much better than the film.
The film was alright...
BOOK
BY MILES
Miles who?
lol
MILES MY DAD
Out of Sight
the film is way better than the book.
books>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> film.