Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Don't get that.
because once I've seen the film, if I read the book then all the characters just look like the actors that portrayed them. It limits my imagination and thus my experience of the book. If I want to read the book, then I like to read it untainted.
Plus it means you get to be annoying and pretentious and go 'mmmm, well, it was ok, but not as good as the book'.
you'd just be able to enjoy the film
other than to enjoy a film then you might as well stay at home.
you deserve to me shot on sight. (Exceptions - reviewing the film; hot popcorn girl.)
you deserve to be shot on sight. (Exceptions - reviewing the film; hot popcorn girl.)
Oh God, oh God, oh God. Oh God.
I do that for things where I never intended to read the book, but fancy the movie. For instance I did that with the Da Vinci code and the Bourne Identity and with various other movies that are based on books that I don't want to read.
With things where people strongly reccomend the book before the film is made or announced, then I like to check out the book as I find a good book more worthwhile somehow in many cases (not saying it is, just my preference). Like I plan to read The Road by Cormac Macarthy before the film comes out cos of how many people have said it's an awesome book. Then I'll still enjoy the film anyway.
I'm not really one of those people that goes 'I preferred the book' most of the time, two different art forms, innit?
why would you want to know how it ends before you go? I'd probably have seen Watchmen by now if i hadn't read it, now i just know i'll be disappointed.
i managed 1 1/2 books
enjoyed the films more (YEAH I WENT THERE)
To be fair, I was only about 12, but after I saw the first one I got the book and was like ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
The films cut out a lot of interesting bits, especially the Return of the King, which didn't include about 20 wars, but it also cuts out all the boring singing and conversations about songs.
Tolkein just writes about stuff you learn at school, he was a massive plageurist(sic) stole a big chunk of his stuff from Norse mythology. Particularly the volsung saga. Sorry LOTR fans,films were enjoyable romps though.
he was a professor of Medieval English, so he's gonna use that stuff in there.
There was a guy in my year at school who learnt the Silmarillion in Elvish. Strange kid.
i doubt the film will be anywhere near as good as the book.
is a film classified 15 allowed to use the word cunt?
Apparently the film is nowhere near as dark as the book which sounds pish. I'll still see it though.
read this while in Barcelona the other week cause I'd watched Red Riding and was amused by the fury from Clough fans. Excellent.
Can't wait for the film either, regardles of how like the book it is.
That'll be why.
that doesn't explain it.
its not true
Even The Da Vinci Code is better as a book than on screen and given how piss awful the book is that's quite an achievement.
you've just reiterated it.
Is this reading issue why you're having trouble understanding the concept at all? The book is the original source material so many people would prefer to have the whole story the author intended instead of the cut down version.
Would you rather watch a movie for the first time as it appeared in the cinema or in the cut-to-ribbons, reformatted for your TV, adverts inserted all over version that ITV will show it as? It's the same choice: the full original version first and then you can enjoy (or not) the lesser version later.
Don't be an arse because you're wrong. "I'd rather read the book before I see some half-assed attempt to bring it to life on screen." Well that necessarily follows from reading the book before seeing the film, doesn't it? You wouldn't read the book first if you'd rather see the film first, would you? Everyone does everything because they'd rather do that the alternative. Okay Theo, technically, you're right. You offered the most base level, information-lacking, useless explanation. Well done. Now I shall read the rest of your post.
Okay, I have read the rest of your post. You've kind of missed the point. The correct analogy to what I'm talking about, using your examples, would be someone who sees that the edited version of a film is on in a few days time and says to themselves "Shit, I'd better get to seeing the uncut version asap, otherwise I won't be able to watch the edited version on Saturday night!" Which would be up there with the most retarded things ever.
I'm arguing firstly for the sake of rejecting Theo's claim that I don't understand English (although I'm surely he'll continue to dispute otherwise) and secondly for the sake of encouraging Theo to provide a reasonable answer to the question of why somebody would read the book of a film as preparation for seeing said film.
Surely a film has to stand up on its own merits as a separate entity. If you have to read an entire other text to understand it then it isn't much of a film.
It's not that you can't understand the film, it's a question of which is going to be a more enjoyable way round: The completeness of the book followed by a re-imagining of the original.
To me it's the same as only taking out complete and unabridged audio books from the library or not reading the Reader's Digest version of a good story as the first time you're coming to the story.
I understood the question to be: Why do people deliberately read the book before seeing the film of the book?
My answer is: Because the book is generally a better and more fulfilling experience, one that a film cannot hope to capture in the same way. I don't see how much clearer I can put that. I think I've now written it three times!
The problem is that you're confusing a 'reasonable' with an answer you like or understand and as such are simply descending into PocketMouse territory of "I don't get it, it can't be right". What I've given you IS the answer, whether you like it or not.
It does not follow from the book probably being better that I'd choose to read it in preparation for the film. "Because the book is generally a better and more fulfilling experience, one that a film cannot hope to capture in the same way" answers the question "Why would somebody read the book when they could just watch the film?" or something similar, or even "Why would somebody read the book having already seen the film?" and I'm not asking either of those things.
I enjoyed that in the main with Lord of the Rings, for example. There were things on screen that I'd only read about before and it was pretty damn amazing to see them all.
Your central reason for not understanding my answer seems to be that you can't understand why anyone would want to see a different version of the same story. The answer to that is people are different to you and in large numbers they do exactly what you're having so much trouble grasping.
I don't see how that invalidates the notion that you would try to read the book first. Like brusma you might just not like it but that's not really the point.
It's more that, though, if you see a trailer for a film, you might think "I want to see that film". Then you find out the film is based on a book, or maybe you already know it's based on a book, and you think "I have to read the book first". Why would you think that? You wanted to see the film anyway, so why would you then think you have to read the book first? Is it so likely that comparing the film to the book will provide a more enjoyable experience than simply watching the film? It's almost paradoxical. "Why do you want to read the book?"
"Because I want to watch the film."
"Well why do you want to watch the film?"
"Because I want to compare it to the book."
"But you haven't read the book?"
How do you respond?
E.g. "Why do you want to read the book?"
"Because I want to watch the film."
That doesn't necessarily follow from what we've been saying. When this has happened to me it's only been a question of the film reminding me there's a book out there I really wanted to read.
As Alcxxk said below, it makes sense to do the longest version of the same story first but often there's months before the film comes out. Watchmen was a case in point where I read it well in advance of the movie coming out, but the first talk of the film reminded me it was a comic I definitely wanted to read.
It's going to be harder to read a book after you've seen the film. It changes things. Reading Jurassic Park after the film I didn't expect Malcolm to die and the book felt much darker but it was a better version of the story. Jaws is also a better version of the same story, cleverer and more steeped in local politics.
Both of those are great films.
Watchmen is a good film and I got more out of it from reading the book. That's not always the case but it can be.
"People who deliberately read the book of a film before they see the film" is the title of a thread. The "deliberately" is supposed to insinuate that they read the book in preparation for seeing the film. I understand that, for example, The Watchmen coming out might remind you that you want to read the book, but that doesn't justify making sure you read the book before the film ceases showing, it simply gives an explanation of why someone might happen to read the book at around the same time the film's on at the cinema.
Now I guess it could be the case that someone wants to read the book before the film ceases showing on the off-chance that they enjoy the book and therefore want to see the film as well, but I don't think people are generally that circumstantial in their thinking - not in the experience I've had, anyway. People are very adamant, they want to read the book *so* they can see the film, and it's specifically that which I'm talking about. Sorry if I was unclear.
You didn't ask, "Why is my mate desperate to read The Damned United before the film comes out this Friday?", which might have got you similar answers but not the same ones.
You don't HAVE to see the film when it comes out in the cinema and you don't HAVE to see it the week it appears. So to my mind you were asking why anyone might conceivably want to read the book 'A Clockwork Orange' before picking up the DVD or borrowing it from a friend: rarely is there a big countdown associated with these things.
So yeah, feel free to change your question but don't be annoyed that we answered the original question as you posed it.
Let me ask you an alternative question:
I might well have decided to not watch the cinema cut of Watchmen but wait for the 3.5 hour director's cut that'll be out on DVD later in the year. Is that just as strange or do you accept that as a legitimate decision? I don't see how it's any different myself: One can choose how to view a story for the first time in any way you choose but a good story (and here we are talking about good stories, ones that have captured imaginations for ages) can be enjoyed over and over again so it's important you decide which is the best way to experience it for the first time.
I still think the title's quite clear, but it doesn't matter. Your example still isn't analogous though, given what I have now clarified the situation to be.
With mention of films made before many of us were born, for example.
If you've just said the book's going to be better and you'd rather have the whole story and not the cut down version that's fine. But I don't understand why you'd then go and watch the cut down version too.
Seeing the transition from book to film is something that's worth seeing. How about Vanilla Sky or other Hollywood remakes of original foreign films? I'd like to see both but I'd prefer to see the original first. A lot of people do.
I don't see what's so hard to understand.
Maybe you only ever see a story once and that's the most you want to see it but I enjoy seeing films over a few times if I like them and enjoy reading books over.
I can confirm that Three Men and a Baby is worse than the French original.
that, had VS used it, would have made it the hands-down winner. But Open Your Eyes is better in one respect but VS overall...
I've only ever seen Three Men and a Little Lady. Don't hugely recommend it but as a kid I definitely preferred to Fantasia. Probably 'cos I hated Fantasia.
will adapt the novel for cinema rather than to try to bring it to life exactly how it is written. and there are plenty of films that manage that
I would like to view the film from a basis of knowing where it's coming from. Just as (say) I might read the history behind the war a film was about before I went to see it or something.
you're a nerd!
People who choose to deliberately sit down and watch something non-stop for two hours worry me.
its not that long. books take aaaages!
Pausing a DVD and watching it for 15 minutes a time over the course of a couple of weeks might, I realise, slightly ruin the whole intended effect of the thing.
I like the cinema but there's no way in hell I'm going to sit down at home and stare at a screen for two hours.
anyone want to lend me a copy of the book of children of men?
would you like a list?
or was it a joke? i have no sense of humour
tony means 'Harry Potter" because those are the only books worth reading.
i actually like all the Harry Potter films from Prisoner of Azkaban onwards. they're not very good tho....
Volume One: Bugger Off
I don't really like film adaptations of books (pls follow the blog link on my profile for more details). It's not a big "ALL FILM ADAPTATIONS ARE SHITE" statement, because there's some I quite like. I'd just prefer to not see them, because I usually find them to be a bit rubbish. Present a list, if you want and I'll give my opinions on it, if I have read the book and seen the film.
Let's list films that are adaptaed from books and determine if those films as rubbish or not.
Fellowship of the Ring
Da Vinci Code
The Two Towers
Bit boring. Fights are better in the films though.
I agree with your statement.
although there a lot of great films adapated from books and plenty better than the book, you can always tell when they're adapted though. A lot of the time the structure of the flim doesn't really work because it's structured like the book, or it tries to fit too much into into a couple of hours. Also the dialogue doesn't really work if it's too faithfully adapted.
Am rambling a bit, sorry.
Don't make a page-for-page, faithful adaptation, just make a good film.
take the themes/plot/ideas of the novel and make it into a new work
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey
There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
The Straight Story
Jules et Jim
The Virgin Suicides
Don't Look Now
Requiem for a Dream
A Cock and Bull Story
Throne of Blood
Roman Polanski's Macbeth
Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet
Zeferelli's Romeo and Juliet
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
To Kill A Mockingbird
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Films of plays (e.g. Shakespeare)
2001, because the book and film were written at the same time.
No Country for Old Men is a well made film but ultimately it's just an exercise in cinematography, much like Hannibal (in the SHITE category), there isn't actually a good story or satisfying film in there.
for example, i'd say particularly Prospero's Books, Throne of Blood and Zeferelli's Romeo & Juliet are pretty much new works, just taking the story and little else. i guess you could say that Polanski totally changed the meaning of Macbeth too....
The reason a book must be considered so different from a film is how much is conveyed in the text, the descriptions and the thoughts of the characters.
Shakespeare (and plays in general) are all dialogue. You convey these ideas as you do on film. I'm not saying theatre is the same as film but theatre to film is much closer than book to film or indeed book to theatre, which runs up against the same issues.
The literary devices open to anyone writing a book are not open to someone writing a play or a film and vice versa.
Especially A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Lolita, because Kubrick knew what he was doing. A Clockwork Orange is my favourite film, actually. Some of these can stand alone from the books too, as they were just good films, not faithful adaptations. The screenplay of Ghost World was written by Clowes too, meaning he could present a different story, which I think should happen with everyone book adaptation (if possible). I wouldn't include films like Kes and Romeo + Juliet in this list though, since they're plays anyway, which are intended to be acted out. The other ones I've either not seen or read.
because obviously the film does limit the scope of your imagination.
that said, people who continually insist the book is better than the film are cunts. it's basically this cultural elitism that values one medium over another and it's totally ridiculous
Sometimes the book just IS better, and because the novel format suits it much better than a movie.
Cultural elitism my arse.
Who would've read a book of Die Hard?
His daughter's in the building and they drop her out the top floor, as I remember.
often it's the case.
but there are plenty of people out there who will insist the book is always better than the film
but i can see how, if you wanted to read the book and see the film you might want to read the book first so you have your own idea of what the characters are like and stuff.
I just never enjoy it as much.
So I wont bother to read the book and just watch the film.
But if I've heard that if the book is amazing then I have to read it before I watch the film.
Dunno why, I just can't enjoy the book as much after Ive seen the film, so I always end up giving up on it.
this happens for me too. I will rarely read the book if I've already seen the movie, as books take a larger time investment. If I already know what happens I will pretty much not be into it.
Whereas with seeing the film after there is the interest in seeing how they adapted it and comparing it with how I envisaged it, with varying results (sometimes impressed, sometimes disappointed). Plus 2 hours is not that big an investment of time.
books are nearly always better than film adaptations, fact. If you see the film first it will spoil the book because you can't unsee the actors portrayal, and you will know what happens, robbing yourself the enjoyment of the plot revealing itself. Reading the book will of course take the same enjoyment away from the films, but as said before because the books tend to be better if you want to optimise your enjoyment you would read the book and ruin the film rather than the other way around.
and also trans-siberian was bang on about the time investment thing.
why bother with the film at all then?
until you've actually read the book.
or in any way contradicting it?
it ignores the fact that people actually enjoy watching and reading stuff
Alright it was the orginal but it's still the writer's way of telling a particular story in the same way and the film is the scriptwriter/director's way of telling that story. They're still both interpretations.
Because people normally attempt to make a film of a book they've loved so they are making an interpretation of an interpretation of a story they didn't write and maybe don't fully grasp.
i didn't mean "story"
as it happens i meant "book"
It's rare I'd watch the film and read the book. I don't really understand why people watch a film/read a book when they know the story unless someone's done something interesting and unusual enough with the film to make it worthwhile.
I tell you what though, if you'd gone to see Watchmen without reading the comics/serious graphic novel then it would have been hell of difficult to follow
Hell of difficult to enjoy might be more accurate
and understood the film
I misread the original post. Go fuck yourself, Liam.
Being hard over the internet is always easy.
It was pretty much written with the intention of being read multiple times until the reader gets what Moore is on about. I don't know anyone who read and understood it all the first time. Which is one of the areas the film fails, I think.
am i a) supersmart or b) superdummi and it just went so far over my head that i didn't even feel the wind?
"Kealan Dennedy will be stuck into The Damned United tonight in a bid to finish it before the film comes out!"
What's that all about?
After 17 minutes, all I'd managed to learn is that Peter Taylor was bigger than Brian Clough. I do love Martin O'Neill, but he doesn't half have an unerring ability to talk for ages without actually saying anything at all.
i wanna know waht teh leeds players thoughta bout it
in many cases the book will be better. not all, just many. and in all cases the book will take longer to read than the film takes to watch. so if you want to do both the film and the book you have two options:
1) film first, meaning you spend 10+ hours reading a book that you know the ending of, and with images of the actors from the film reducing the scope for your imagination
2) book first, meaning you spend a couple of hours watching a film that you know the plot of, but the world of which you have a better understanding.
in the case of watchmen, i read it because everyone was talking about it, and everyone was talking about it because a film was coming (this was last year - i didn't force myself to rush through the book so that i could see the film having read it). if i hadn't read the book, i'd've not had a clue what was going on a lot of the time, and some of the ultra faithfu shot for shot scenes gave me an exciting spectacle and made me relive some of the most enjoyable parts of the book. which was nice. essentially its just a big flashy advert for the book, which i enjoyed.
i'm really not very good at posting on DiS anymore. i used to be a lot better.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Im tired of reading
Im going to stab out my eyes
Or wear two eyepatches
Probably better to go with the latter
with return of the king (read it in three days!!!!) mostly because after having seen the two first films i'd read the other two books
but they tend to expect completely unrealistic things from what can possibly be represented in a film anyway, so i guess it's just as well they spare me from listening to them moaning about how the film is 'different'
Also, what if they adapt your favourite book and put Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise in it? Ugh!
if that's the case then they're clearly mentally challenged
then it makes sense to read the book first
BUT in films motivation can be more oblique and it can make sense to read the book afterwards to clarify things....
as in 'the book of the film'. When i was younger, i read:
The Running Man (actually, that might have been a stephen king original?)
They often had a glossy bit in the middle with pictures from the film. I must have enjoyed them at the time, but i'm not sure if i'd hold them up as fine pieces of literature today. Perhaps this is cultural elitism.
i totally read robocop 2 :D :D
Thats the only reason why I read a book before seeing a film, such was the case for Lord of the Rings.
In some cases I don't see the film adaptation so I can say that watching a film based on a fine piece of literature is beneath me (i.e. Revolutionary Road).
had to be done only because i was goign to see it at imax and also there are slightly different versions!