Jump to content

  • Home
  • Help
  • Contact
  •  

Photo

Books to Movies - Pros and Cons


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#21 kinser

kinser

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:03 PM

The closest scenario for me would have to be with Stephen King's The Shining. Stanley Kubrick did such an awesome job with that movie that I actually got almost as much enjoyment out of it as I did the book. I think that, for me, that movie is my number one favorite horror movie of all time.

I am glad I read this thread.

I have been meaning to read The Shining since forever. I just started watching Stephen King movies. I started with The Shawshank Redemption, great movie but I honestly thought it was is one of those overhyped movies.

You must read The Shining! I read it in high school, and it is still one of the scariest books I've ever read. The movie does not follow the book closely - there is way too much left out. It was still a very creepy movie, though.
  • 0

#22 angie828

angie828

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:57 PM

In my opinion the books are always better. I have never found a book that I did not like as much as the movie. And one movie that I hated after reading the book was Percy Jackson and the Olympians. It was no where close to what the book was like.
  • 0

#23 Techy855

Techy855

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:48 PM

There have been a few exceptions. Some short stories that were really good have been turned into great movies. In some of those cases the the short story couldn't expand enough on the subject.

Shawshank was one of those. I have to agree with the person that said it was overhyped. I loved the short story, and found the movie inspired.
  • 0

#24 kristiane

kristiane

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 10:39 PM

For me, it's really a great idea to turn a book into a movie for better visualization as long as it goes with the same script. Some movies from books had edited the real story and convert it into something that goes out differently. Movies from books should be almost exactly the same as it was scripted from the book as a tribute to the writers' thoughts.
  • 0

#25 Techy855

Techy855

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:21 PM

The problem with such a literal translation of a book is the movie would have to be just massive for it to work. In a book so much more can happen than the time it takes for you to see it on screen. What may be a 2 page "scene" in a book might take 10 min in a movie. That is why books get hacked up so much when they are made into movies, just not enough room.

Usually miniseries with their much longer format have a better chance of holding true (in a literal sense) to the source material.
  • 0

#26 ILoveArcher

ILoveArcher

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:45 PM

I've met so many people that rave about how good a movie is and are completely unaware that there is a book that preceded the film, 9 times out of 10, the book being the stronger part of the duo. It got to where if a book I loved were made into a movie I would refuse to go see it. There are some that are equally pleasing in comparison to their literary counterparts, but I can't think of very many, if any at all that rival the level of excitement that I got from reading the book.
  • 0

#27 TheMuse

TheMuse

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:53 PM

I often make it a point to read the book first before catching the screen version. Sometimes, I refrain from comparing the two version because they are of different forms. While a book can contain hundreds of pages, a movie has two hours or so to narrate the story. In my opinion, the movie versions of 'A Beautiful Mind', 'The Reader', 'To Kill a Mockingbird', and 'The Hunger Games' are among those which did justice to their printed forms.
  • 0

#28 ChanellG

ChanellG

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

I think it's a good idea to make a film of a book for a number of reasons. Films generally have wider audiences and if the author can be involved in the filmmaking process, the end result will be closer to the book. Films made based on "classic" literature often help to put some things into context, and can create new interest in the original works. I am struggling through Emma at the moment; I became a Jane Austin fan through the movies and without falling in love with those characters I would not be committed to reading her books now. They are just way too dense with ridiculously long sentences that today would be an editor's nightmare.
  • 0

#29 pafjlh

pafjlh

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 718 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:00 AM

For me there have been good adaptations of books. Notice that I use to word adaptation, because for one reason or another sometimes studios can't copy a work of literature exactly as it was done on paper. Odd thing is in some cases I have found myself preferring the film to the actual book.

Anyone who has manage to read War and Peace and managed to get through the first few chapters you have my respect. I couldn't get into this book and found it hard to follow. However,I have seen the move based on the book and I found it well done. So, for me sometimes movie on a book is easier to actually follow then the book itself.
  • 0

#30 UmiNoor

UmiNoor

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:37 PM

Anyone who has manage to read War and Peace and managed to get through the first few chapters you have my respect. I couldn't get into this book and found it hard to follow. However,I have seen the move based on the book and I found it well done. So, for me sometimes movie on a book is easier to actually follow then the book itself.

Very true. Some classics even Bram Stoker's Dracula are difficult to read. So watching the movie based on the book is the next best thing even though some film makers do exercise quite a bit of creative licence to such a degree that there are parts of the book that are left out. I hear this complaint a lot with the movie Harry Potter. But this is to be expected. It takes a genius to condense a 600 pages book into a two hour movie.
  • 0

#31 ChanellG

ChanellG

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:19 PM

Anyone who has manage to read War and Peace and managed to get through the first few chapters you have my respect. I couldn't get into this book and found it hard to follow. However,I have seen the move based on the book and I found it well done. So, for me sometimes movie on a book is easier to actually follow then the book itself.


Very true. Some classics even Bram Stoker's Dracula are difficult to read. So watching the movie based on the book is the next best thing even though some film makers do exercise quite a bit of creative licence to such a degree that there are parts of the book that are left out.


That is how I feel about a lot of early literature, lol. In high school I HATED the Scarlet Letter. It was soooooo boring, I just could not get into it, let alone through it. I ended up by the Cliff's Notes so I wouldn't flunk the test, but I never did get back to the book. I hope high school curriculum has changed to include some other others besides the same "old, dead, white guys", lol.
  • 0

#32 UmiNoor

UmiNoor

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:40 PM

That is how I feel about a lot of early literature, lol. In high school I HATED the Scarlet Letter. It was soooooo boring, I just could not get into it, let alone through it. I ended up by the Cliff's Notes so I wouldn't flunk the test, but I never did get back to the book. I hope high school curriculum has changed to include some other others besides the same "old, dead, white guys", lol.

I wanted to read The Scarlet Letter after watching the movie but I couldn't even get past the prologue. The way these so-called classic writers write, I don't think they're intended to be read by the present generation. The movie is so much better.

And I agree with you, schools should choose literary books by writers that can relate to the present generation. Doesn't mean the book is written by a dead writer, it's good to be read. And doesn't mean that if a book is written by a living author and can be understood by more people, it's not literature. I guess what they say about classical books is true. They're called the classics because everybody talks about them but nobody reads them.
  • 0

#33 ChanellG

ChanellG

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:20 PM

I wanted to read The Scarlet Letter after watching the movie but I couldn't even get past the prologue. The way these so-called classic writers write, I don't think they're intended to be read by the present generation. The movie is so much better.

And I agree with you, schools should choose literary books by writers that can relate to the present generation. Doesn't mean the book is written by a dead writer, it's good to be read. And doesn't mean that if a book is written by a living author and can be understood by more people, it's not literature. I guess what they say about classical books is true. They're called the classics because everybody talks about them but nobody reads them.


You've hit on the keyword here - classic. I used to chat online with someone who studied painting in a school that taught them to copy the "old masters." Well, that's one approach, but it's not the most organic. The reason that people create the way they do has a lot to do with what is going on in their lives. Forcing kids to read boring books about something that few people care about anymore isn't the best way to engage them in learning.

Something should be a classic because it is timeless, not simply because someone says so.
  • 0

#34 SkyTech6

SkyTech6

    Shy

  • Newbie
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:26 PM

I disagree. Harry Potter is what made me want to read (and write as I'm now a soon-to-publish author) and I would have never even considered it if not for the amazing movie I saw when I was very young. Harry Potter was my life almost haha. Every day I would go to the playground with my friends during recess and play out the chapters of the books after having read them! Now I have every book, every movie, and every game. When I say every book I also mean the extras such as 101 Magical Monsters and Where to Find Them and Tales of Beedle and the Bards, plus more! All because I had a large interest in the movies.

Also I would like to point out one legendary book that has a legendary movie, An Interview with a Vampire. Quite the amazing story and quite the breathtaking movie! I think more movies should become books! More good books to screen? ‚ÄčOf Mice and Men, The Glass Menagerie, The Great Gatsby, and many more! It all depends on the director and the team making the movie. It really needs to be someone who has deep meaning and understanding to make the movie just as amazing as the books are!

I would love to see some Eion Colfier books become movies! Not exactly the Fowl series... but certainly The Supernaturalist, great book by the way!
  • 0

#35 NickJ

NickJ

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 522 posts

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:48 PM

The Pros and Cons are simple. The Pros are some books make great movies. The Cons? Some books should never be movies because the studio won't spend the budget necessary to make the movie awesome enough. And also, the book material is so thin, you have to add onto it too much to succeed in the end.
  • 0

#36 cjcassada

cjcassada

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:27 PM

Some books such as the Twilight series I didn't know about until they made a movie about them, so I would consider that a pro because it gets people interested in the book. However, there are times when I feel that a book shouldn't be made into a movie, especially if the book has many volumes. I think books being made into a TV series has a better chance at being successful. Just look at True Blood and Game of Thrones.


  • 0

#37 hogwarts

hogwarts

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:12 AM

I don't think I've ever seen a movie that was better than the book it was based on (except for maybe The Devil Wears Prada, but that's Meryl Streep, who is clearly the exception to every rule). However, I have been introduced to some pretty great books because of the movies they were based on and I'm not ashamed of it, so I think it's great that books are adapted to movies. I mean, whatever inspires people is great, and it's also great that films open up a wider audience to certain books.


  • 0

#38 Realitytv

Realitytv

    Cordial

  • Newbie
  • 15 posts

Posted 27 July 2013 - 05:08 AM

I think there is a reason to that. This is because when they make a movie, they have a budget and the length of time they can use for the movie. They can't make a six hours movies. They can only make a one hour movie or so. Its because of budgeting but that's how film are made. People don't sit there to watch a six hours movie where it would cover everything that a book does. This is why there are books so we can enjoy them more. The movies are gear toward making money then expressing the book truthfully. They put in hot women to sell more. Sometimes they will make a hot scientists and there are very small numbers of hot scientists with large chest out there. The depiction on movies are not even close to the books themselves. Yes, you are right. The book is always better. 


  • 0

#39 n87

n87

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:36 PM

movies over books:

Pros:

less effort

visual effects

doesn't take as long to finish

cons:

less imagination

ends too soon when it's really good


  • 0

#40 mrscilluffo

mrscilluffo

    Cordial

  • Newbie
  • 10 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:19 AM

I think the book is ALWAYS better than the movie, although there may be some exceptions. I always still want to see the movies, though. 

 

The one thing I like about movies is that they give me an exact idea of what the characters look like and sound like- when I am reading a book that is also a movie, I always imagine the actors in the parts and its a lot of fun. 


  • 0