The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We've all heard the phrase "It wasn't as good as the book" in regards to movies. This aint unusual, given that a novel has a lot more latitude in how to present information. The third person point of view for instance, allowing a reader to get into a characters thoughts in a manner that doesn't feel labored. A novel has the luxury of taking however many pages it takes to complete the story; a movie has to do it in roughly two to two and a half hours. A 400 page novel would take roughly 16 hours or so. To bring to the screen it would take sometimes years, HOWEVER! On occasion a movie will be much more satisfying than the original work. My picks:
Forrest Gump: In the novel Forrest was a dope smoking drug addict with little charm. Sure, the movie was more mawkish and less edgy, the plot had changed considerably but I found I was more involved than I was with the novel.
The Godfather: Oddly enough, the movie felt more detailed to me. The emotional arc of the film seemed stronger and Michael Corleone’s transition from war hero to mob don felt more dramatic than portrayed in the book.
Honorable mentions
The Shawshank Redemption, Darabont seems to catch the essential elements of the King storie and rendered them well. Not better than the books, but among the better adaptations of King’s work.
Special case:
The Green Mile: For some reason this film felt so good when i read it (this was after i had watched it on dvd) it feels good once you have read it and it combines all the mixed emotions of the film. I still felt all the emotions of hate and happiness that you experience in the film.
In the end it is up to you, I enjoy watching the film and then reading the book to see how good they are in comparison to each other. Most of the time the novels are just as good as the film.
There is only one problem that is causing the more problems now adays. That is that the special effects are becoming to hard to portray inside a book. A great example of this would be the new blockbuster, "The x-men" in this film there are to many special effects to portray in the book without a picture, that is why it is hard to understand the powers of the x-men through text and much easier through a comic or a picture.
So in this case the book of the x-men the movie was much better. The biggest disadvantage is that the movies minute covers about 4 pages in the book and in comparison the book lasts much longer than the film
In conclusion I think that if you want value buy a book, but if you want quality then get the film. The best thing is to buy both and enjoy them as much as each other
If you have enjoyed a book more than you have enjoyed a film then write down your list.
Thanks alot
Golden Rhino
Forrest Gump: In the novel Forrest was a dope smoking drug addict with little charm. Sure, the movie was more mawkish and less edgy, the plot had changed considerably but I found I was more involved than I was with the novel.
The Godfather: Oddly enough, the movie felt more detailed to me. The emotional arc of the film seemed stronger and Michael Corleone’s transition from war hero to mob don felt more dramatic than portrayed in the book.
Honorable mentions
The Shawshank Redemption, Darabont seems to catch the essential elements of the King storie and rendered them well. Not better than the books, but among the better adaptations of King’s work.
Special case:
The Green Mile: For some reason this film felt so good when i read it (this was after i had watched it on dvd) it feels good once you have read it and it combines all the mixed emotions of the film. I still felt all the emotions of hate and happiness that you experience in the film.
In the end it is up to you, I enjoy watching the film and then reading the book to see how good they are in comparison to each other. Most of the time the novels are just as good as the film.
There is only one problem that is causing the more problems now adays. That is that the special effects are becoming to hard to portray inside a book. A great example of this would be the new blockbuster, "The x-men" in this film there are to many special effects to portray in the book without a picture, that is why it is hard to understand the powers of the x-men through text and much easier through a comic or a picture.
So in this case the book of the x-men the movie was much better. The biggest disadvantage is that the movies minute covers about 4 pages in the book and in comparison the book lasts much longer than the film
In conclusion I think that if you want value buy a book, but if you want quality then get the film. The best thing is to buy both and enjoy them as much as each other
If you have enjoyed a book more than you have enjoyed a film then write down your list.
Thanks alot
Golden Rhino
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
We've all heard the phrase "It wasn't as good as the book" in regards to movies. This aint unusual, given that a novel has a lot more latitude in how to present information. The third person point of view for instance, allowing a reader to get into a characters thoughts in a manner that doesn't feel labored. A novel has the luxury of taking however many pages it takes to complete the story; a movie has to do it in roughly two to two and a half hours. A 400 page novel would take roughly 16 hours or so. To bring to the screen it would take sometimes years, HOWEVER! On occasion a movie will be much more satisfying than the original work. My picks:
Forrest Gump: In the novel Forrest was a dope smoking drug addict with little charm. Sure, the movie was more mawkish and less edgy, the plot had changed considerably but I found I was more involved than I was with the novel.
The Godfather: Oddly enough, the movie felt more detailed to me. The emotional arc of the film seemed stronger and Michael Corleone’s transition from war hero to mob don felt more dramatic than portrayed in the book.
Honorable mentions
The Shawshank Redemption, Darabont seems to catch the essential elements of the King storie and rendered them well. Not better than the books, but among the better adaptations of King’s work.
Special case:
The Green Mile: For some reason this film felt so good when i read it (this was after i had watched it on dvd) it feels good once you have read it and it combines all the mixed emotions of the film. I still felt all the emotions of hate and happiness that you experience in the film.
In the end it is up to you, I enjoy watching the film and then reading the book to see how good they are in comparison to each other. Most of the time the novels are just as good as the film.
There is only one problem that is causing the more problems now adays. That is that the special effects are becoming to hard to portray inside a book. A great example of this would be the new blockbuster, "The x-men" in this film there are to many special effects to portray in the book without a picture, that is why it is hard to understand the powers of the x-men through text and much easier through a comic or a picture.
So in this case the book of the x-men the movie was much better. The biggest disadvantage is that the movies minute covers about 4 pages in the book and in comparison the book lasts much longer than the film
In conclusion I think that if you want value buy a book, but if you want quality then get the film. The best thing is to buy both and enjoy them as much as each other
If you have enjoyed a book more than you have enjoyed a film then write down your list.
Thanks alot
Golden Rhino
Forrest Gump: In the novel Forrest was a dope smoking drug addict with little charm. Sure, the movie was more mawkish and less edgy, the plot had changed considerably but I found I was more involved than I was with the novel.
The Godfather: Oddly enough, the movie felt more detailed to me. The emotional arc of the film seemed stronger and Michael Corleone’s transition from war hero to mob don felt more dramatic than portrayed in the book.
Honorable mentions
The Shawshank Redemption, Darabont seems to catch the essential elements of the King storie and rendered them well. Not better than the books, but among the better adaptations of King’s work.
Special case:
The Green Mile: For some reason this film felt so good when i read it (this was after i had watched it on dvd) it feels good once you have read it and it combines all the mixed emotions of the film. I still felt all the emotions of hate and happiness that you experience in the film.
In the end it is up to you, I enjoy watching the film and then reading the book to see how good they are in comparison to each other. Most of the time the novels are just as good as the film.
There is only one problem that is causing the more problems now adays. That is that the special effects are becoming to hard to portray inside a book. A great example of this would be the new blockbuster, "The x-men" in this film there are to many special effects to portray in the book without a picture, that is why it is hard to understand the powers of the x-men through text and much easier through a comic or a picture.
So in this case the book of the x-men the movie was much better. The biggest disadvantage is that the movies minute covers about 4 pages in the book and in comparison the book lasts much longer than the film
In conclusion I think that if you want value buy a book, but if you want quality then get the film. The best thing is to buy both and enjoy them as much as each other
If you have enjoyed a book more than you have enjoyed a film then write down your list.
Thanks alot
Golden Rhino