The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Always seems to ruin it in my eyes.
Lord of The Rings might be ok, they're taking it seriously but still...
Books allow you to put your own pictures to things, imagine how the character looks and create the worlds utilising your imagination.
But the moment it's set onto celluloid, then that's it.
That character has a face, or you didn't like the movie or it ruined the book for you.
There are hundreds of decent screenwriters out there, all struggling to come up with decent plots etc, but it's easier to gut a book and use that.
And usually to the detriment of both movie and book.
My biggest "Oh god no" is the Harry Potter movie coming soon.
I remember when that book came out and exploded all over the world.
I was so happy to see that.
Lines of people sleeping outside stores over-night for a book.
Children were excited and really happy because a book was published.
In the age of video-games and movies and other ready-made entertainment, I was so pleased to see so many kids going mental for a book.
Reminded me of when I was a kid and reading Roald Dahl etc. Fantastic Mr Fox, The Iron Giant, Aesop's Fables..so many good books.
And they do stimulate you more than a video-game or movie can, simply because it requires imagination and input.
(I'm not slamming video-games and saying they make you stupid at all, just saying a book stimulates you more by making you work at the images and situations yourself)
When my girlfriend and I were walking down to the river, we saw a kid's party. Fancy dress and it was a Harry Potter them.
The front of the house was done out with a big "Hogwarts" sign and the dad dressed like a wizard or something.
That made me smile from ear to ear that kids were taking such an interest in a book.
Sorry to sound like an old geezer moaning about the good old days, but I can't remember the last time there was a craze like this for something positive.
Usually Cabbage Patch dolls, Buzz Lightyears or other toys that will entertain but get discarded.
A book can be revisited and re-read so many times, it gives so much pleasure.
And it's proven that reading increases your vocabulary and general communication abilities.
And kids were bombing off to read these things for themselves, or have them read to them.
What a wonderful thing to see, not charging down to the toyshop and screaming for the latest toy.
They rushed to bookstores.
But now it's a movie.
Why read the book when you can see the movie?
Or buy the posters? Or the bedspreads, or the video game or the lunch-box or....you get the picture.
Something that kids found for themselves, went out and made the effort to find and discover.
But now it's been redesigned, pre-packaged and sold back to them, but not as a book.
As a "multi-media experience"
And that makes me sad.
Because for a while, I saw kids overjoyed at having a book in their hands, reading aloud to each other and creating worlds in their heads.
Now you can pay £5 and have it shoved down your throat with no effort on your part.
My original post wasn't Books Vs Movies really, more that I saw kids getting excited over a book instead of a faddy toy and I hadn't seen that in a long, long time.
As a reader myself, especially as a kid, it just made me really happy to see so much attention for something that stokes the imagination like books.
I'm sure the film can introduce people to the books, but for a brief moment, that character existed inside people's heads and took life through stories and make-believe.
Now it has an image, a soundtrack and the merchandising.
And that makes me sad
Just a few points on the book vs. film debate:
Books are far more rewarding than films. You can imagine the story in your own terms. How many films have ruined your image of a lead character by casting someone who looks nothing like your mental image of the character?
A film-adaption of a book is only ever an interpretation. If you read a book there are ambiguities in language and description that cannot be portrayed in a film. The film-maker is forced to interpret an ambiguity and so lose it. As a result some particularly ambigous books could be turned into two completely different films by two different directors.
Apart from Babylon 5 novels (which I've read all of), I've read exactly three books since leaving school. They were:
Erebus (a horror novel)
Addicted (Tony Adam's biography)
And a book about the history of the group Genesis.
That's it.
I can't see the point in spending weeks/months reading a book when you can get the same information (or at least the most important points of it) condensed into 90/120 minutes of a film.
Of course, not all books are made into films, so I may be missing some great stories... but I really don't care; I just have no interest whatsoever in reading them.
It's not that I can't read or don't have the imagination - I read very well, and my imagination is wilder than most - I just simply don't enjoy it, unless the subject is something I'm really, REALLY interested in. Even then, I need to be in the right mood to read it.
Also as you said due to the fact that films run generally to 90 minutes it is a hard task to pack in the book. Captain Correli is a classic case. I haven't seen the film as I read the reviews and they all stated it concentrated on one aspect of the story line namely the love story. The book is far denser and richer. There is a homosexual love theme running throughout. A ton of complex political commentary on the positions of the Nationalist, Facits and Communists in Greece at the time etc, etc. Needless to say these were the storylines jettisoned to the make the film palatable to Hollywood and its percieved audiance.
Even BJD's which I'm ashamed to admit I did find funny reading was again trimmed of most of its humour in the film. Within the book her friendships are vitally important in the film they are carboard characteurs. Ditto Trainspotting which has some excellent dialogue and stream of conciousness stuff. Most notably the chapter about "the inner man" when the character dissects all the schools of psychology applied to him to rid him of his addiction by "professionals".
My personal view that writing for the screen is very different to writing for novels. The two don't make easy bedfellows. It takes a clever screen writer and a certain type of book for it to work. The problem is with lazy writers and greedy production companies. You end up with a strange hybrid e.g. Captain Corelli which doens't work on any level.
I haven't read the Harry Potter series despite everyone in my universe recommending it. The subject simply doesn't appeal. Short of being stuck on a desert Island with said tome there is no way I'm going to read it. The only other possibility is that I will see the film. It will be on at a friends house/on TV at Christmas etc, this maybe when I am finally provoked into thinking "its not bad, I may even go and buy the book".
When I first read The Hobbit, I saw Gandalf with a green face. I never really took in the descriptions of characters, and imagined my own.
Gandalf wasn't even human in my eyes, and that was cool.
When I saw the cartoon version of LOTR he was as described in the book, human guy, big white beard, but it wasn't my image, it was wrong.
On to The Green Mile, I read the book first, thought it was fantastic, and felt the movie conveyed this perfectly.
But I saw Trainspotting before I read it. After reading the book I feel very disappointed by the movie, it could have been so much more, the characters were just so much dirtier in the book, really horrible people, not pop culture heroes at all.
I've never read Harry Potter, or been drawn to it in any way - but I too thought it was great how the kids got into it. But I have no interest in seeing the movie at all.
Now, I absolutely ADORE the Harry Potter series. My sister does, my Mum, Dad, Aunty and Uncle all love them as well. My 6-7 year-old cousins do - I'm being serious. Our family simply love Harry Potter.
The book is that good. I don't know if any of you have ever read it, but I insist you do. It isn't aimed at a specific audience, you see - that's what makes it special.
I can't wait for the film, because I like to see how others imagined it. I want to see the Quidditch matches in real life (a wizarding sport), to see what they would/could look lioke if they were real. Do you see what I mean?
I believe that films are a way to see certain aspects of the book in a different way - to see them as if Harry Potter is real.
I also read The Lord Of The Rings, The Two Towers and The Return Of The king. All were fabulous, but didn't quite match that addictiveness of the Harry Potter series. Again, I cannot wait for the film to be released, so I can see exactly what Hobbits do look like, and what they look like in someone else imagination.
By the way, thanks for posting this, Goatboy. It made me let that all out. Thanks for the inspiration :D
P.S - go on, indulge yourself. Rent out a Harry Potter book. You never know, you might like it. But then again, you might not - how will you know if you don't try, eh?
Thanks, Shocktrooper.
Shawshank also did a good job of adapting, but it's a very rare case where they do a good job.
Both quite long movies, it's when a book gets squeezed into a 90 min movie that I think it loses a lot of the power.