|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:16 am
Many books have been made into movies. Some fared well. Others, er, let's be kind and say it's difficult to do.
On the Science Fiction book/movie, I thought that The Postman, which was originally a book by David Brin, was made into a pretty good movie.
In Fantasy, The Lord of the Rings trilogy did wonderfully by Tolkien's books. I, for one, prefer it to the books.
What are your favorites and your examples of bombs?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:20 pm
I don't have any examples, but I do prefer books more to the movies....
When reading a book, your imagination can run wild, as to scenes and how the characters look and act......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:12 pm
jailrlee I don't have any examples, but I do prefer books more to the movies.... When reading a book, your imagination can run wild, as to scenes and how the characters look and act...... I agree, and they always leave sooo much out of the movies. Most books are far better then the movies they get turned into, not all, but most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:19 pm
I know plenty of people disagree but Queen of the Damned was a really crappy movie. It totally misrepresented the book, which is actually good and somewhat philisophical. Not the campy s**t they made it out to be. But it's one of my favorite books so I guess I'm just prejuduce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:09 am
Personally, I like books better simply because you can make your own image. But I have to say I loved the LOTRs movies. They didn't follow the book perfectly, but they were close enough that you didn't get completely lost, and they had great actors that I felt brought the story to life. I liked the books, but found that JRR Tolkien was rather long-winded in his descriptions, and I never really got sucked into the book like I usually do. The description broke up the story, and I found that it was distracting.
As a general rule, I try not to see movies based on books, because the last time I did (besides the LOTRs) I left the theater crying because they destroyed the book so bad. I think that movie was Eragon, and I didn't even like the book that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:40 pm
Timeline by Michael Crichton.
Book: great.
Movie: Ohhh horrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:18 pm
Gachetemas Timeline by Michael Crichton. Book: great. Movie: Ohhh horrible. I must agree with you there. Quite different from the Andromeda Strain which was also a Crichton book before it was made into a movie. Of course, Crichton is a better author than he was when he wrote that book... but maybe that's why the movie was not an insult to the book... more of a linear plot, so it was easier to make a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:29 pm
Dreamcatcher and Desperation, both Steven King books slaughtered by that which is the movie industry. I usually don't get very angry when movies ruin books but I think I nearly smashed things after watching those movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:01 pm
I like books better than movies because theres more detail in it, and then when they go and make a movie about it, it sucks because its not how i pictured it an they cut out the details and sometimes change the plot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 2:00 pm
generally, i prefer books over movies. more often than not, the movies suck and totally change the story. eragon is the worst i've ever seen. i guess the harry potter movies are alright, but they could have been better. movies are intriguing, but you get tired of them eventually.books are much more fun. and i find that you can read them five times over and still enjoy the book. couldn't do that with a movie, no matter how good it was. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:20 pm
Meh. I try to avoid watching the movies that deal with the books that I have read, and I try to avoid reading the books that deal with the movies that I have already watched. It would somehow lead me into a depression because movie producers love to change the vision of the author so much that it hurts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 5:08 pm
It depends on the book and movie. Like with Harry Potter, I like th ebooks better than the movies but with Lord of the Rings I like the movies better than the books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 7:12 pm
I never read the books to those movies... but I somehow know that the book of Harry Potter would be much better than the movies. The movies were okay, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:03 am
Funny how no one chose movies over books. I like books better. I was wondering if someone had made a movie and it turned into a book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:36 pm
I'm a big fan of the LOTR movie series. i've alot of trouble getting into the book. I'm fond of the arry potter movies, but the books are my OTP. I do think they did rather well with alot of the movies. the third one was a load of s**t, and the fourth was good. Alot that people don't realize is that they are still attempting to market this for children, despite the fact that the series is taking more than a frew steps towards the darker side of Magic. I you don't want to sit through a PoTC:worlds end 3 and a quarter movie, things have to be cut out.
I love being able to see things turned into a movie, but I love the books far more in most cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
