|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:06 pm
Well, in Eragon, the book was just great. But the movie made me cry, in a bad way. It wasn't sad at all, it didn't make sense to me. They took like the beginning, the 5 chapter, then the ending chapter. They skipped the whole middle.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:58 am
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. i like imagining things. onthe other hand it's fu to see how other people see things. but books are usually much better than movies 3nodding the onl movie that i like better than the book is the ninth gate sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:23 pm
chibi_kasumi_108 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. i didnt like the movie Queen of the Damned, its forced both books, Vampire Lestat & Queen of the Damned, into a 2 hour movie and there was so much cut out, and even changed, it ruined the storyline. most movies ive seen based of books werent that good, except for harry potter, those movies reflected the books alot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:08 am
the books are beter than the movie and that is a real fact ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:59 pm
Books generally win, but I will admit that I was impressed with what the movie makers did with the fifth book of Harry Potter. That story related to what I was going through at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:26 am
I prefer books, because they have often so many interesting details, which almost can't be implement in movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:35 am
The experience of reading a book is very different from the experience of watching a movie. When you compare a book to a movie, you should at least try to set aside those differences. Yes! there are a lot of poor movies that are made from good books. Agreed! But I meet people who always think the movie sucks compared to the book, no matter how good the movie is. I think those people are not being fair to the movie. There are (for example) Harry Potter book fans who hate every one of the movies. Lucky for me, I haven't read any of the books. I can enjoy the movies xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:56 pm
Yeah, I like to either read the book or watch the movie. I do not like doing both; it's like hearing the same story twice. Boringtastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:55 am
Generally, doing both does result in dissatisfaction with one or the other. But I think we all keep doing it because we hope that won't be the case.
I know if I read the book first, I watch the movie hoping that the director has the same vision of it that I did. If I watch the movie first, I read the book to see what nuances the movie left out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:27 am
I think movies are the best because they don't make you read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:23 pm
Where to start?! Let's see... Queen of the Damned should not have been given that title at all. The people who wrote the screenplay didn't even read the books, I swear. I know they had time constraints because they were putting both the Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned into one movie, but if this is the result, I would rather they didn't make it a movie at all. Stuart Townsend is like the Anti-Lestat. Interview was done so well, I had better expectations for it. But, then again, it was made after Anne Rice lost her passion for her work and just started going after the money.
Now, an example of one of the very few times that the movie was better than the books is Practical Magic. The movie was so good, I ran out and got the book only to be sorely disappointed. The book stunk! How they managed to pluck that wonderful movie out of that horrible book is beyond me.
Also, there are a few examples where the movie and the book were great in their own realms. What I mean is that movies have to change the story a little to fit technology and time constraints and because some things are better felt though words because it leaves it more open to personal interpretation. First of all, The Harry Potter books have been doing pretty well considering the ever increasing size of the books and the complexity of the characters. All save for movie three. That was very poorly done in my mind. Lord of the Rings was truly done justice in my opinion. Granted, Pip and Merry were a bit neglected and the end was VERY different, still done very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:25 pm
back2ryan I think movies are the best because they don't make you read. I have an honest question about this comment. Do you (or anybody else reading this) see the action of the book or do you just see the words? I don't understand how you don't like to read. I'm not trying to be mean, it just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:07 am
I love books! Books are great! Books' movies usually suck! XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:45 am
I will always say that the book was better than the movie. It's rare that a movie steps up to the plate.
Sci-fi/Fantasy is an almost impossible genre to translate to film, because of the constraints of time, budget, and technology.
Favorite adaptation: Blade Runner or Scanner Darkly
Most loathed adaptation: Sphere
Blade Runner stayed true to Philip K. d**k's vision of the future. It stayed true to the conspiracies and pitfalls that make d**k's books so amazing. The same can be said for Scanner Darkly.
Sphere by Michael Crihton was absolutely amazing as a book. The characters are some of my all time favorite good guys and villians. Then they made it into a movie which turned a great sci-fi thriller into another run of the mill hollywood disaster.
Of course, they always turn Crihton's books into disasters, the only exceptions to that are Congo, Rising Son, and Jurassic Park (Which still had bits of Lost World in it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:22 pm
chibi_kasumi_108 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. i completely agree with you that movie was ... it barely followed the storyline and left much the movie was a disappointment and disgrace to the book and the chronicles in general
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
