|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:21 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. THAT MOVIE SUCKS!!!!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:24 pm
hi everyone im new here^^ hope to be friends with you all^^
i for once prefer reading the books rather than the movies... cause books can give you more and compelete details than movies... for example..hmmm let me see... ah yes harry potter... the movie sucks but the book doesnt also road to terabithia... you will really scratch your head when you see the movie but when you read the book you will understand fully the story... ^^
BOOKS RULE... xd
sorry about that im a bookworm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:31 am
Luscara 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 DarklyMost loathed adaptation: SphereBlade 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). Eh, are you saying that Jurassic Park (the movie) was actually GOOD? I dunno about you, but I read the book, and I can safely say that the movie sucked. It didn't quite give the same message that Crichton wanted to convey. It was a failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:43 am
ObscureEnigma 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. if you like the Harry Potter movies then you will love the books. they go into much more detail than what the movie portrays. also in the movies they change stuff around and leave stuff out. i greatly prefer the books over movies anyday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:28 am
Hmm, Theres the concept of Videogames~ books as well Like with what was done to Halo, Diablo and Warcraft. That being said, I can't seem to find an instance where I preferred the movie to the book. However, I do have an opinion on the matter, if one watches the movie first then you can fully appreciate it without having the book to look back on and say "Oh they left too much out". Then having seen the movie you could (but most people seem to be too lazy to these days) read the book. many people have said the books go into much more detail and that is without a doubt true. But then once you've read the book you now know more about the story... then again I guess you'll look back on the movie and say it missed a lot anyway...
Wow... I rambled on for a while only to defeat my own idea gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:12 am
all the movies made from H.P. Lovecraft stories were bad!!!!
no, not bad
very, very, very bad
he just doesn't translate into movies well
his stories a very intriguing tho
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:54 pm
Books because I can understand and picture them more easily then movies..I don't know why..lol ^-^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:32 pm
I prefer movies because it helps you to visualize the events, not just imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:17 am
I like movies but sometimes the people take things out of the movie that was in the books and i hate it when they do that! It is supposed to be a movie of the book not a movie based on the book that got all twisted up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:55 am
Books>Movies
although LOTR was amazing when translated into film
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:11 pm
Books own movies, always, always, always.
IMHO.
But the worst adaptation had to be Eragon. The movie massacred the book. It's one of my favorite books, but the movie was dreadful.
As a movie, it was okay, but a movie based off a book, it was terrible.
The best, I think, was Lord Of The Rings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:46 pm
I try to be a bit lenitant to book movies. Things like Harry Potter and Eregon, I can understand having to cut a lot of things out. Otherwise, those 2 hour moives would go to 4. It must be hard trying to decide what to cut and what to keep. Small books, I'd have more expectation that they try to include a lot more.
I enjoyed all the HP movies although the 3rd annoyed me. I feel they could have inculded a lot more in that movie.
The Dark is Rising: The Seeker, I'd have to say they did pretty well. They skiped the first book but I could understand. The second had a lot more magic in it (but not as much as they put in the movie). They changed a lot of things, like jumping through time, the 6th sign, and Will's powers just to name a few. All in all I'd give it a 8. If I can figure out the movie in the first minute of the trailer, then I think the director did a pretty good job changing the movie.
I can't think of any bombs.... course I read more mangas then books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:34 pm
Harry Potter. The first two movies that were directed by Christopher Columbus were good, but from there on, it's gone downhill. Especially HP5. The books however were great. I prefer the books 100% over the movies. I don't even have to see the rest of the movies to know that the books with be better. When Dumbledore dies in the next movie, it's not gonna hit very hard because Michael Gambon sucks a** as Dumbledore. I HATE him! He doesn't have that vibe. Prime examle: in HP4 after Harry's name comes out of the goblet of fire, and Dumbledore and the other headmasters come into that room, Dumbledore rushes in, grabs Harry, and is shouting at him, "HARRY! HARRY DID YOU YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE CUP?! DID YOU GET AN OLDER STUDENT TO DO IT FOR YOU?! ARE YOU SURE HARRY?! ARE YOU CERTAIN?!!" And even though they're gonna do Deathly Hallows in two parts, they could never do it justice.
And Death Note. The movies, which are live action, suck. They deter from the storyline, and oh my god, they just aren't good. D| (is referring to the manga as the book)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:41 pm
I prefer the books to the movies, mostly because (for me) it takes longer to watch the movie than to read the book. However, the Bridge to Teribitha movie was better than the book, I thought. But, I love books more. They just seem more...tangible, like you can feel what the protagonist is feeling more than you can feel in a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
