Quotations and Literature Forum

It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:04 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:32 pm 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:08 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Sitting in front of a computer
They are rare, yes, but there are a few of them. So far, I think The Lord of the Ring follows, to some extent, the movie. I like the Harry Potter movies, but I like the books much better.

Can anyone else think of a few more?

_________________
---WiZaRdPhIsH---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:34 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:27 am
Posts: 265
Location: uconn
I agree with your views on Harry Potter; the books are much better. And the Lord of the Rings movies, though very different from the books, are still really good.

I recently had a rant about the Disney scene. I like Disney just as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but they change the original stories so much, unnecessarily, it seems. I see you've already noticed "The strumpets at Disney," but if you want more, read "This is for you, Quest."

I can't really think of any more book-movies. That I liked, that is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:14 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 3:23 pm
Posts: 661
Location: England
Well, I quite like Captain Corelli's Mandolin.

_________________
"The proper study of mankind is man."
Alexander Pope


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: NOVELS INTO FILM
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:17 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:06 am
Posts: 16
For me a book is one medium and a film is an entirely different medium w/a host of people partaking in the production.

I know it's hard not compare books that get translated into films and most of us fall into that trap ... but imho a book should stand alone for its own worth and a film should be judged on the merits that attend to film.

The few films that did justice to the novels that I am thinking of at the moment are:

JANE EYRE The original
WUTHERING HEIGHTS The original
GONE WITH THE WIND
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
LIFE AND LOVES OF A SHE DEVIL (ENGLISH ORIGINAL VERSION)
THE ENGLISH PATIENT
THE FRENCH LIEUTENTANT'S WOMAN
THE HOURS
RAGTIME
TESS (OF THE D'URBERVILLS/ROMAN POLANSKI)
MYSTIC RIVER
HOTEL DU LAC
OUT OF AFRICA
HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG
HART'S WAR
THE HUMAN STAIN
NAME OF THE ROSE
VIRGIN SUICIDES

WELL I GUESS I THOUGHT OF MORE THAN I IMAGINED

DO YOU AGREE? DISAGREE :?:
WHAT ARE YOURS :?:

EAGER TO HEAR :!:

PEACE
KNRCY :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:35 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 3:01 pm
Posts: 806
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
All The Pretty Horses followed the book remarkably. I would describe the movie as flawless. The book was billed as a work of singular beauty but I would not necessarily agree with that review. The scenes where the two young men were in the prison were especially captivating.

Cold Mountain was (in my opinon) better than the book. Some scenes were fabricated but it made for a better movie.

Sea Biscuit followed the book real well but some critical information was not included and some scenes seemed to be fabricated. The jockey actually married a woman who was a nurse in the hospital. The nurse was engaged and broke her engagement to marry Red Pollard.

I have not read The Lord of the Rings but I enjoyed the first two films real well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: books into movies
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:55 pm 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:57 pm
Posts: 2
Location: feet on the ground, head in the sky
i think that Stephen King's "The Green Mile" was a fairly accurate representation of his original story...

_________________
Then we sat on the edge of the earth, with our feet dangling over the side, and marveled that we had found each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:34 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 3:01 pm
Posts: 806
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
I would agree that the movie version of The Green Mile exceeded my expectations. The book originally came out in a series. I began buying the series of the Green Mile. Each book was about 100 pages and there was only one book published every few weeks or once each month. It was an interesting (and profitable) way to market a book but it was a frustrating way to read a book (having to wait one month to follow the story). The character of Percy (in the movie version) was an outstanding performance. Tom Hanks had to put on weight for the role and I thought that was a bit unecessary. The role would have been as credible with a person of normal weight.

The movie, Shawhank Redemtion, did not follow the book quite as well. The book was orginally titled as Rita Hayworth and the Shawhank Redemption. The orginal story was narrated by the character, Red. Red was Irish. In the movie, Red was played by Morgan Freeman. The actor who played the character of Andy was far more appealing that the Andy in the book. The Andy in the book was more of a Geeky type of analaytical person (in my opinion). The screenplay was altered a bit and the ending in the movie was far more dramactic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:26 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:06 am
Posts: 16
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FEEELINGS ABOUT NOT COMPARING A BOOK TO THE NOVEL? :idea:
DON'T YOU THINK THAT EACH IS DIMINSHED WHEN YOU EXPECT A FILM TO BE MORE THAN THE 'SPIRIT' OF THE NOVEL WHICH IS ALL A FILM CAN REALLY BE. :?:

I POSTED BEFORE THAT I ENJOY BOTH MUCH MORE WHEN I VIEW THEM AS SEPARATE MEDIUMS THAT ARE PERHAPS ARE 'FIRST COUSINS' NOT TWINS. 8)

HOPE YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS AND SOME MORE MOVIES AND BOOKS TO SHARE

I THOUGHT OF ANOTHER ONE ... HAVE YOU SEEN IT? 8O

FILM: DANIEL BOOK: THE BOOK OF DANIEL DOCTOROW

LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR IDEAS
PEACE
KNRCY :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:42 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 3:23 pm
Posts: 661
Location: England
Ahh, I can't believe I didn't mention it, The Virgin Suicides is a fantastic film, though I've never read the book (it's on my reading list). Crossing over another 'medium' as KNRCY puts it, I thought the soundtrack by Air was hauntingly apt.

_________________
"The proper study of mankind is man."
Alexander Pope


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORE NOVELS TO FILM
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 7:04 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:06 am
Posts: 16
FISH ARE QUICK
I GUESS WE SHARE THE SAME TASTE IN 'UNUSUAL' FILMS. :D

FOR THOSE KEEPING TRACK, AS I AM, I'D LIKE TO ADD

TURN OF THE SCREW BY HENRY JAMES WHICH BECAME THE GOVERNESS
AS A MATTER OF FACT MOST OF HENRY JAMES' AND EDITH WHARTON'S BOOKS TO FILM MADE A GREAT TRANSITION LEAVING EACH TO STAND ON THEIR OWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MEDIUMS.

THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL
MARATHON MAN
ROSEMARY'S BABY
DAMAGE
BRIDES HEAD REVISITED
MALTESE FALCON
ALL OF THE THIN MAN MOVIES
LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR
IN COLD BLOOD



WHAT'S ON YOUR LIST?
REMEMBER OLDIES ARE GOODIES!
ENJOY :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:42 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 10:17 pm
Posts: 40
Location: Oklahoma
I personally thought that the movie of the Wizard of Oz was better than the book. And also (although I've not read some of these) I've heard that Jaws, The Godfather, The Exorcist, and The Bridge over the River Kwai were better movies than books. I did think that the movie of Gone with the Wind and The Lord of the Rings were very nearly as good as the books. I saw The House of Sand and Fog last night and thought it was fabulous. The Harry Potter movies were not that good in my opinion though.

I understand the idea that books and movies are two different media and should therefore be judged differently. I just don't understand why Hollywood continues to make movies of great books when it's very difficult to capture the essense of a book, because it doesn't matter if they're supposed to be judged as two different media, people will still compare them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:51 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:06 am
Posts: 16
I understand the idea that books and movies are two different media and should therefore be judged differently. I just don't understand why Hollywood continues to make movies of great books when it's very difficult to capture the essense of a book, because it doesn't matter if they're supposed to be judged as two different media, people will still compare them.

Lab a great statement!! One with terrific insighth and the subject of much debate in our society.

I will try to answer by pointing out the most important word you used:
ESSENCE. When a film does capture the essense of a book it usually is a successful film that can stand alone w/out comparison to the original text.
To do this the director, writers, actors, et.al. must be very careful and very talented. They must also be aware of their mission.

For ex: In the production of THE AGE OF INNOCENCE Martin Scorcese told his people that he wanted it REAL!! That every late 19thCentury aspect of the film right down to how tables were set, what kind of food would be eaten at a particularl event etc. was to be absolutely accurate.
In doing this the film 'appears' to be following the book adn he was, clearly, but because he was so faithful in such an artistic way he produced a work of visual art and a film that stands among the finest, based on a novel.
He not only captured the essence of the novel, his film went beyond that to recreate the time and place of the story and characters.

People are generally attracted to things that are familiar. Thus when a novel is made into a film, MYSTIC RIVER for example. It's contemporary, it's timely, many people read it, and it's a great story. The acting was superb and Boston was recreated with loving care by Clint Eastwood. Here again while not necessarily reaching to 'rewrite or put the book on the screen' the crew was able to capture the ESSENCE of the book while again giving the public a fine piece of visual art.

IMHO another reason books are transmogrified into films is that they attract an audience. Even not such wonderful books, or literary books, just popular books by popular writers whose name people know. Just at those books offer brain candy (a necessary adjunct to entertainment) so do the films except in a few rare cases where the film becomes much more important than the book. For me one of those films/novels was EYE OF THE NEEDLE a really 'twinkie' book by Ken Follet that wasn't even especially well written. But the film w/Donald Sutherland is a classic and a fine production.

The last thing I would like to say is that too many Hollywood studios look to what will bring in an audience. With this in mind they are afraid to take a chance on unknown material. Originality in Hollywood is dead for all practical purposes. THat is why we see re-makes of movies based on books ... now that is really sad. See both productions of THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE for one of the best examples. BTW the book is terrific and so is the original film. EAch on its own shelf.

And Lab, it doesn't matter if people continue to compare the films to the books they are based on ... it's just a human nature thing. :lol:

PEACE
KNRCY :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:31 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:11 pm
Posts: 17
Location: Toronto
I liked One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. I thought that just as a film itself it was pretty good.

_________________
"It's no good crying over spilt milk, because all the forces of the universe were bent on spilling it."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:19 am 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:46 am
Posts: 2
Location: netherlands
I agree with the difference in books and movies, some books are completely destroyed by the movie and some are matched in quality (Lord of the Rings) or even brought to a higher level (Tom Clancy’s Patriot Games).

The main difference lies in my opinion in the fact that movies are perceptions of an script writer picturing the actual world and characters in the book and a dramatic cold downturn of Hollywood Budget and marketing campaigns, what do people like and what not, and who may play in the movie (D. Adams Hitchhiker’s Guide; Ford. is played by Mos Def I thought that the book stated that he was white, but what is, is)

Why they are still filming books???? Probably because they runn out of ideas and sinds the success of LOTR everybody wants a piece of the money that good stories made.

The only thing I hope is that when they start the film for A Song of Ice and Fire by G. R.R. Martin they do a good Job, at the moment it is my favourite and it is written of as better then LOTR, so it probably will also be filmed.. for now I can only hope that the next book in the series comes out and that Hollywood doesn’t ruin it… :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:48 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:09 pm
Posts: 28
Lab: I finally read The Godfather earlier this year and was amazed at how crude and amateurish the novel seemed compared to one of the great films of the 70's. The filmmakers did an excellent job of using the material from the book which really told the story and cutting out all the peripheral character development. This is one of the few times, and clearest case I can think of, in which the film easily outstrips the book. My opinion, for what it is worth: if you haven't read the book don't bother.

As to why they film books and why people go to see the film: there is big, and I mean BIG money in filming popular books even when the story isn't the same and everyone knows it. So people go to see them because they are popular, while some just want to get the story without reading. I would like to see films fit the author's vision more closely, but, yes, budget, rewrites to fit actors, and time constraints all make some changes neccessary. What I really disagree with is when they cut out events in the book, and then add others that weren't there.

They are two different mediums, but no particular reason they need to tell two different stories with the same title and characters. If they REALLY think they can improve on Homer or Shakespeare, why not start fresh and write their own story. Mario Puzio is neither of these, but they did stick close to what was written by ommitting without a lot of 'creative' additions. Simplify for time or to clearify a story, but don't rewrite it. hat's how I feel and may well be alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MiltonOn and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group