I've only seen the first movie and read the first two books, but I've gotta say I like the movie more. Maybe it was because I saw the movie first, I don't know.
I think part of the problem is that in the books I don't like the girls very much, especially Lena and Carmen. They all just seem really...self-involved and catty. I get that they are teenage girls, but I think the movie did a better job of making the characters like-able.
I also liked Lena and Kostos's story better in the movie than in the book.
But who knows...this may all change once I see the second movie.
I think part of the problem is that in the books I don't like the girls very much, especially Lena and Carmen. They all just seem really...self-involved and catty. I get that they are teenage girls, but I think the movie did a better job of making the characters like-able.
I also liked Lena and Kostos's story better in the movie than in the book.
But who knows...this may all change once I see the second movie.
- Mood:
cheerful
In my opinion, I find the movie version to be a great adaption of the book by John Grisham. Majority of the movie adaptions for his books are true to the plot (Except Runaway Jury...kind of misses the point with the whole gun thing, but still same idea.)
I can't go in depth, but maybe somebody else can comment? :)
I can't go in depth, but maybe somebody else can comment? :)
I know this is a community purely for distinguishing between novels and their movie counterparts and deriving the better of the two, but I was put forth with an interesting question today that I believe only the members of this community can answer properly:
Does the ending of a book define the book as a whole?
I ask this question primarily because I am writing a novel that I think has a great idea to become made into a full feature length film. And knowing how I'm going to end my novel, it makes me realize...is this going to turn into a Hollywood ending, or will my ending stay intact?
The answer I give is: No. The ending does not define the book as a whole, but the character who ends the book defines it.
I am eager to hear the replies. And also, I apologize in advance for not doing a book-or-movie post.
The answer I give is: No. The ending does not define the book as a whole, but the character who ends the book defines it.
I am eager to hear the replies. And also, I apologize in advance for not doing a book-or-movie post.
I just recently really enjoyed the movie Divine Secrets of the Ya- Ya Sisterhood, but all I am reading online is how much better the novel is.
So I am curious for people who have read and watched it- what are the major differences between the film and novel? What makes the movie so poor compared to the novel?
So I am curious for people who have read and watched it- what are the major differences between the film and novel? What makes the movie so poor compared to the novel?
The Count of Monte Cristo
THE BOOK: 1462 pages by Alexander Dumas. Incredibly detailed, often leaves the reader without an inkling of what is going on, very thorough, long climax, enthralling after page 800. However, it cannot hold a candle to...
THE MOVIE: For those of you who miss the old Dumbledore, he is here in this film. A short role, but important and enjoyable nonetheless. The basic premise of the book is used - revenge and all - with a few characters taken out, new motives placed in, and a Hollywood romance + ending. However, the stellar performance of the Edmond Dantes role (do not know the actor's name, sorry!) is worth seeing, and if you like action/adventure films with intruiging plots (think Indiana Jones minus the George Lucas signatures), you will love this. I definately enjoyed the film, and would recommend seeing it before reading the book (it is more comprehensible this way).
THE BOOK: 1462 pages by Alexander Dumas. Incredibly detailed, often leaves the reader without an inkling of what is going on, very thorough, long climax, enthralling after page 800. However, it cannot hold a candle to...
THE MOVIE: For those of you who miss the old Dumbledore, he is here in this film. A short role, but important and enjoyable nonetheless. The basic premise of the book is used - revenge and all - with a few characters taken out, new motives placed in, and a Hollywood romance + ending. However, the stellar performance of the Edmond Dantes role (do not know the actor's name, sorry!) is worth seeing, and if you like action/adventure films with intruiging plots (think Indiana Jones minus the George Lucas signatures), you will love this. I definately enjoyed the film, and would recommend seeing it before reading the book (it is more comprehensible this way).
- Mood:awesome
- Music:The Refugee : U2
I know I'm a little behind on my movies, but I just rented Stephen King's The Mist and loved it!
( Spoilers behind the cut )
( Spoilers behind the cut )
WAITING FOR GODOT.
I suppose visualizing the entire thing makes you realize how incredibly, incredibly bleak it was, especially blocking-wise. The part where Pozzo, Lucky, Didi, and Gogo are all on the ground, was hilarious in the movie and not really in the book. I have never seen it on stage, so I could not really say. To summarize, you would have to read the book, but the movie is definately better for comprehension. The entertainment value of both is about the same.
I suppose visualizing the entire thing makes you realize how incredibly, incredibly bleak it was, especially blocking-wise. The part where Pozzo, Lucky, Didi, and Gogo are all on the ground, was hilarious in the movie and not really in the book. I have never seen it on stage, so I could not really say. To summarize, you would have to read the book, but the movie is definately better for comprehension. The entertainment value of both is about the same.
- Location:Scotland
- Mood:ugh
- Music:Cecilia : Simon & Garkfunkel
Today I saw a TV spot for an adaptation of Terry Pratchett's 'The Colour of Magic', due to come out Easter 2008 (in the UK anyway). Here's the spot on Youtube and an IMDB link.
Any early thoughts, anyone? I was doubtful at first when I read that Sean Astin was going to play Twoflower, but from the TV spot he looks okay. Let's see what happens.
EDIT 16/3: Hmm, looks like it's a combination of 'The Colour of Magic' and 'The Light Fantastic'. I saw a 'Making of' documentary-thing on TV today, and the actors playing Cohen, Herrena, and Bethan spoke. Of course I might have been able to tell that earlier, because their names are on the IMDB page, but...I don't know. It had been a while since I looked at 'The Light Fantastic'.
Any early thoughts, anyone? I was doubtful at first when I read that Sean Astin was going to play Twoflower, but from the TV spot he looks okay. Let's see what happens.
EDIT 16/3: Hmm, looks like it's a combination of 'The Colour of Magic' and 'The Light Fantastic'. I saw a 'Making of' documentary-thing on TV today, and the actors playing Cohen, Herrena, and Bethan spoke. Of course I might have been able to tell that earlier, because their names are on the IMDB page, but...I don't know. It had been a while since I looked at 'The Light Fantastic'.
I have seen the stageplay version by Andrew Lloyd Webber and I have seen the movie version that was put out.
After my dad took me to see the movie, he told me that it was based off of a book, and he gave me his opinion. He thought it was a difficult read when he was introduced to it in high school, but thought that I would be interested in it. And he was right. I fell in love with the book after reading it.
Stage play or Movie?
Since both are the same lines, same story, same characters, and same music, the only thing I can really judge is casting. Overall I only had a problem with two people for the movie: Emmy Rossum as Christine Daae, and Gerry Butler as "The Phantom."
Emmy had hardly and variation in her facial expressions. Everything was just wide eyes, and wide mouth.
Gerry was, lets face it, too tan and muscular for a man who has spent his entire life underground. His voice also didn't wow me, and his "deformity" looked more like a bad sunburn. Not quite as shocking as Michael Crawford's deformity when he played "The Phantom" on Broadway.
I deffinately prefer the stage play to the movie.
Book or Stage Play?
This was a hard choice for me, because I love both the book and the play, but I'd give the play a 9/10, and full points to the book.
"Like yellow parchment is his skin. A great black hole serves as the nose that never grew" - Joseph Bouquet, musical
"He is extraordinarily thin and his dress-coat hangs on a skeleton frame. His eyes are so deep that you can hardly see the fixed pupils. You just see two big black holes, as in a dead man's skull. His skin, which is stretched across his bones like a drumhead, is not white, but a nasty yellow. His nose is so little worthtalking about that you can't see it side-face; and the absence of that nose is a horrible thing to look at. All the hair he has is three or four long dark locks on his forehead and behind his ears." - Joseph Bouquet, book
In the stage play, Joseph seems to be exagerating what the "Phantom" looks like, but in the book, this is what he is thought to look like, and is supposed to be a first hand account from Bouquet.
The book also give the Phantom a name. His name in the book is Erik (no surname mentioned.)
The book was meant to be an investigation of the goings-on in the Opera Garnier, and so Leroux goes into much detail about the young Christine Daae, and her lover le Vicomt.
The climax where Erik has le Vicomt hostage and is persuading Christine to marry him is a lot more suspenseful in the book, and I shall not spoil it. I'll only say that the thing threatening le Vicomt, and another character with him is a larger threat than just a rope, and Christine's choice will decide both her fate, Erik, le Vicomt's, and everyone else in the Opera.
I as sorely dissapointed with this movie. There were many many scenes I was anxious to see portraied on the big screen, and unfortunately %95 of them were not shown.
I also had a problem with Sapheria. Her voice was good, and what I imagined it sounded like, but for some reason, I was annoyed that she had feathered wings. In the book, Christopher described her wings to be almost like a bat's (with the finger like apendages, connected by a thin membrane). Having feathered wings would deffinately be considered a safety hazard for a fire breathing dragon.
There were also a lot of characters that had key roles in the book that were left out, or had their influence cut unbelieveably short.
I deffinately would not purchase this movie if you are a fan of the books. Rent it if you feel that you need to see it.
I also had a problem with Sapheria. Her voice was good, and what I imagined it sounded like, but for some reason, I was annoyed that she had feathered wings. In the book, Christopher described her wings to be almost like a bat's (with the finger like apendages, connected by a thin membrane). Having feathered wings would deffinately be considered a safety hazard for a fire breathing dragon.
There were also a lot of characters that had key roles in the book that were left out, or had their influence cut unbelieveably short.
I deffinately would not purchase this movie if you are a fan of the books. Rent it if you feel that you need to see it.
I randomly decided to check IMDB for a few of my favourite books to see if any had been optioned and they've made/are making a movie of The Time Traveller's Wife.
Worried, I am.
Worried, I am.
what are your thoughts on this becoming a movie, do you think it will be a dud like blood and chocolate?
The Princess Bride.
I have to say, as far as the original goes, I enjoyed the film far more. The original is sort of a farce, and a lot of it is confusing and drawn out and used to Morgenstern's purposes, but the movie is more entertaining.
As for the abridged version, the book is far better. It gives better background for Inigo and Fezzik, essentially fleshing out their characters. It is nearly identical to the movie in other aspects, including dialogue, but William Goldman's inputs are so touching and hilar that the book takes that slight preference over the movie (to which William also wrote the screenplay.)
I have to say, as far as the original goes, I enjoyed the film far more. The original is sort of a farce, and a lot of it is confusing and drawn out and used to Morgenstern's purposes, but the movie is more entertaining.
As for the abridged version, the book is far better. It gives better background for Inigo and Fezzik, essentially fleshing out their characters. It is nearly identical to the movie in other aspects, including dialogue, but William Goldman's inputs are so touching and hilar that the book takes that slight preference over the movie (to which William also wrote the screenplay.)
- Location:Galway
- Mood:
tired - Music:We're Not Gonna Take it : Weird Sisters?
as a huge fan of dennis lehane, i love this book. it's well-written and definitely one of the best in kenzie/genarro series. as for the movie, well, the problem is that the book is #4 in the series. so i kinda feel that the characters are not well-built. i miss angie's role in the movie (she plays big role in the book - since she is part of the two main characters). but as a stand alone movie, i think it is quite okay - it has its twists and turns. i'd probably might enjoy it more if i have never read the book.
BOOK: A
MOVIE: B-
BOOK: A
MOVIE: B-
A case of movie before the book. I stayed away from the movie for the longest time because it had Leo in it, but gave in when I seen it on TV. Loved that movie as it would turn out. It had such a wonderful cast for the musketeers... what's not to love? I've watched it several times since then.
Now I've finished the book. Wow, the differences. Although I can understand much of them since Iron Mask is the end of a trilogy. Pretty much the only similarities are the names. Philippe's role hardly makes for more than a few chapters. I liked Raoul's love interest in the movie better because in the book I longed for her death. And it never came, ahh! So the stories between the two are quite different as I've said. I find the book quite depressing once Porthos dies and it's sad for the remaining chapters. According to the afterward in my copy Dumas was said to have cried when he wrote that scene.
Which do I like better? That is hard to say. The purist in me should say the book but it's just so depressing. ^^;;
Now I've finished the book. Wow, the differences. Although I can understand much of them since Iron Mask is the end of a trilogy. Pretty much the only similarities are the names. Philippe's role hardly makes for more than a few chapters. I liked Raoul's love interest in the movie better because in the book I longed for her death. And it never came, ahh! So the stories between the two are quite different as I've said. I find the book quite depressing once Porthos dies and it's sad for the remaining chapters. According to the afterward in my copy Dumas was said to have cried when he wrote that scene.
Which do I like better? That is hard to say. The purist in me should say the book but it's just so depressing. ^^;;
- Mood:
sad - Music:Avril Lavigne ~ Keep Holding On
I am looking for your advice here. A Prayer For Owen Meany is my favorite novel. I have yet to watch Simon Birch. For years I wouldn't even entertain the idea of watching it. It's "loosely based" on the novel and I heard gossip that said it was originally supposed to be a movie version of the book but the film veered so far away from the story that John Irving asked that the title be changed. This made me want to steer clear of it. Since then, several people have told me that it really is a good movie. I would like to hear from some folks who have both read and seen this. Also, I know that there has been some backlash from the self-identified Christian community concerning the book. I do not count myself as part of that community and that is not part of my hesitancy. My question: if you love this book, should you see the movie?
So I saw the trailer for the movie, thought it looked awesome and decided to read the book first. I just finished the book but I haven't seen the movie yet cuz it hasn't opened where I live yet. I was a little disappointed in the book (I thought t would be a little more interesting) but it was okay. Has anyone seen the movie? What did you think?
- Mood: happy
- Music:heat wave - martha and the vandellas
As is the case with many movies, if I'd seen it before I'd read the book, I might say it was a good movie. But so many points were left out. I thought it was vital to character development that Anne was previously a virgin. And it's been a while since I read it, but didn't Anne get married twice in the book? And zero times in the movie? Not to be overly crude here, but didn't I read somewhere that the author wrote this thing with the idea that she thought the audience was ready for oral sex? There's no scene like that in the book, but Neely embarrasses Anne with the idea. And just what in god's name is up with that happy, female-empowered ending? Anne goes DOWN in the book. She doesn't save herself! She starts taking pills to numb herself to the fact that Lyon is a jerk.
thought you might enjoy this.. my papaw is an avid reader, too.. however, he usually sticks to westerns (Louis L'Amour).. sometimes, i'll goad him into branching out though.. so far he's read (and LOVED) The Hero & the Crown, The Blue Sword, all the Maximum Ride books, aaaand
( wait for it........ )
( wait for it........ )
So I've just watched a good portion of the movie Watership Down. I know I watched it as a kid, but I never really connected with it. I still can't. I'd read the story before I watched the movie years ago and though I don't have a conscious memory of this, I think I must have known back then that this was a weak interpretation. I think that a good bit of this failure was inevitable. The movie was made in 1979 and it's entirely animated. Well, I suppose it should be animated. But it's quite a dark tale and the filmmakers were limited to Bugs-Bunny-style animation at the time. Bigwig's no scarier than my kitten and Fiver just looks like he's on meth. (Fiver's actually a visionary and all.) I want to see Frank-Miller-style Watership Down. Or Pixar. Oooh, what if Pixar hired Frank Miller just for this? Animation has made some wondrously dark leaps in the almost 30 years since this came out. I'm not buying this whole troupe of happy-looking rabbits speaking in posh British accents. It doesn't fit the story at all. Well, except Fiver. He still speaks in a posh British accent, but he doesn't seem happy in the least. Meth will do that to you. And now that I think about it some more, in 1979 they could have had one good shot at it if they'd chosen to. They could have hired Jim Henson. I'm not sure if he would have taken the job or not, but at the time he would have been the only choice to do the darkness up correctly. Someone really needs to remake this film. It was a crappy film, but it's one of my favorite books and I think it lends itself remarkably well to the screen. If only someone would step in and do something about that.
Profile
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif)
bookormovie- Which Is Better Book or Movie?
- BookorMovie Memories
Page Summary
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
stardreemer : The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants [+2] - skyroodv : A Time To Kill [+0]
- skyroodv : Apology...noted. [+14]
- dragoncrab88 : Divine Secrets of the Ya- Ya Sisterhood [+2]
- punkwithpanache : Hey baby, I do not want to be your superman. I just want to be your man and I will be super, baby. [+5]
- twilightsm : Stephen King's The Mist [+3]
- punkwithpanache : I am the master. You'll have to be a little more standoffish when fellers offer you a buggy ride. [+1]
- parisiennepen : The Colour of Magic [+1]
- lephantom : The Phantom of the Opera [+9]
- lephantom : Eragon [+9]
- devi42 : I have a bad feeling about this [+8]
- br3akabl3z_24 : twilight [+22]
- punkwithpanache : Always something there to remind me. Always something there to remind me. [+2]
- at_midnight : Gone Baby Gone [+0]
- romantic_envy : The Man in the Iron Mask [+3]
- reallyamermaid : A Prayer For Owen Meany/Simon Birch [+3]
- yumi_maki : The Jane Austen Book Club [+9]
- reallyamermaid : Valley of the Dolls [+1]
- kimber_leigh : sweeet!!! [+11]
- reallyamermaid : my first post here [+4]
Syndicate
