|
The other worry is of the time it takes to read the book!
Movie is fast way of getting that story done.
|
|
|
|
|
The beauty of the book lies in this IMHO. You experience the whole set up in the story along for few days, weeks, months. But movie is just a matter of hours SOMETIMES you dont even remember what the movie is all about (after few days) because it gets in quick and gets out quick of your mind.
But I agree you can watch a movie many times but not with the same intense a book is re-read mostly due to time constraints.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that more rewarding that movie gets complete early?
Who watches all movie to remember all the time?
On the other hand, you could be stuck with a book untill it finishes so that you can move to the next one your frenids are strongly recommending you to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
The Lee Childs books are not a good reference point for movies precisely because the protagonist is a 250 lb 6 foot 5 hero in the books, and Tom Cruise in the film.
|
|
|
|
|
lol, I absolutely agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, size matters !
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are referring to book based movies, I do not think we should compare them. The movie crew had their own vision plus monitory burden and a must add visual entertainment part to the book. So, your imagination may or may not be same as theirs and also it also depends if 2 hours are enough to capture everything.
If I have to choose between books and movies otherwise, I will go for movies any day. However, it will not be mainstream things. I would rather go for short films, documentaries and realistic cinema. And Pixar, not the recent ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was one of my favourite Movies of all time, until it was ruined when that Sophie Dahl's Grandad decided to jump on her fame and write a book about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Films suck. Books are WAY WAY WAY better.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so: to my mind, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Try equating "Movie" with "short story" rather than "novel" and they work well. But they have to throw so much background in that can be covered in a couple of pages in a novel that they run out of space for the story... 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
"Book of the movie" or "movie of the book" are not certainly different in my opinion. Two versions/views of the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree.
You can take an excellent movie (or even a good one) and produce a "book of the movie" - they nearly always stink! Normally because there isn't enough in the movie to make a novel, but they aren't allowed to invent material by the studio, so you do a "Dan Brown" and pad, pad, pad!
There are exceptions: but you need a good director who will work with a good author to produce a good book, and that's rare (the only example I can think of is James Cameron and Orson Scott Card on The Abyss)
"Movie of the book" goes the other way and throws out too much because the film would be a week long if they didn't! (A recent example is Enders Game: excellent book, hacked to death to fit in a film, and ends up poorer as a result)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
 I agree here, although I did give in in the end and watched Enders Game, and perhaps since I didn't expect much of the movy, was sortof pleasantly surprised.
"Chess, like Love, like Music, has the power to make men happy" (TARRASCH).
Love is like a Game of Chess: One False Move and You're Mated ~ Anonymous~
"A computer programmer is someone who, when told to "Go to Hell", sees the "Go to", rather than the destination, as harmful."
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, the answer is BACON.
PS: probably the answer would have been another thing but this is The Lounge...
|
|
|
|
|
Books, most definitely. You can pack an awful lot of plot in a 500 page novel, and no special effects budget can match what a reader can imagine. The trick of turning a novel into a movie involves taking a hatchet to the story and cutting it down to fit two hours or less.
|
|
|
|
|
and my mind tells the same. This was my point when posting this question. 
|
|
|
|
|
I've read all of the Reacher novels other than the last 2 or 3 as they are not as good. I also made myself watch "Reacher" with Tiny Cruise. Reacher is 6'5" and Cruise is 5'6". However, it wasn't that bad. It wasn't that good. But it wasn't that bad. 
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I've read all of the Reacher novels other than the last 2 or 3 as they are not as good.
How do you know if you haven't read them? (I only ask as I am in the process of going through them now).
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. I started to read a couple of them and think that they should not have been written: he had already taken the character as far as he should have. The last one I read felt like it was really stretching to tell the story. That's just my feeling: I may well be wrong. I really liked the earlier novels: Reacher is a very likable character.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I really liked the earlier novels: Reacher is a very likable character.
I agree, though I'm starting to find the love interest in nearly every story a bit repetitive and obvious. Although at least Child doesn't go into to much detail about the love-making which I can find a bit cringe-worthy in other peoples books.
|
|
|
|
|
After reading the reply I "SHRUGGED", again and again......
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer books to movies, especially when I've read the book before.
I find the movie usually disappointing, there are exceptions to that rule, but these are few.
But I have to admit, sometimes you just want to put your mind in buzz-mode and be entertained.
That's when movies come in handy, don't think just watch.
Oh, and you've picked a great book, I read that 6 months ago. And kept on reading the "Jack Reacher"-series. There were one or two I didn't like that much but I'm currently reading "Bad Luck and Trouble", book 11. So have fun and happy reading.
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what the genre, 95% of the time the book is a far better choice. I was tempted to say 100%, but then remembered a few books that were written after the movie, and those are uniformly disappointing. Not only do movies always omit details in order to meet a run time goal, they skip such critical steps as background development and character depth. Sometimes - all of the Jack Ryan movies except "... Red October" for instance - appear to have been made by people who have never read the book, nor had it read to them. These movies aren't even the same story as the book of the same title.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point(s). 
Did you happen to waste any time with the Stephen King / CBS TV series "Under the Dome"? Not even close to the book. Bad enough that important story lines were dropped but they added new ones for no apparent reason. 
BTW - I happen to be in the middle of reading all of Clancy's "Jack Ryan" novels in chronological order. Just started "Debt of Honor".
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: I happen to be in the middle of reading all of Clancy's "Jack Ryan" novels in chronological order.
Good move! Every few years I have to do the same; they never get old, even as I do.
I've never understood the attraction of Stephen King, having read one or two of his early works and not being interested by them. I just don't "get" horror stories, I guess. Reading the newspaper is all the fright and psychotic delusions I can process. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
