Mr.Kumquat Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Anyone else tired of people complaining about how "the movie was nowhere near as good as the book!"? I am. Oh, the movie didn't get into as much detail as the book? You don't say! Pitty that no one wants an 8 hour long movie. Of course the book has a more detailed story and better character development! It's a different medium! So that's my rant. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I think the trend of film adaptations of books and comics needs to die. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Kumquat Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Thats an entirely different subject. I agree that comic book movies need to stop. The utter is dry! My rant is about irritating people that think they're all high and mighty because "the book is better" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, Mr.Kumquat said: Thats an entirely different subject. I agree that comic book movies need to stop. The utter is dry! My rant is about irritating people that think they're all high and mighty because "the book is better" Some films are better than the books. Fight Club was cool enough that even Chuck Palahniuk said it was better than his book, or at least had a better ending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapy Sergal Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Movies also often contradict the established view we have of some characters. For example, I was utterly dissapointed how Mad Eye Moody was represented in the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Kumquat Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 I have a hard time saying any movie or book is better than the other. My standby example is The Martian. It's the best book iv'e read in many years. I do, however love the movie as well. But, being different mediums, they have their strengths and weaknesses. The book is more detailed, where the movie gives better visuals and is generally more accessible to a wider audience. (the book is very sciencey, and you need a basic understanding of certain things to appreciate it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarcastic Coffeecup Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 It's the truth though, books are better than films. No way around it. I'd prefer to see less adaptations and rather more new IPs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless/Nameless Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I think its a matter of what the complainer had experienced first. if you read the book before seeing the movie, or vice versa, of course you're going to be more attached to the medium you first experienced it in--unless whatever you see 2nd is really damn good. One thing that could maybe help avoid all the petty book vs movie arguments is if directors would be more honest about what they're actually making. Take "The Shining" by Stanley Kubrick for instance (not the most extreme example, but that's what my brain is serving up atm). Both the book and movie were good, (movie was better tho, take THAT Steven) but both took the story in a slightly different direction, which upset a few people. Maybe rather than Hollywood pawning off movies like that as book adaptations, maybe they should market them as separate entities so that the die-hard bookians know what they're getting into before they step into the theatre with their goddamn high expectations. If they really want to take the story and make it their own, they could think of a different title etc and just say it was inspired by such-and-such book so they can take all the creative liberties they please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Kumquat Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 I would also rather see more original IPs. But that's not the point. You bring a book or comic to video because it's a great idea, and people want to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vallium Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) ....oooorrr in the case of the modern YA fiction-to-movie trend its more about profiting off the name of the book and vague loose storyline with familiar names rather than a justified movie adaptation despite not being quite the same. Hunger games and Harry Potter were able to pull it off well. Holes as well Frequent other series...not so much. Percy Jackson, Eragon, and the last airbender can all go die in a hole. Edit: or all go die in Holes and be cursed for eternityyyyy. Edited January 25, 2016 by WolfNightV4X1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazerMaster5 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The Scott Pilgrim film adaptation is alright, although they cut out and changed much of the story from the books. For example, while the books take over a span of a good year or two, the movie takes place in one day. It would have worked better as an actual film series. Also, this trend of adapting books to try and be the next Hunger Games needs to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Movies tend to take a lot of liberties with the books by either adding or removing necessary content. Like with the Hobbit for instance. We really didn't need to have a connection to LoTR in it, and even then, it was off-topic material. Eragon was just a bastardization of a bad book. Twilight...I have to give it credit. It stuck to the source material okay, and it is still a shitty movie. Same with 50 shades of Grey, although there isn't much they can do without turning a sexploitation film into straight up porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conker Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 4 hours ago, WolfNightV4X1 said: Percy Jackson, Eragon, and the last airbender can all go die in a hole. Edit: or all go die in Holes and be cursed for eternityyyyy. Naw man, the Eragon movie was way better than the book because I didn't have to shit through such bland, awful prose. @Thread I mean...books are like 9/10 better than the movies. I dunno why you're complaining about people pointing out the obvious. That being said, there ARE good adaptations. A movie can still be good while not being as good as its source material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I don't know why the last Airbender was mentioned once that was a TV series (And later a comic to resolve some of the loose ends...like Zuko's mom). Yeah, it was given to a person who took a lot of liberties with the source material and turned season 1 into a 2-hour movie. Unfortunately, the person did not understand the source material enough to make it both please the fans and the draw in newcomers. Well...it did, but the newcomers were damn near intent to comparing the movie to the TV show. I con understand the fence-sitting with the Warcraft movie as well, but looking back on the actual lore with the first and second War in both books and in-game, that there's so many holes that even mario would have trouble jumping over them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalletFace Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) I know people that believe the book must be better than the movie. Their position is so because they believe an adaptation of something can never be as meaningful as the original. I direct these people towards Psycho. Even just the last few minutes of the movie show how much an adaptation in a new medium can improve a work. Quote She sat there for quite a long time, and then a fly came buzzing through the bars. It lighted on her hand. If she wanted to, she could reach out and swat the fly. But she didn't swat it. She didn't swat it, and she hoped they were watching, because that proved what sort of a person she really was. Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly.... If you like to read without rereading or reflection, that ending sucked. Hitchcock redid the entire thing; he took pages and pages of internal dialogue that lead nowhere and turned it into a few minutes of narration that explained the entire movie. Throughout the movie there are examples of Hitchcock changing things, Norman's mother is a surprise in the movie while she is there from the start of the book removing things, the plot of the book relied on Norman's conversations with his mother and generally going against the intent of the author. the book was a story about Norman, but the movie was only secretly about Norman while it directed attention to Marion. It is not as much about adaptations losing something as it is about whether or not the creator is skilled in what they do. Hitchcock was one of those that could take a story and improve it. Many of his movies were actually based on popular books, but those titles and authors have faded away as the mastery of Hitchcock shoved them aside. Do you know anybody that can tell you who du Maurier, Bloch, or Highsmith are? The same goes for adaptations of any work in any medium. Edited January 25, 2016 by MalletFace "the last few minutes... show" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Kumquat Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 Maybe i should clarify my gripe. There are movies based on books that are just crap, and vise versa. If you're watching a movie, forget the book. If you're reading a book, forget the movie. I absolutely love the story behind "The Man in the High Castle". Amazon now has a TV series based on the Philip K. Dick novel. You can appreciate them both on their own, which one is better is totally subjective. It just bothers me when people compare two completely different experiences. Like comparing a painting to music. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamingGal Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 21 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said: One thing that could maybe help avoid all the petty book vs movie arguments is if directors would be more honest about what they're actually making. Take "The Shining" by Stanley Kubrick for instance (not the most extreme example, but that's what my brain is serving up atm). Both the book and movie were good, (movie was better tho, take THAT Steven) but both took the story in a slightly different direction, which upset a few people. Maybe rather than Hollywood pawning off movies like that as book adaptations, maybe they should market them as separate entities so that the die-hard bookians know what they're getting into before they step into the theatre with their goddamn high expectations. If they really want to take the story and make it their own, they could think of a different title etc and just say it was inspired by such-and-such book so they can take all the creative liberties they please. Eep, my heart! D: While "The Shining" was a good movie and all that, I would kind of have to do what OP is suggesting by experiencing it as a totally separate entity. I can appreciate it and be happy with it when I do that. If I remind myself that it's a film adaptation of the book, I don't like it as much and highly prefer the book. I mean, the stories are similar enough to be called siblings, but also totally different at the same time. Once you get past the halfway point, everything changes. I, personally, totally prefer the ending of the book. However, there are some books and movies I can appreciate as separate things. Take "The Stand" by my man Stephen King. The book is really, really long, about 1200 pages if you go with the unabridged version, but the story is amazing. It lays out a whole world and then proceeds to populate it and weave a wondrous story. It tells that story in such a poetic way. However, the movie is amazing as well. Sure, it leaves a few things out and changes some details, but it was a tv mini-series with a small-ish budget, so what do you expect? There were some things I liked about it, mostly how it laid out the story and tied in the old woman with flashbacks and dreams and such. They were good in the book, but the movie did them really well. Regardless, M-O-O-N, that spells good author! His books will always, in my opinion, be better than the movies, but that's the reader in me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless/Nameless Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Just now, GamingGal said: Eep, my heart! D: While "The Shining" was a good movie and all that, I would kind of have to do what OP is suggesting by experiencing it as a totally separate entity. I can appreciate it and be happy with it when I do that. If I remind myself that it's a film adaptation of the book, I don't like it as much and highly prefer the book. I mean, the stories are similar enough to be called siblings, but also totally different at the same time. Once you get past the halfway point, everything changes. I, personally, totally prefer the ending of the book. However, there are some books and movies I can appreciate as separate things. Take "The Stand" by my man Stephen King. The book is really, really long, about 1200 pages if you go with the unabridged version, but the story is amazing. It lays out a whole world and then proceeds to populate it and weave a wondrous story. It tells that story in such a poetic way. However, the movie is amazing as well. Sure, it leaves a few things out and changes some details, but it was a tv mini-series with a small-ish budget, so what do you expect? There were some things I liked about it, mostly how it laid out the story and tied in the old woman with flashbacks and dreams and such. They were good in the book, but the movie did them really well. Regardless, M-O-O-N, that spells good author! His books will always, in my opinion, be better than the movies, but that's the reader in me. Yeah, a book and it's adaptation are definitely separate entities. An author and a director both go delve into the story with their own vision; even when an author adapts their own work to the big screen, they'll often explore the story in a different light. I really should clear up the fact that even though I like the movie of The Shining better, I'm a actually a huge fan of King's work. And The Stand is my fave book ever, unabridged version ftw. I felt they did I great job on the film adaptation of that one; like you say, they left a lot out etc, but it's not like they could have fit everything in anyway and they really did do a great job with what they had to work with. I highly disagreed with the casting choice for Nadine though... M-O-O-N, that spells weird hair 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamingGal Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 13 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said: I really should clear up the fact that even though I like the movie of The Shining better, I'm a actually a huge fan of King's work. And The Stand is my fave book ever, unabridged version ftw. I felt they did I great job on the film adaptation of that one; like you say, they left a lot out etc, but it's not like they could have fit everything in anyway and they really did do a great job with what they had to work with. I highly disagreed with the casting choice for Nadine though... M-O-O-N, that spells weird hair Yeah! Another reader of the unabridged! I do agreed about Nadine, though *shudders* To be honest, I had no clue who she was when they first met because it was so different from the book and her hair was just.....wild. Plus I didn't like how the actress portrayed her. The whole time I was irritated and wanted to fuss at the director. But, again, low budget and all that could only afford so many "big" names. All this being said, I would love to see a movie adaptation of Doctor Sleep. Since it's the sequel to The Shining I would love to see how the public would take it and if the director would stick with the original storyline. But back on OP's topic. I appreciate when a director puts forth a lot of work to make the movie as similar to the book as possible. While I get that they are separate mediums, I think it shows a lot of respect to the author. That being said, some authors (like Stephen King) do tend to give, how you say, artistic freedom in the directing of their movie adaptations. But I still appreciate accuracy. I know it wasn't based on a book, but the movie "Titanic" was superbly accurate. I found a picture book of sorts that showed how James Cameron went about gathering data and replicating the details quite literally down to the minute. He put so much work into making it a perfect recreation and that gave me such a deeper appreciation for the movie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Kumquat Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, GamingGal said: But I still appreciate accuracy. I know it wasn't based on a book, but the movie "Titanic" was superbly accurate. I found a picture book of sorts that showed how James Cameron went about gathering data and replicating the details quite literally down to the minute. He put so much work into making it a perfect recreation and that gave me such a deeper appreciation for the movie. Try telling that to Neil Degrasse Tyson. "YOUR STARS ARE WRONG!" 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless/Nameless Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Mr.Kumquat said: Try telling that to Neil Degrasse Tyson. "YOUR STARS ARE WRONG!" That one has got to be one of the most nitpicky criticisms in the history of criticisms.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Kumquat Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said: That one has got to be one of the most nitpicky criticisms in the history of criticisms.... He does tend to nitpick. But in a fun sort of way that I enjoy as someone that appreciates science. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.