Liverpool FC Forum

by **Kharhaz** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:01 am

We have all surely read a book during our lifetime, so my question is easy. Book or film? what do you prefer?

I have just finished reading a Dean Koontz book called Hideaway. Now after I have read a book I like to go online and read what other people thought of it (for the record, I enjoyed it). When I read a film had also been done on that book, I checked out many of the books I have read and noticed a majority have had films made. Checking up on the films I hadnt seen but having read the books (a majority from Dean Koontz himself) they are poor.

So I looked at other books and films made I have reached my conclusion. The books should be left alone. No film should ever ruin a good book. One film I see from the 70's from Dean Koontz was Demon Seed. If you hadnt read the book, the film kept you intrigued but without a doubt, reading the book gives you a greater thrill.

Then you have Stephen Kings The Stand. Many people are mixed on this because, my opinion, Stephen King is also involved in the series that was produced. So to many it seems to them that they are disrespecting the man who wrote the novel if they show any contempt for the series. For me, it should have remained a novel. He is a great writer, but seemed to betray what he had wrote with what was put into on-screen.

You can also take The Lord of the Rings. This trilogy itself is one of the biggest best sellers over the world. So many people would know the general gist of this story. When the movie was made, I have to admit, I was impressed. But the minute Peter Jackson decided to deviate from what Tolkien wrote, I was dissapointed. Liv Tyler seemed to be really annoying during that film, simply because of the character she portrayed and was forced on us because of what Peter Jackson decided to change. He decided that Glorfindel could be left out, and that a female elf (who had no real direct impact to the audience) could make more of an impact on the audience. And as the two others were released, and then the directors cut versions, he turned the trilogy into a mockery.

It annoys me. I have read a good few books, and they all have me involved. But when I see that they are going to film it,it shows laziness. It shows constant lack of imagination on the directors part in that they have to steal an idea, a good idea mind, from a novel, put it into film, and make changes that ruin it. Stephen King and Dean Koontz are as guilty as anyone for this.

For me, what makes a story great, is its unique qualities. What makes a rubbish story, is taking one that exists, and then adding any kind of change to it. Once it is released. Once its out there, leave it. A majority of films are based on books written, and I would say 90% of the time, the books are better.

Theres my argument for the books released. If there is a film based on a book, the chances are if you liked the film, you will love the book. And after reading the book, you will realise how lazy the film is. Its very rare to reach a level between a good book and a good film around the same story.

by **Madmax** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:26 am

Not much of a reader here so hell yeah movies are my choice.. More action and entertainment.. Better than looking at a book and just trying to visualise the images in your head.. Thats my view anyhow because i prefer not to read books!
Last one i read must have been when i was 9 years old. Think it was called mr thomas and his dog

by **Number 9** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:33 am

Holy fuc'k you do come out with some shi'te!!

I like it though!

Without getting all deep and proper [email]w@nky..[/email]"Intensity" is the best Dean Koontz book by a country mile!

I dont read much because I have the attention span of a distracted octopus..but when I do I like Michael Connollys books very much!Someone always gets a really sore death in his books,I like that!

"It" by Stephen King is his best work

by **Number 9** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:34 am

I prefer films!!

by **account deleted by request** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:04 am

I prefer books, and usually hate films that are made from them. I think the exceptions are films made from short stories. The green mile and the Shawshank redemption are two great films made from short stories that spring to mind.

I agree with Barry "IT" was Kings best book.

by **Number 9** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:13 am

s@int wrote:I prefer books, and usually hate films that are made from them. I think the exceptions are films made from short stories. The green mile and the Shawshank redemption are two great films made from short stories that spring to mind.

I agree with Barry "IT" was Kings best book.

Allright mate..Where the fu'ck have you been??

by **Kharhaz** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:34 am

Number 9 wrote:Holy fuc'k you do come out with some shi'te!!

It just comes naturally !

I prefer books, and usually hate films that are made from them.

Me too Saint. As I have said. I have yet to read "It" though, I will make it a point to grab that one.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon May 04, 2009 3:32 am

Most films adapted from books are disappointing and this usually comes down to a few reasons. First and foremost, it's mostly because movie studios are looking for a way to make a quick buck and thus just capitalize on a book's success by churning out some poorly-conceived cinematic version with little care for honouring the original material. It makes sense from a dollars and cents point of view: if you're a movie exec why would you take a risk on an untried story when you've got a popular book to adapt? The second reason films based on books are often disappointing is because you develop your own mental image of how characters, places etc. look when reading a book and very rarely is your own personal vision realized on the big screen. The 'why did they cast him?' syndrome, I like to think of it. Finally, another big reason for disappointment is that books and films can't tell stories in the same ways and audiences engage with them in different ways so, in a very important sense, the film can never completely re-create the book. What works on the page does not always work on screen, there are very real time constraints with movies that books don't have etc. All of those discrepancies are important.

This last point brings me to LOTR. Personally, I enjoyed the books but loved the movies and I realize that makes me something of an anomaly amongst Tolkien fans. The reason I like the movies so much is that they have taken great care to create that world--this was not just some studio slapdash effort to make a buck--so the first criticism is null and void, IMO. I also think that Jackson did as much to bring the world of Tolkien that existed in my imagination to life as any director could possibly do. Sure, there were casting decisions and aesthetics (green ghosts?) that I questioned but not with any degree of real disappointment, which is so rarely the case with me when it comes to putting books on film. I also love those movies because I fully acknowledge issue #3 above. You simply cannot take the literary trilogy Lord of the Rings and put it on the big screen in a way that faithfully recreates the books. First of all, the entire trilogy would have to screen for a week to fit all the detail in. More importantly, we'd all be bored as feck because, frankly, Tolkien went a little off the deep end with all the mythology, linguistics, multiple names for characters, landscape description, tangential dialogue etc. It helps make Middle Earth seem quite tangible but, feck me, the man didn't half ramble on! In fact, if you cast a critical eye on the books--which most of us who grew up reading them never do--you can see that they're fairly poorly constructed in places, from a story-telling point of view. The Battle of Helm's Deep is over before you know it but we get pages and pages of conversation between Frodo and Sam and the Wood Elves that are passing through the Shire. Trying putting that on film and see who manages to sit through the thing! I can understand book fans who are frustrated with how certain characters (Tom Bombadil, Glorfindal) were absent from the movie while others (Arwen) are given a far bigger role than Tolkien ever wrote for them. For me, though, the movies work and they do so by offering an interpretation of the Tolkien trilogy rather than a faithful adaptation.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:12 am

those who watched Twilight adored the movie. those who read the book didn't. one of the many books made into movies that didnt bode well with the readers.

by **SupitsJonF** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:58 am

Saw American Psycho, reading it now.

Great both ways.

by **Sabre** » Mon May 04, 2009 8:27 am

It's a good post and thread Karhaz.

I preffer books.

Like has been mentioned, in LOTR recreated the Tolkien World very well, meaning it was nice to watch the world very similar to what we all imagined.

But the story is another matter. Even if the film was able to be faithful to the story, even if the film was able to compress the book in a 12 hour film trilogy (which is almost impossible), the books take you further.

In the book, when Gandalf is missing and Frodo and Sam are alone and confused, you feel a bit that way. You understand better that sensation of lonelyness, you reach to think Gandalf is dead. In a film, there's not time for that, because they have to film something and in every moment it's happening something. You don't have the time to stop and develop your imagination.

Similarly, I used to be more intrigued and "terrified" reading a King book than any of the films. A book helps more to your imagination flies, in a film everytime is happening something and you don't have time for your imagination to fly.

Only in Porn films are better than paper.

by **dawson99** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:05 pm

Depends on the book. Fight Club is an awful book, American Psycho is genius...

Stephen King can write much better usually, but his short stories (green mile, shawshank, stand by me) are adapted as better stories

Lord of the rings are completely different in style...

I love books, but love films as well, there is room for both.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:23 pm

Bad Bob wrote:I can understand book fans who are frustrated with how certain characters (Tom Bombadil, Glorfindal) were absent from the movie while others (Arwen) are given a far bigger role than Tolkien ever wrote for them. For me, though, the movies work and they do so by offering an interpretation of the Tolkien trilogy rather than a faithful adaptation.

and i remember Haldir not getting killed in the book but dying in The Two Towers.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:36 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:I can understand book fans who are frustrated with how certain characters (Tom Bombadil, Glorfindal) were absent from the movie while others (Arwen) are given a far bigger role than Tolkien ever wrote for them. For me, though, the movies work and they do so by offering an interpretation of the Tolkien trilogy rather than a faithful adaptation.

and i remember Haldir not getting killed in the book but dying in The Two Towers.

You don't have to tell me, mate. My wife has a huge crush on the movie Haldir and hates to see him killed off. Every time we watch the movie, I wind her up about it: "turns his back for a minute and gets killed...what a loser!" Stuff like that.

by **J*o*n*D*o*e** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:38 pm

im not a great reader myself so cant really compare the both but i reckon Sabre hits the nail on the head with what he said, pron is better on film

Liverpool FC Forum

Books vs films, - What wins it for you?

Who is online