When you're reading a book, as the story progresses obviously you're going to be forming some image of the setting/s and characters in your mind, developing them according to the description that's been given to you by the author. Do you find that when you see the movie version of a novel you've read, the movie's depictions of the setting/s and characters ruin the image you've created? I hope this makes sense
I've only read and seen the story of Harry Potter... and for the most part, they only embellished what I had seen in my mind. Later on, the thoughts I had used became heavily influenced by imagery from the movie (especially the characters).
I'm sceptical of movies based on books. Sometimes it can end up verrry ad. The same goes with movies based on Comics and Games. When I first started reading the Alex Cross novels by James Patterson, I didn't realise he was African American. (Alex Cross, the lead character) but THEN I watched the movie Kiss the Girls and I was like, they have Morgan Freeman playing Alex? So I actually looked back to teh books and it was there under my nose, James Patterson didn't really mention it because it didn't generally matter. All in all, both Book and Movie was good, it was just the movie that opened my eyes.
The HP series is what I had in mind, too. I personally found the imagery from the movie ruined my own conception of the characters. That's my own fault, though ETA: DOZ, Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider are, I think, some good examples of a novels successfully being made into movies
You shouldn't notice a difference unless it's a book dealing with social atmospheres. What beats all is games based on movies, though. They are horrible - with the exception of the first Spider-Man game from the first iteration of the trilogy.
Hmm. I mean, Silent Hill was a decent game- Still is and the movie, while the LOCATIONS were mostly spot on, the actual Plot? Bah, it lost me there. There is a certain Trilogy that I would love to see as a movie, it's called The Black Jewels Trilogy. I would love to see it then I would bag the crap outta the movie. I read those books a gazzilion times by now!
I had a fairly different idea of what the characters and settings should look like, though. I wasn't able to get past the ones in the movies after seeing them. I agree, though, movies made into games (and games made into movies) are really shocking. ETA: I've heard a lot of great things about Silent Hill, I'd love to play it.
The first Silent Hill game my friend and I played, the character is in this cafe just waking up and then you see the wide shot of the front windows (creepy music and everything) and then WHOMP! a giant bird thing crashes through. My friend and I screamed our heads off!
When they switch mediums like that, it reminds me of musicians becoming actors (and vice versa). There is generally no respect for the other art as it is simply them grabbing at fleeting money. I hated when, in the first Resident Evil, hellhounds jumped out at you from windows. Paranoia anyone?
Do you find that when you see the movie version of a novel you've read, the movie's depictions of the setting/s and characters ruin the image you've created? nothing can 'ruin' my images of what i've read, but i certainly do get annoyed [and worse!] at the amount of liberties often taken with good books, during film adaptation... generally, if the author is listed as co-writer of the screenplay, it'll be one of the better attempts... but not always...
I though t the Lord of the Rings ahd a reasonablly good film adaptation. I think they did a good job considering jsut how big the universe of LotR's is. Harry Potter and the Hunt for Red October were good too. The Starship Troopers movie was horrible though. Honestly the title shouldn't even be Starship Troopers. The only connection is that both works have characters of the same names and their fighting bugs. You know whats worse the games based on movies? Movies based on Games. Blood Rayne, horrible. Doom, worse than horrible. Tomb Raider, Angelina Jolie is a plague on society. I hope they abandon the Halo moive. So far the Halo media franchise is a juggernut of one success after the next. It doesn't need a movie to ruin it. The only good video game movies I've ever seen are the Resident Evil movies. Their not perfect but they stick to the spirit of the games and don't deviate uncontrollably from their source material (I'm looking at you Doom movie). Generally I find that a movie based on a book, game, or TV series needs one thing to be successful. Good directing and a desperate need to stick to the source material. I find the thing I hate msot about film adaptations is when they deviate from well established concepts of their source. It helps too when the original author or creator is around to help. I think Rowling worked with the crew who made the Harry Potter films to help her books translate to the big screen (Not sure on that though).
The only book made into a film which i liked was Trainspotting, and that's only because it was just loosely based on it.
LordOfHats, it's interesting that your opinion of a movie can be different if you haven't read the book because I personally enjoyed Starship Troopers but I've never read the book, so I had nothing to compare it to. Tomb Raider, as you said, was just terrible and I didn't bother to see the others. Peter Jackson did a fabulous job on LOTR, he was obviously very passionate about it. I hadn't realised Trainspotting was based on a book...I didn't enjoy it much. Though, it was much less tame than Requiem For a Dream. Err, that should be 'tamer'.
Indeed ITLBY, Indeed. I've heard many people who have never read the book and say Starship Troopers was a good movie. I don't argue with it because I can see how someone who hasn't read the book will defiently enjoy the movie. In a way the book probably ruined the movie for me because the best parts of the book were not in the movie. Namely the lack of power armor and the fact that the book has one human killing a dozen bugs while the movie is the opposite, and that they substituted the philosophy of the book with a cheesy love triangle story involving a character who dies in the first chapter and has no bearing on the books actual story.
I find it's very frustrating watching a novel-turned-movie that has had a lot of important bits cut out of it, it really ruins it. Was the book as violent as the movie?
I don't think so. Violent that is. Honestly th book is a philisophical discussion cleverly hidden as a novel. There are about three or four fighting scenes in the entire book (I'd say about 10% of the book overall). Most of it is philosophy of war, human condition, and politics. Attempting to get this topic off Starship Troopers and back on track... I agree Jackson did a great job adapting LotR to the big screen.
Every book that's been made a movie that I've seen has turned out horribly with the exception of Lord of the Rings.
I tend to agree, Daniel. Most of them have been pretty disappointing. After rereading the HP series and then seeing the movies again, I've realised how bad they actually are. The acting is pretty bad and they just cut so much out. ETA: Forrest Gump was an incredible film, but I haven't read the book.
Lord of the Rings was a superb movie series, and yet there were many things I wish they had been able to carry over from the books. There is only so much you can fit into three movies, even in the Extended version.
Yeah Trainspotting was a bestseller here, although I imagine not so popular else where as it's written phonetically in a Scottish dialect (like all Irvine Welsh's books), so I imagine it might be difficult for people outside Scotland to understand.
