- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anyone else have have issues watching a movie after reading the book?
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:20 pm to PhilipMarlowe
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:20 pm to PhilipMarlowe
Only if I see the movie pretty closely after reading the book. TV shows as well, since I watched S1 of Game of Thrones after reading the first book. Actually, I think I watched the first couple of episodes, then finished the book and read most of the second book before going back to watch the rest of the show. I finished all of the books that are out, and never watched past the first season of the show.
If there is a good amount of time between reading and watching, it doesn't bother me as much, because all of the little details aren't as fresh in my mind. I will still see things here and there that are different, but in my mind I have a general idea of the plot and the characters, rather than remembering every little thing.
If there is a good amount of time between reading and watching, it doesn't bother me as much, because all of the little details aren't as fresh in my mind. I will still see things here and there that are different, but in my mind I have a general idea of the plot and the characters, rather than remembering every little thing.
1
Posted on 9/25/20 at 12:32 pm to sweetwaterbilly
Jurassic Park is my favorite movie and still is after reading the book. I highly recommend it.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 1:42 pm to i am dan
I’m the opposite - have issues reading the book after watching the movie.
Read “Sideways” not too long ago and kept wanting to put the actors in the voices of the characters in the page. The book is good - has an extra scene or two (the boar hunting part especially) left out of the movie.
I prefer the movie though. Maybe Giamatti is just that good of an actor for me to see anyone else playing the part of Miles (even on a page).
Read “Sideways” not too long ago and kept wanting to put the actors in the voices of the characters in the page. The book is good - has an extra scene or two (the boar hunting part especially) left out of the movie.
I prefer the movie though. Maybe Giamatti is just that good of an actor for me to see anyone else playing the part of Miles (even on a page).
This post was edited on 9/25/20 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 9/25/20 at 1:51 pm to i am dan
The ending of the Deathly Hallows part 2 movie is nowhere near as satisfying as the book. Harry owns Voldemort in front of everyone in the book.
This post was edited on 9/25/20 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 9/25/20 at 2:17 pm to i am dan
There have been a few times that I thoroughly enjoyed the film because I read the book first. The Lincoln Lawyer is a good example of that. They cast that film perfectly.
And then there's the case where they completely change the ending. Take Inferno, for instance. In the book, the virus is actually released and causes a pandemic (sound familiar)? And it was released by rogue World Health Organization members. All because of population control. In the movie, Langdon saves the day and prevents it from happening. It waters down the story considerably when they alter the endings like that.
And then there's the case where they completely change the ending. Take Inferno, for instance. In the book, the virus is actually released and causes a pandemic (sound familiar)? And it was released by rogue World Health Organization members. All because of population control. In the movie, Langdon saves the day and prevents it from happening. It waters down the story considerably when they alter the endings like that.
This post was edited on 9/25/20 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:09 pm to i am dan
I don’t read books so no F’s given
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:09 pm to i am dan
quote:
I bought the Ready Player One book a while back and then immediately learned they were making a movie, so I never even opened the book.
The book was so much better than the movie in so many ways. In the end I think it was a mistake to let Spielberg direct it bc he cut out most references to himself and his work. Maybe I should have waited to read the book after the movie.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:16 pm to i am dan
You have to go into it just wanting to be entertaining and true to the characters.
The Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy movie raped the book, but was a fun entertaining movie with great cast.
Angels and Demons was a decent movie, even though it butchered the book. It's just about being entertained. You can't expect a 2 hour movie to do what could be a 20 hour book.
That being said... I liked The Green Mile better than the book.
The Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy movie raped the book, but was a fun entertaining movie with great cast.
Angels and Demons was a decent movie, even though it butchered the book. It's just about being entertained. You can't expect a 2 hour movie to do what could be a 20 hour book.
That being said... I liked The Green Mile better than the book.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:29 pm to i am dan
I like to go the other way.
It’s impossible to put every detail in a movies that’s in a book.
If you go Movie Book you’re getting more instead of less.
It’s impossible to put every detail in a movies that’s in a book.
If you go Movie Book you’re getting more instead of less.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:35 pm to i am dan
quote:
Anytime I read a book and a movie is later made about it, I can't enjoy the movie.
I enjoy comparing. I tend to like adaptations that stray from their source materials so that if I have read and enjoyed the book, the movie can stand on its own. That of course doesn't account for movies that are just bad, regardless of how closely they stayed to the text.
I have a harder time going the other way: reading a book after watching its adaptation. If I already have a concrete visual sense of characters and setting, it makes the book less interesting to me. I'm sure there are plenty of personal exceptions to that generalization, but I can't remember any right now.
And a bad movie could make me avoid a good book. I don't know if The Devil All the Time is a good novel or not, and I have no idea how faithful Campos's adaptation was, but I know that I'll never find out.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:38 pm to RealityTiger
quote:
Take Inferno, for instance. In the book, the virus is actually released and causes a pandemic (sound familiar)?
The virus was released in the book but didn't cause a pandemic. It was a vector virus that altered DNA to make 1/3 of the people sterile. No one died, just only a third could reproduce from that point on. It's one of the few times I agreed with the antagonist.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 3:41 pm to jbraua
quote:
The book was so much better than the movie in so many ways. In the end I think it was a mistake to let Spielberg direct it bc he cut out most references to himself and his work. Maybe I should have waited to read the book after the movie.
Both book and movie are obsessed with playing spot the reference with the reader, offering almost nothing more, and thus making them equally insufferable.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 4:33 pm to i am dan
I will never watch Unbroken. Too good of a story and too much to fit into one movie, much less one with shitty reviews directed by Angelina Jolie.
I'm still furious some awesome director didn't turn that into an HBO mini-series where it would be right.
I'm still furious some awesome director didn't turn that into an HBO mini-series where it would be right.
Posted on 9/25/20 at 4:36 pm to sportsaddit68
quote:
The virus was released in the book but didn't cause a pandemic. It was a vector virus that altered DNA to make 1/3 of the people sterile. No one died, just only a third could reproduce from that point on. It's one of the few times I agreed with the antagonist.
If only it could selectively do that to people with a lower third IQ then I'd be all for it in the real world
Posted on 9/26/20 at 6:34 am to i am dan
I know what you mean. But I will say that the best movie adaptation of a book, for me, was Harry Potter.
I read the first three or so Potters, and when the first movie came out I was blown away at how much things looked just like I imagined them when reading.
I read the first three or so Potters, and when the first movie came out I was blown away at how much things looked just like I imagined them when reading.
Posted on 9/26/20 at 7:55 am to i am dan
No.
I understand you cannot make a page by page visual reproduction of a book.
I was nervous when they were doing LOTR, but they did a great job (conversely, The Honbit was a fricking travesty).
The only adaptations that have really bothered me are the Clancy ones (other than HFRO). Again, I get you have to pare down the detail, but both Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger had substantial changes (characters, endings) that were tough to accept.
I understand you cannot make a page by page visual reproduction of a book.
I was nervous when they were doing LOTR, but they did a great job (conversely, The Honbit was a fricking travesty).
The only adaptations that have really bothered me are the Clancy ones (other than HFRO). Again, I get you have to pare down the detail, but both Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger had substantial changes (characters, endings) that were tough to accept.
Posted on 9/26/20 at 8:53 am to TU Rob
I read the Natural after I saw the movie. Wow! In his last at bat, Roy Hobbs strikes out and his life goes to shite. Gotta admit, I wasn't expecting that.
Posted on 9/26/20 at 1:15 pm to i am dan
The book is almost always vastly superior. Exceptions would be No Country For Old Men, Godfather, and Goodfellas. Couldn't get into Game Of Thrones on tv. The Hobbit was a terrible movie adaptation.
Posted on 9/26/20 at 10:21 pm to i am dan
I used to hate watching a movie after reading the book because I had in my mind totally different characters, their looks, how they acted.
What I found not to be a problem was reading the book after I saw the movie.
Then I just saw the entire cast of Silence of the Lambs in my mind as I read the book, Jaws, Outsiders as a kid, etc.
I mean authors describe characters but they're never really that in detail so we all have a different person we're imagining in our heads...and when the movie comes out you are like..."that's not my Bella!!!!"
(jk, I wouldn't read Twilight if I were in a Turkish prison, doing the Midnight Express thing, staring at walls, mumbling as I walked in circles.)
What I found not to be a problem was reading the book after I saw the movie.
Then I just saw the entire cast of Silence of the Lambs in my mind as I read the book, Jaws, Outsiders as a kid, etc.
I mean authors describe characters but they're never really that in detail so we all have a different person we're imagining in our heads...and when the movie comes out you are like..."that's not my Bella!!!!"
(jk, I wouldn't read Twilight if I were in a Turkish prison, doing the Midnight Express thing, staring at walls, mumbling as I walked in circles.)
This post was edited on 9/26/20 at 10:22 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News