go home you sore losers!!!!!!!
Printable View
go home you sore losers!!!!!!!
i am doing a presentation in school for this very subject. does anyone have any recommendations as to where i could find some interesting facts about novels made into movies??? if so, please respond. thanks
Dear venKat (@ kraken.fw-sj.sony.com:
"Train to Pakistan" - movie by Pamela Rooks was better than the novel by the same name written by Kushwant Singh. And he himself admitted the fact. "English August" by Dev Benegal was as good as the novel by Upamanyu Chatterjee whereas "The Inscrutable Americans" by Anurag Mathur was a better book than the movie made on it recently. So, there seems to be no general rule. I think reading the novel after seeing the movie gives a bette sense of fulfilment in the sense you feel like filling in the left out spaces in apperciation !
Why hasn't Sphere been mentioned anywhere out here. I think it's an excellent picturisation of the book, except that damn thing (I dont wanna give it away) flying off in the last scene.
And, ravi sundaram said:
5. The movies will beat the novels when they
create a sense of anticipation and then force
you to wait for the suspence. Cant flip to the
next page quickly in a movie. That is why
science-fiction movies and hitchcock thrillers
are better as movies than novels
But yes, if you do give a good build up of suspense, you are making the fella turn to the next page faster. Has happened to me with Crichton and King. Anyway sci-fi flick Lost World sucked. And J.Park came nowhere close to the bk.
I got a movie version of the novel Women in Love, by D.H.Lawrence, from a public library. (Man, these libraries always amaze me with their collections of some of the finest movies ever made and which you get free of cost). It was a nice experience to go through the movie version of one of the greatest novels. Lawrence is a difficult writer and can easily be misinterpreted. What struck me in the movie was that there was a fine attempt to grasp at the Lawrencian sense of emotional relations as they arise from physical relations between men and women and between men among themselves too. It is told far better in a flowing narrative so charactarestic of Lawrence, in the novel, but then it wasnt at least misinterpreted in the movie. Lawrence has been considered to be the greatest novelist of this century by many well reputed critics for his analysis of human relations in relation to the mental development it has had through the long years of civilized history, and this movie did justice at least to the extent that it could arise a curiosity in knowing more about the writer.
Novels let the reader explore the mind of the main character, you just simply can't do that in a film. Because all of a movie is what the characters are expressing through talking.
tShankar,
I agree with u MacLean's novels were made into good movies. But not so with Papillion. The book is a great one! But the movie is a mockery of it. I read in an article that the director of the movie had to cut it short becos of lack of funds.
Come any day " Novels are the best"
How do u rate the work BenHur, the winner of several oscars?
it is not fair what u are trying to say..... i agree, most books dont come within miles of the original book........ but all of u say about crichton, king etc. we should remember that these authors are some of the best in the profession..... the actors and the directors ,they just cannot compete with crichton ..... his books picturise everything much better than the movies.......... but what about 'silence of the lambs' and 'hannibal' and 'exorcist'? all of these books are superb... but the movies seem to grab you much more than the books........ i am not saying that blatty and harris are not good authors, but the movoies seem somewhat different and better........
Probably, it's also got to do with what u see first: the movie or the novel. If you saw the movie first, the novel might seem a drag.
Any experiences?