Novels-to-Movies

[Oldposts]

Topic started by venKat (@ kraken.fw-sj.sony.com) on Tue Oct 24 15:13:09 .


Before I have seen the Jurassic Park, the movie, I happened to read the novel of Chricton and felt the terror with Zero-Graphics. Kudos to Chricton.
There are tons of novels made to movies almost all of Chricton and old ones like Schindler's List, Gone with the wind, Howard's End.......
My personal opinion is that the novels made a great impact on me than the movies. I am not blaming the actors or directors. I believe novels gives more imagination to one than the movies.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Oldposts]

I completely agree with you. Novels definitely have something better in them. I find that watching a movie after reading the book completely spoils it for me.

My husband says the only exception is 'Contact'. He says the movie is better than the book. But I can't bring myself to see it yet!

[Oldposts]

silence of the lambs - the movie equals the novel

[Oldposts]

Contact! sorry thanga. imo, the movie is a pathetic piece of hollywood sht. the movie contact was a jingoist piece of junk unlike the book which was very balanced. hollywood has this uncanny ability to adopt great books and skrew them up. non-hollywood movies do better in this regard. i remember watching 1984 a couple of years ago. forgot the name of the producer, director, actor ... . it was a british make. it was a very good, true to the book production.

[Oldposts]

censorship!! this site doesn't allow one to write the word s c r e w. i had to use skrew! hope we would grow up someday.

[Oldposts]

I have seen Silence of the lambs - but then I've never read the book!

I haven't read any George Orwell either. But I will get to it as soon as finish my current book. And maybe I will see the movie too.

I am almost irrationally afraid of watching a book I've read - especially one where I love the charachters. They have a peculiar charm and are very personal when I read a book. I guess I am afraid that they would look and feel and be so impersonal in the movie!

And thank you aruLaracan. I will not watch 'Contact'

[Oldposts]

How about Shawshenk Redemption and The Green Mile? Both were excellent adoptions of the books by Stephen King. I'd say the same about The Rainmaker(John Grisham/Coppolla). Though the movie was slow moving, it was indeed a good one.

[Oldposts]

thanga (but please don't blame me if you ever happened to watch that movie and, god forbid, you liked it! ) ). george orwell is a great author. his animal farm is another classic. one of his not so widely read book is "down and out in london and paris".

how was MASH? i tried reading the book but couldn't go beyond a few pages

[Oldposts]

Vikram B Kumar.... Alive and kicking)

[Oldposts]

Under most circumstances, the novels have great
advantage over movies.

1. Length limitation. Movies have to be 90-100 mimutes long in the West and may be 150 minutes
in India. Novels can be shorter or longer depending on the material.

2. You set the pace while reading the novels,
the director sets it in the movies.

3. Your imagination is better than the director's
for you. I am not saying directors are cluless.
They are very perceptive but they dont know you
as much as you know yourself. For example, when
you read the sentence, "A strikingly beautiful
girl entered the room", you imagine a girl who
will be strikingly beautiful to you. The actress
cast by the director may or may not be "strikingly
beautiful" to you. When it comes to subtler
emotions and grand descriptions, the novel will
beat the movie.

When movies are better than novels:

4. The movies will beat novels in describing
undescribable things. Things beyond your
imagination. The death-star sets in
Star wars or the flight through asteroid field,
etc.

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.