Poll #14: Book or Movie

[Andy]

Is the book better, or is it usually the movie based on the book?

[Imelda]

Book eight times out of ten. Jurassic Park is one of those one out of ten where the book is inferior to the film (in my opinion), and Stardust is in the final one-out-of-ten category where the book and film are equally awesome.

[Alex]

Usually books that are good enough to be made into movies are botched

[Rafael Domination]

Personally, I like both of them. I mean, what's the fuss all about? :D

Movies allow me to see living imagination without having to strain at it. Books allow me to imagine and re-create the world myself. I like it either way.

[Zaphkiel]

I like both as well, but books are usually better in my opinion, because they let us into the character more and provide good descriptions.

[jordanisonfire]

Books, 'cos movies ruin it most of the time. Books that are meant to be for young adults are made into movies for children and they put in the cheesy, supposed-to-be-humorous parts that just piss me off and ruin the book's good name.

[Carraka]

Book, book, book!

Yeah, there are exceptions, the movie ruins characterization and action and thought and plot and adds in frilly bows and perfect teeth.

A Song of Ice and Fire is going TV series, and I don't know whether to be excited that I'll finally see Jaime's awesome swordfighting, and his not-so-awesome-downright-evil fling of Bran from the tower, or nervous that HBO will somehow mess it up. Or maybe I should be fjsalkf;lakgjl;wO;E, because I don't have HBO.

Yup. Needed a reference to GRRM today.

[Nyx]

Mostly books for me, I agree with Jordan, I hate the cheesy children parts.

[Shaun]

Anyone who didn't say books has a lot to answer to...

[Rafael Domination]

Please Shaun! :D

Let's not be a psycho here too...


Anyhoo...

What about movies that BECAME books?

[Shaun]

Nope, because those books aren't real books, just wastes of paper :P

[Rafael Domination]

Why? :D

I mean, care to clarify?

[Shaun]

Well, because there really isn't any originality to it. You're writing a novelization of a movie that's already been made. It's like remaking Bambi...which would be idiotic. I just don't feel the same about movie tie-in's as I do about an original novel, or even a shared world novel.
Take the Star Wars stuff. Those aren't based on the movies, not really. They're based on Lucas' universe and take place at different times with the same or different characters. They contribute to the universe because they add new events and depth to things. A movie tie-in is just giving you a literary presentation of the movie...i.e. it's like taking the script and fiddling with it until it goes from script to novel.
Just not the same.

[Rafael Domination]

I see...

Seuooooo...what do you think is the boundary is, or when do you believe the movie becomes worse than the book?

[Shaun]

As soon as it poorly translates the book to the film...that's when...

[Rafael Domination]

So...if the movie is a good translation of the book, it's okay, right?

When does it become a poor translation. Does the movie have to deviate from the plot?

[Imelda]

Films often have to deviate from the plot. Using Stardust (cos it's awesome) as an example, the basic plot is the same--boy leaves village to enter fairy to get a fallen star, finds said star, has various problems, blah blah blah. The various problems are pretty much the same as in the book as well, but the emphasis on certain events are shifted. The flying pirate ship becomes more major because it works better visually.

HP and the Prisoner and Azkaban had a lot of promise--they captured the atmosphere, but then randomly decided to babble the actual plot ... riiiiiight. So deviating from the plot is fine ... it just has to make sense.

Now I'm babbling.

[Zombified]

Best example of this would be I Am Legend.

I Am Legend, was a great book. It took you in and made you feel like you really were trapped in a world full of vampire-zombies.
The characterization was incredible, and the story itself was the first of its kind.
The movie, however, changed around everything that was great about the book and just stamped the title on a Will Smith movie.
Not that it was bad, mind you, but that it was not nearly as good as the book.

Just throwing in my two cents.

[Shaun]

Well, I really enjoyed I Am Legend and think it to be one of the best films of last year, but it wasn't I Am Legend. They simply could have called it some other title and said it was based loosely on the book, because it isn't really like the book at all. It was a movie that showed how truly talented Will Smith really is.

[Zombified]

My thoughts exactly, Shaun.

Will Smith really did deliver a great performance.
And the movie itself was good, but it still wasn't Matheson's, I Am Legend.

[GeorgeMichael]

Shaun was a little disappointed when I didn't put I Am Legend on the poll for top movies of the year thread :)

But as for the book, after the movie I began hearing very good things about the book so I might want to check it out soon.

[Shaun]

That's true. It's not Matheson at all. I've not read the book, but I've read about it enough to know that the movie deviated a lot. The best thing they could have done for the film to make it please both parties was to call it "The Cricken Pandemic" or something like that and then put in the credits that it was based on the ideas presented within Matheson's book. Then we would have known that it wasn't the same as his book, but still took things from it. I Am Legend is certainly in the top 3 of my favorite Will Smith movies. He's always sort of been this goofy action hero guy, and after this it's just impossible not to see that he is by far one of the greatest actors of our time. I mean, when the dog, Sam, dies, and he goes into the video store and talks to the mannequin saying that he promised a friend he would say hello...that just tore me up. You could see the anguish, the utter pain and torment inside him. Can you imagine losing the only person in the whole world that meant anything to you knowing that there was no replacement. You couldn't find another friend, that was it. I could see that in his face and any actor that can actually tear me up inside with their visual presence deserves a freaking award. If he doesn't get nominated next year I'll be seriously pissed off.

[GeorgeMichael]

Now that we're on the subject I would also like to say that while I don't see it as the best of the year it is also definitely on my top three on Will Smith's movies. It's true his acting is incredible in this movie and it's a true testament to America's love of Will Smith. It broke box office records for December. It was a movie that for all people knew really had only one actor...and a dog. (I won't spoil anything) He had no one to work with pretty much and he carried the movie, I can't really think of many actors that can literally carry a movie on their own.

[Clawfire]

Books rock so much more than Movies…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anira]

I am a book purist! I can't see a movie based on a book without completely disassociating the two.

[FayGee]

Book is not usually better, it always is!

[lalodragon]

Books! I don't think there was a lot of debate here. ;)
2001 was the only one where the movie was actually better, and that was only because the book was written for the movie and the sequel (2010) lined up with the movie (going to Jupiter) not the book (going to Saturn).
I didn't even know there was a Jurassic Park book....

[Writer2105]

Depends on the writer and film director, as we submit it, so it depends on circumstances

[bookworm]

Books are usually better because there's time for detail. The film only includes the most important things that happened. Sometimes, though, the books are so bad that it's better without the details.

[wutheringheights]

I think it's half and half because the book is amazing and has so many more details, but I always love actually seeing the characters and watching the plot I'd read about (plus, I like whispering to my sister what's going to happen:D)