• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Best book to movie?

I fell asleep for the first hour of the Hobbit.
When I woke up I didn't feel I had missed anything, was it all as boring?
 
Sparhawk said:
Someone may have mentioned it already but so far I am loving the Hobbit movies. The added layers fill out the story while not taking away from the original story.
Click to expand...

I liked the first one a lot but the second one not so much. I really wished they weren't adding characters and love interests that didn't exist... Also I don't see the point of putting Legolas on the action. I'm actually glad I read the book more than 10 years ago, so I don't remember many details of it or I would be even more pissed!
 
Landslide said:
I liked the first one a lot but the second one not so much. I really wished they weren't adding characters and love interests that didn't exist... Also I don't see the point of putting Legolas on the action. I'm actually glad I read the book more than 10 years ago, so I don't remember many details of it or I would be even more pissed!
Click to expand...

I thought the first one was really slow and boring and have not seen the second one.
I really do not see the point of altering the story, I never do though, no matter what the book and film happens to be.
 
My vote for best book to movie would be for Spartacus.
Classic film, very good novel, though it claims to be partly factual.
 
Răspunsul said:
I thought the first one was really slow and boring and have not seen the second one.
I really do not see the point of altering the story, I never do though, no matter what the book and film happens to be.
Click to expand...

the point is that all the details in books do not translate well to movies. The scriptwriter, director and editor have decide what story (out of the stories) to tell, what scenes (out of the many) best drive that story forward in a visual medium and in that process much gets left out, some gets changed and some gets added in.

Its like comparing the programming code (the book) which has every single little detail with the software interface (the movie) the user works with which is usually very visual these days.
The book has to tell you what is happening, while the movie shows you. These two things are not the same at all.
 
Landslide said:
I liked the first one a lot but the second one not so much. I really wished they weren't adding characters and love interests that didn't exist... Also I don't see the point of putting Legolas on the action. I'm actually glad I read the book more than 10 years ago, so I don't remember many details of it or I would be even more pissed!
Click to expand...

I like what he is trying to do with the Hobbit movies. Which is to add all the stories and histories that were in the appendix of LOTR and bring them into the story to give a fuller picture. So far I think he has done that very well :)
 
Sparhawk said:
I like what he is trying to do with the Hobbit movies. Which is to add all the stories and histories that were in the appendix of LOTR and bring them into the story to give a fuller picture. So far I think he has done that very well :)
Click to expand...
I liked that too, and I thought it was brilliantly done in the first movie. But Legolas had no participation in the events of the Hobbit and I really didn't mind the introduction of Tauriel until I realized where it was going, aka,
turning into Fili's romantic interest
 
Sparhawk said:
I like what he is trying to do with the Hobbit movies. Which is to add all the stories and histories that were in the appendix of LOTR and bring them into the story to give a fuller picture. So far I think he has done that very well :)
Click to expand...

and in the additional histories :) he has brought together a whole lot of Middle Earth lore that is spread out through all the books into the hobbit movies.
 
Sparhawk said:
That doesn't sound so bad IMO.
Click to expand...
It felt unnecessary IMO, Legolas brings nothing to the story except a wink at the fans, and a lot of the fans (like myself) weren't particularly happy with said wink...
As for Tauriel, I didn't mind her that much, except for the reason mentioned above.
 
Sparhawk said:
I like what he is trying to do with the Hobbit movies. Which is to add all the stories and histories that were in the appendix of LOTR and bring them into the story to give a fuller picture. So far I think he has done that very well :)
Click to expand...

In that case it would've been better if the message, 'based on characters created by Tolkein', had been posted at the beginning of the film. If it wasn't then I don't think he should mess with the story.
 
Răspunsul said:
In that case it would've been better if the message, 'based on characters created by Tolkein', had been posted at the beginning of the film. If it wasn't then I don't think he should mess with the story.
Click to expand...

I still don't think that he has messed with it that badly or that much, but then that is just IMO :)
 
Giu said:
You're not the only one! Despite this, I have loved the book.
Click to expand...

Would you describe it as an adult book though?
Elves, dwarves; sort of disney area, do you not think? Having said that what child would sit through the first hour of the Hobbit? It was a tremendous anticlimax after the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
 
Meadow337 said:
the point is that all the details in books do not translate well to movies. The scriptwriter, director and editor have decide what story (out of the stories) to tell, what scenes (out of the many) best drive that story forward in a visual medium and in that process much gets left out, some gets changed and some gets added in.

Its like comparing the programming code (the book) which has every single little detail with the software interface (the movie) the user works with which is usually very visual these days.
The book has to tell you what is happening, while the movie shows you. These two things are not the same at all.
Click to expand...

Well put. I would only add that even if the intentions of the director and company are as pure as an infant's thoughts the fact remains these projects only exist for the purpose of potential profit. We received a visual representation of a story we love that I feel was worth the trade for a bit of artistic license on the producer's part.
 
Sneezy said:
Well put. I would only add that even if the intentions of the director and company are as pure as an infant's thoughts the fact remains these projects only exist for the purpose of potential profit. We received a visual representation of a story we love that I feel was worth the trade for a bit of artistic license on the producer's part.
Click to expand...

The fact is that movies will never be the same as the books that inspired them even if everyone who is making is faithful to every page of the book. It can't be done and to be honest I don't think that it would be a good thing if it could be done. :)
 
A case in point is the upcoming movie depicting the Honor Harrington space opera series by David Weber. In the books all of the opposing forces operate naval warships that look nearly identical to each other. This makes perfect sense if we assume that all of the antagonists are on or about the same technological level. Physics would be understood in roughly the same way and the ship designs would inevitably be very similar to the point of interchangeability insofar as external appearance is concerned. Think back to the Russian unveiling of Buran. I still remember the rumbling about the similarity to the USA's shuttle and how that stood as proof positive that they stole the design. :rofl

But I digress. One of the first thing's Mr Weber stated in his announcement (I am sure for the benefit of the purist crowd) was that the starships he spent decades describing in minute detail would not be roughly identical across all navies of his universe. Since the movie was a visual medium it would be confusing to the audience with no benefit of the extended descriptions possible in the print format. Personally, I am more interested to see who they cast as Honor. Finding an actress that fits her physical description is going to be a tall ;) order. More AL on the way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top