I have done this a couple of times now and in each case, I usually find myself being disappointed with the way the book has panned out for me, with one big exception.
The first one is The Shining. Probably my favourite horror film directed by one of the best directors ever, Stanley Kubrick. I loved this film so much, and was so intrigued by it, i was very curious to read the book; But when i eventually read it, i found the film to be too ingrained in my head to let Stephen king's own version really capture me. In certain chapters, i was visualising scenes from the film, rather than something different; and when i noticed certain differences, they annoyed me, when in other circumstances, they might have impressed me. (In the book, the bit with the moving hedges for e.g)
The next one is American Psycho, a film i really liked. I found it strangely funny, and i really enjoyed the subtle satire that much of the dialogue was about. Recently I bought Bret-Easton Ellis' novel expecting it to be full of the same satire and wit; instead I got crude, and unbearably lengthy, descriptions detailing products and designer clothes. It was a nightmare to read, to be honest, as it is far less subtle than the film. At times, the violence seems gratuitous, and pointless; whereas in the film, the ambiguous interpretation at the end at least allowed the violence to have some kind of point. In all, i was disappointed.
Having said that, the one big exception for me, is trainspotting. The book is one of my absolute favourites; in a way I think it is a kind of masterpiece. It is very well written, very articulate. At times it is laugh-out-loud funny, hideously depraved, yet at the same time you find yourself moved by the characters. Very few books have done this for me.
Anyways, i could ramble all day about this...But has anyone else found this a problem? Maybe in future i should make a point to read the books first, rather than the other way round :innocent:
Btw, has anyone any suggestions about famous films where the book version is as good, if not better? It is a kind of weird hobby for me
The first one is The Shining. Probably my favourite horror film directed by one of the best directors ever, Stanley Kubrick. I loved this film so much, and was so intrigued by it, i was very curious to read the book; But when i eventually read it, i found the film to be too ingrained in my head to let Stephen king's own version really capture me. In certain chapters, i was visualising scenes from the film, rather than something different; and when i noticed certain differences, they annoyed me, when in other circumstances, they might have impressed me. (In the book, the bit with the moving hedges for e.g)
The next one is American Psycho, a film i really liked. I found it strangely funny, and i really enjoyed the subtle satire that much of the dialogue was about. Recently I bought Bret-Easton Ellis' novel expecting it to be full of the same satire and wit; instead I got crude, and unbearably lengthy, descriptions detailing products and designer clothes. It was a nightmare to read, to be honest, as it is far less subtle than the film. At times, the violence seems gratuitous, and pointless; whereas in the film, the ambiguous interpretation at the end at least allowed the violence to have some kind of point. In all, i was disappointed.
Having said that, the one big exception for me, is trainspotting. The book is one of my absolute favourites; in a way I think it is a kind of masterpiece. It is very well written, very articulate. At times it is laugh-out-loud funny, hideously depraved, yet at the same time you find yourself moved by the characters. Very few books have done this for me.
Anyways, i could ramble all day about this...But has anyone else found this a problem? Maybe in future i should make a point to read the books first, rather than the other way round :innocent:
Btw, has anyone any suggestions about famous films where the book version is as good, if not better? It is a kind of weird hobby for me
