I might be alone on this one, but I think there's some value to watching a movie of a story before reading the book that the movie was based on. Now, I agree that most book versions are significantly better than the movie, for several reasons - the story is more developed, both plot and character-wise, books let you imagine what things look like for yourself, and they don't have to aim for sensationalism in order to sell, like movies do. Thus story isn't sacrficed for explosions. (Not that there's anything wrong with explosions, mind you. Personally, I found it awesome in XXX 2: State of the Union when random vehicles and buildings started exploding just because Ice Cube looked at them or walked past them. He's that badass.) And I can also see the distincting between sitting down for two hours and watching a movie that you already know what happens versus committing yourself to spending 10 or more hours reading a book when you already know what happens (for those of us who aren't speed readers, KH.)
But for my money, I like to be entertained both ways. This way, when I go to see movies like The Da Vinci Code, I can enjoy the movie for what it is, not complain about what it's lacking. I may have been the only person I know of who thought that movie was okay, primarily because I didn't have a superior version to compare it to. Now, if I wanted to, I could read the book, find out all the ways that the book is far superior, and be entertained by that too. Or Harry Potter, for example. I didn't catch on when the books first came out, but I did watch the movies. They weren't bad (except the second one), but the story didn't really excite me that much. Then Goblet of Fire came out, and that was awesome, even to people who'd read the books. So after much coaxing, I went back and read them. Sure enough, the books were generally better (except the second one, which was still craptastic), and provided a lot more depth and explanation to what I'd seen in the movies. And this should pretty much hold true to any series I try, because the books are almost always much better.
On the other hand, some movies could scare me off of the books completely. Take The Lost World for example. The first Jurassic Park movie was pretty cool, but the second one blew some serious goats. Thankfully I had already read the book, which I thought was excellent. But if I had seen the movie first, I never would have ventured into the words on paper version.
Other times, who knows. I saw Children of Men in the movies first, and I thought that was a stunning movie, pretty much incredible. I heard that the book was almost completely different. Like instead of becoming a desperate, violent society like in the movie, the world had become peaceful because humans realized that no one was being born to replace the dead, and humanity would soon reach the brink of extinction. Now maybe the movie picked a bleak, violent future because that would provide more action and tension. Or maybe the producers and director thought that would be more realistic. I'm not too sure I don't agree. The despair in the movie may have made it too dark of a picture for some, but I thought it was awesome. In fact, one moment in the movie actually reduced me to tears, which is not something that happens at the theater much anymore. (Not to give too much away for those who haven't seen it, but when everything stopped and the soldiers put down their weapons, if only for a second - - to me, that was moving.) So I don't know if I would have liked the book more, because it sounds like it would have been lacking some of what I found so compelling in the movie. Who knows.
Point is, I think it's time to start reading the Lord of the Rings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with your point to a certain degree. I think that, had I not read Harry Potter before seeing the movies, I would have enjoyed the movies more because I wouldn't have been so angry that they left out or changed so many important things. On the other hand, specifically in the instance of Harry Potter, it would have sucked to read the books second because, since the films have stayed pretty close to the books plotwise, the suspense while reading the book would be diminished. On the other hand, that might not happen to the same degree with something like Children of Men, where the two diverge so much that knowledge of one doesn't spoil the story in the other.
Having said all that, The Lord of the Rings books, while good and classic, and interesting if you love backstory (as I do), aren't nearly as good as the movies, in my opinion.
I have to strongly disagree with Andy. Like nearly every book that has been made into a movie, the LOTR books are significantly deeper in plot, character development and the mythology that underlies the story. The movies are spectacular for what they are and are, without a doubt, everything I hoped they would be. However, in my opinion, Andy saying the movies are better than the books is analogous to his constant assertion that Superman Returns: Chia Continent is the best superhero movie ever made.
Let me explain a little. I think you're right that the LotR books are excellent, and that they deserve to be read. I also agree, of course, that their plot is deeper, their characters richer, their backstory more comprehensive, and their finale more satisfying. However, the books also literally include 40-page stretches of Frodo and co. walking through the woods doing nothing interesting at all.
The movies, thankfully, have omitted all of that and streamlined the story. At times, they did that at the expense of the depth and richness (that's why I like the extended editions much, much better than the theatrical releases) but, for the most part, they've cut out the stuff that sucked and kept the stuff that was awesome, while still keeping, in my opinion, the most moving minutes. For example, who isn't moved every time that Gandalf and Merry stand at Minas Tirith looking into Mordor? Or when Gandalf and Frodo are talking about whether Gollum should have been killed? Or when Gandalf fights the Ballrog? (Can you tell Gandalf's my favorite character?)
So that's why I think that the movies were better: the entertainment to not entertainment ratio is much higher.
And you're wrong. I don't thing Superman Returns was the best superhero movie ever. It's my overall favorite movie of all time. So there.
You're clearly right that no book could parallel the sheer awesome effect of ice cube in XXX: State of the Union. Actually, I think I could write the book in about ten pages...Chapter one, badass prison break, two: intrigue, three: lots of explosions, four: welcome to the first tankjacking in history. Five: credits and rock music.
But in all reality, the books tend to be alot better than the movies. One of my favorites happens to be The Firm. Although Tom Cruise is one of the greatest actors of all time (if not one of the greatest people of all time), he just didn't do Mitch McDeere justice in the movie. But fear not, Gary Busey more than made up for his shortcomings.
Post a Comment