Book and movie... before or after?
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41043
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
An Irish guy hate fairy stuff? are you unpatriotic or just homophobic?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Pappa
- Non-Practicing Anarchist
- Posts: 56488
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
- About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
- Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
- Contact:
Re: Bok and movie... before or after?
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Bok first, always.

Leaving aside the "book is always better" bit. If you watch the film first, your image of the story will always be tainted by the visual aspects of the film. If you read the book first, you get the image your minds creates from the words. Then later, you get the image the director of the film wanted to portray. You can appreciate both. That's spoiled if you watch the film first.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.
When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
Anybody who expects a movie to be faithful to a book is in for a great disappointment.Svartalf wrote:I'm talking dragging authors' good names into movies that are not actually related to the work they purport to carry, or making useless, pointless changes to the script from the original... possibly even ones that don't make sense and stretch suspension of disbelief beyond breaking.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Wrong. You're talking two different media, incompatible, and so unable to translate successfully back and forth. You couldn't put LOTR on the screen word-for-word, people would leave before they got to Buckleberry Ferry.Svartalf wrote:My general attitude also, except it usually leads me to want and impale a lot of movie makers, their script writers and their producers (well, the producers bear the nastiest responsibility, since they are often the ones responsible for the rest of the crew doing horrors to the material)
Movies are stories about the world created in the books. That's what they do. Books are movies with all the time in the world to paint a picture.
Give a man credit for being able to appreciate when a change is actually necessary to accomodate the new medium and its necessities. (like forgetting all about the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil and killing Saruman early)
- amused
- amused
- Posts: 3873
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
- About me: Reinvention phase initiated
- Contact:
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
Both.
I saw The Shining before reading the book. The movie is much better, IMO. I despise the LoTR movies and won't be seeing The Hobbit at all because it's a great book and I want to keep my own version in place in my mind's eye.
I saw The Shining before reading the book. The movie is much better, IMO. I despise the LoTR movies and won't be seeing The Hobbit at all because it's a great book and I want to keep my own version in place in my mind's eye.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
I read the LOTR in 1970, and had the images in my mind for decades before Jackson broke in and took them, without even crediting me.amused wrote:Both.
I saw The Shining before reading the book. The movie is much better, IMO. I despise the LoTR movies and won't be seeing The Hobbit at all because it's a great book and I want to keep my own version in place in my mind's eye.

- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41043
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
I expect a movie that puts the title of a well known work onto the poster to at least try to be a decent rendition of said work, allowing for the constrains of movie format and a modicum of artistic licence compatible with remaining a decent rendition.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Anybody who expects a movie to be faithful to a book is in for a great disappointment.Svartalf wrote:I'm talking dragging authors' good names into movies that are not actually related to the work they purport to carry, or making useless, pointless changes to the script from the original... possibly even ones that don't make sense and stretch suspension of disbelief beyond breaking.Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Wrong. You're talking two different media, incompatible, and so unable to translate successfully back and forth. You couldn't put LOTR on the screen word-for-word, people would leave before they got to Buckleberry Ferry.Svartalf wrote:My general attitude also, except it usually leads me to want and impale a lot of movie makers, their script writers and their producers (well, the producers bear the nastiest responsibility, since they are often the ones responsible for the rest of the crew doing horrors to the material)
Movies are stories about the world created in the books. That's what they do. Books are movies with all the time in the world to paint a picture.
Give a man credit for being able to appreciate when a change is actually necessary to accomodate the new medium and its necessities. (like forgetting all about the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil and killing Saruman early)
Well, Jackson didn't do so bad, I've withdrawn his sentence after seeing the extended versions of the movies... and the guy who did Blade Runner never even was put on trial. John milius, david lynch, verhoeven and coppola aren't getting off so easily.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
There are good adaptations, and bad adaptations. A blank statement just don't work, IMNSHO.
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
I've done two where book and movie were in the same 24 hour period.
One I read the book first ( Seabiscuit ) and the other The Big Year was the reverse.
Done well they compliment - that was the case with Seabiscuit. the other one the movie strayed enough they were different works but if you were not already a twitcher you might need to read the book to get it at all.
In LOTR - most had read the books long before and were thrilled when the movies brought it to life mostly as we imagined.
Read the Hobbit first.
One I read the book first ( Seabiscuit ) and the other The Big Year was the reverse.
Done well they compliment - that was the case with Seabiscuit. the other one the movie strayed enough they were different works but if you were not already a twitcher you might need to read the book to get it at all.
In LOTR - most had read the books long before and were thrilled when the movies brought it to life mostly as we imagined.
Read the Hobbit first.
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries
- Audley Strange
- "I blame the victim"
- Posts: 7485
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
- Contact:
Re: Book and movie... before or after?
Did someone mention The Shining?amused wrote:Both.
I saw The Shining before reading the book. The movie is much better, IMO.

It's my favourite movie. However the book, though different, I think is one of the greatest horror novels of the 20th century, much, much better than anything else King has ever written by far and it is such a brilliant and classic idea. I found it quite excellent.
On the main topic though, it's like comparing kitchens and concentration camps. They might both have gas ovens, but they bear little relation to each other.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Bok and movie... before or after?
Good point. Films necessarily put your imagination, in relation to the visuals at least, into a straitjacket. It is also impossible to give an accurate rendition of many passages of a novel. Film makers do not translate literary works. They interpret them. Some of those interpretations are really good, though, while others fail. And some directors and script writers feel free to merely allude to the original work their product is claimed to be based on - again with wildly varying results.Pappa wrote:Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Bok first, always.
Leaving aside the "book is always better" bit. If you watch the film first, your image of the story will always be tainted by the visual aspects of the film. If you read the book first, you get the image your minds creates from the words. Then later, you get the image the director of the film wanted to portray. You can appreciate both. That's spoiled if you watch the film first.
As for the book always being better than the film, I can think of at least two where this is not the case. Sam Peckinpah adapted Gordon Williams' novel, The Siege of Trencher's Farm, in 1971. Known as Straw Dogs, the film turned a predictable, one-dimensional, bland story of a mouse who became a man into a riveting depiction of chaos, irrationality and how little we are capable of determining our fate. Around the same time Ken Russel stripped the turgid stuff out of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love. The film version is eminently more watchable than the book is readable. Russel also adapted Aldous Huxley's historical novel, The Devils of Loudon, taking great liberties in the process. I like both the book and the film for what they are very much. Pity Russel never turned his skills to Huxley's other historical novel, Grey Eminence.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- klr
- (%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
- Posts: 32964
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
- About me: The money was just resting in my account.
- Location: Airstrip Two
- Contact:
Re: Bok and movie... before or after?
Lord of The Rings is a case in point. It's probably just as well that the movies made extensive use of the artwork by John Howe and Alan Lee, so the basic visuals at least conformed to the images I already had in my mind. But it could have been all very different ...Hermit wrote:Good point. Films necessarily put your imagination, in relation to the visuals at least, into a straitjacket. It is also impossible to give an accurate rendition of many passages of a novel. Film makers do not translate literary works. They interpret them. Some of those interpretations are really good, though, while others fail. And some directors and script writers feel free to merely allude to the original work their product is claimed to be based on - again with wildly varying results.Pappa wrote:Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Bok first, always.
Leaving aside the "book is always better" bit. If you watch the film first, your image of the story will always be tainted by the visual aspects of the film. If you read the book first, you get the image your minds creates from the words. Then later, you get the image the director of the film wanted to portray. You can appreciate both. That's spoiled if you watch the film first.
As for the book always being better than the film, I can think of at least two where this is not the case. Sam Peckinpah adapted Gordon Williams' novel, The Siege of Trencher's Farm, in 1971. Known as Straw Dogs, the film turned a predictable, one-dimensional, bland story of a mouse who became a man into a riveting depiction of chaos, irrationality and how little we are capable of determining our fate. Around the same time Ken Russel stripped the turgid stuff out of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love. The film version is eminently more watchable than the book is readable. Russel also adapted Aldous Huxley's historical novel, The Devils of Loudon, taking great liberties in the process. I like both the book and the film for what they are very much. Pity Russel never turned his skills to Huxley's other historical novel, Grey Eminence.
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers
It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson



- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Bok and movie... before or after?
They worked on the movies, so Rivendell and Lothlorien were just as one would expect.klr wrote:Lord of The Rings is a case in point. It's probably just as well that the movies made extensive use of the artwork by John Howe and Alan Lee, so the basic visuals at least conformed to the images I already had in my mind. But it could have been all very different ...
- klr
- (%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
- Posts: 32964
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
- About me: The money was just resting in my account.
- Location: Airstrip Two
- Contact:
Re: Bok and movie... before or after?
Can you imagine if they weren't used?Gawdzilla Sama wrote:They worked on the movies, so Rivendell and Lothlorien were just as one would expect.klr wrote:Lord of The Rings is a case in point. It's probably just as well that the movies made extensive use of the artwork by John Howe and Alan Lee, so the basic visuals at least conformed to the images I already had in my mind. But it could have been all very different ...

God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers
It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner
The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson



- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Bok and movie... before or after?
I can't imagine that project without them.klr wrote:Can you imagine if they weren't used?Gawdzilla Sama wrote:They worked on the movies, so Rivendell and Lothlorien were just as one would expect.klr wrote:Lord of The Rings is a case in point. It's probably just as well that the movies made extensive use of the artwork by John Howe and Alan Lee, so the basic visuals at least conformed to the images I already had in my mind. But it could have been all very different ...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests