Movie Ticket: $9.50, Paperback Version: $10.00

[scifi129]

Abbot compares the difference between the 17th century theater and bookshop, and how books had shelf-lifes compared to the huge, popular theater productions. I find the opposite true today with film and books. Movies are only in the theater for a select amount of weeks, a shelf life of their own, while paperbacks published from several years ago

Comments

[se101]

Be careful, you said that a movie-goer wants the same amount of substance from a movie as from a book. How do you really compare these two if the movie hasn't been adapted from the book.

A narrative's power, its characters and plot, can not just be graded simply on the page count or screen time. The emotional quality of the book or the film offers is what makes it good. I know of plenty of long books which are horrendous reads, in comparison to really good short 1 hour televison shows. Its not how long the book or movie is, its how well that piece of media gets its emotional and thematic message across.

-Ross

[digital_liz]

Ah, but what about movies that are considered better than the works they are derived from?

I know there are people out there who argue that the film version of The Princess Bride is far superior to the book version, because it cuts out a lot of the extraneous asides that Goldman inserts and makes it one cohesive narrative. I would go so far as to say that there are people out there who don't even know it was a book before it was a movie.

I think there's a serious slippery slope when it comes to adapting books (or plays or musicals) to film. We want the film to be as faithful to the original work as possible, but at the same time we want a tight, cohesive story that doesn't drag on for three hours like Return of the King did.

[ammamc]

Film adaptations of books are entirely new entities themselves. Yes, the events of the narrative and basic storyline may be the same, however once that book is transformed into a movie, it becomes almost a different narrative in how there is now a new narrator who is controlling the shots and cuts of the film--it is represented differently. The medium changes the narrative.

[jamiebussey86]

And thus, when I see adapted films like Harry Potter, I am emotionally crushed at what's left out from the books and what silly parts have been added. I have made it a rule of mine that I never read a book and then see the movie of it. I read the Count of Monte Cristo and loved it, and as soon as I was done reading it a modern version of it came out. I went and saw the movie, and it was done all wrong. I was soooo disappointed that I made it a rule to avoid reading a book and then go to see the movie of it. If anything I would do the reverse watch a movie and read the book afterward. For this reason I have not read any of the Harry Potter books, but I have seen all the movies so far. My point is that perhaps as a reader I have a hard time separating the book and the films as separate. I mean when I see a movie titled after a book I suspect it will be liked the book. I also recently came to another conclusion about this weird habit of mine. Recently I refused to go see Beowulf in the movies and it was because I had already read it