Hey!! Let's get some action going! What are we reading?

[Hampshire Nanny]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Sometimes I prefer to watch the movie rather than read the corresponding book. This is especially so for science fiction where much of the story is visual. It also removes the filler material and info dumps.

In most cases I prefer to read the book first. I'm OK if the movie deviates from the book, particularly if its done very well. I simply choose to think of it as being a variation on the original. (Think -- the recently published books using Jane Austen's characters.)

My daughter is like you when it comes to SF. She won't read the books, but likes movies. When I asked her why, she says it's because of the vocabulary. When she comes to a word that she doesn't recognize, she doesn't know if it's a person, a place, a tool, or what. In a movie, when a character picks up a thing called a "phaser", aims it at someone, and an energy ray comes out the front, she knows exactly what it is.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Very ocassionally, the adaption proves to be better than the original. I found this with Wicked by Gregory Maguire. I found the musical to be much better than the novel.

The music in the book was awful.

[bfisher]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

I have experienced that once: The Andromeda Strain

I liked the book more than the movie. I read the book first, so perhaps that affected my opinion.

[JSWolf]

A movie that NEEDED the book to be read first is Dune. The movie is so bad, that it would have been confusing had I not read the book first.

[Dngrsone]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A movie that NEEDED the book to be read first is Dune. The movie is so bad, that it would have been confusing had I not read the book first.

Too true.

I am between books right now... don't want to start anything until I can see what my reading/writing workload will be in class.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The music in the book was awful.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by bfisher

I liked the book more than the movie. I read the book first, so perhaps that affected my opinion.

I liked the original 1971(?) movie better than the book and the book better than the much more recent mini-series.

[cromag]

Then there are some movies that I see and find helpful (even if the movie is terrible). For example, Dune. Back in the 70s I read the book, then saw the movie, then read the book again. Every character had three names, and the movie helped me get an idea of who was doing what with whom. After the movie and the second reading, I finally felt like I understood it.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A movie that NEEDED the book to be read first is Dune. The movie is so bad, that it would have been confusing had I not read the book first.

As one who has never read the book(s) I have to agree. What I remember of the movie is gross and confusing.

[Put your hand in the box.]

[Lin2412]

Originally Posted by Hampshire Nanny

In most cases I prefer to read the book first. I'm OK if the movie deviates from the book, particularly if its done very well. I simply choose to think of it as being a variation on the original. (Think -- the recently published books using Jane Austen's characters.)

My daughter is like you when it comes to SF. She won't read the books, but likes movies. When I asked her why, she says it's because of the vocabulary. When she comes to a word that she doesn't recognize, she doesn't know if it's a person, a place, a tool, or what. In a movie, when a character picks up a thing called a "phaser", aims it at someone, and an energy ray comes out the front, she knows exactly what it is.

Needless to say your daughter seems to be more visual (I have to say I agree with her logic!). (If it's SF movie, it less brain-straining compared to reading and imagining the setting and circumstances so her words are pretty reasonable.)

[JSWolf]

One issue you can sometimes get is that if you see a movie before reading the book, you get the picture of the movie makers in your head when you read instead of what you would have imagined. It's not that the movie is a bad fit for the book, but it can be good to have your own imagination at work instead.

[Hampshire Nanny]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One issue you can sometimes get is that if you see a movie before reading the book, you get the picture of the movie makers in your head when you read instead of what you would have imagined. It's not that the movie is a bad fit for the book, but it can be good to have your own imagination at work instead.

I find that if I've seen a movie or TV series before I read the books, for the most part the faces that I visualize are those of the actors. This was particularly true with the Miss Fisher Mysteries TV series based on Kerry Greenwood's series with Phryne Fisher.

[Dngrsone]

Though there are times... when I read Hunt for Red October (after seeing the movie-- I was impressed enough even though thre was a Baldwin in it), my immediate impression was that Harrison Ford should play the main character.

[Hampshire Nanny]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

Though there are times... when I read Hunt for Red October (after seeing the movie-- I was impressed enough even though thre was a Baldwin in it), my immediate impression was that Harrison Ford should play the main character.

Now there's a set of movies where the casting *never* fit my mental picture of the characters, though Sean Connery was a reasonable fit for the Russian sub captain. You're right about Harrison Ford, he was the best Jack Ryan. Neither Alec Baldwin or Ben Affleck seemed to match my idea. And the biggest mistake they made was in casting James Earl Jones for Admiral Greer. The face in my head was sort of like John Mahoney (the father in Frasier) or James Whitmore.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by Hampshire Nanny

Now there's a set of movies where the casting *never* fit my mental picture of the characters, though Sean Connery was a reasonable fit for the Russian sub captain. You're right about Harrison Ford, he was the best Jack Ryan. Neither Alec Baldwin or Ben Affleck seemed to match my idea. And the biggest mistake they made was in casting James Earl Jones for Admiral Greer. The face in my head was sort of like John Mahoney (the father in Frasier) or James Whitmore.

I really liked the Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford adaptations, they didn't match the books exactly, but they were good movies in their own rights. I didn't realize Ben Affleck played Jack Ryan though.

Pretty sure that never happened. (Sticks fingers in ears)...I CAN'T HEAR YOU....