+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Community (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Community)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-The-Lounge)
+--- Thread: Book or Show first? (/Thread-Book-or-Show-first)
Pages:
1
2
Book or Show first? - Lou - 11-30-2015
When confronted with a new movie or TV show that was based on a book(s) that you haven't read. Do you watch the show first? or do you read the book first? or does it depend?
Bonus points for explaining and providing examples.
RE: Book or Show first? - Belle - 11-30-2015
(11-30-2015, 11:48 AM)Lou Wrote: When confronted with a new movie or TV show that was based on a book(s) that you haven't read. Do you watch the show first? or do you read the book first? or does it depend?
Bonus points for explaining and providing examples.
For me it's book first if at all possible.
First, I like to imagine what the characters will look like, but if I see even a trailer for a film the actors get stuck in my head.
Second, I like to see how the details and nuances of the book are translated to film.
Thirdly, if I see the movie first, I often don't get around to reading the book at at all.
Was so glad I read the Hunger Game series before I saw the films, even though I think the movies are really well done.
At the same time, I've never read the Walking Dead graphic novels, but that's mostly because I want to be surprised by the series, so it's a little different than a movie.
I will add that occasionally I do think a film is better than the book it comes from. If you've even seen the movie for Fried Green Tomatoes and then read the book, you might know what I mean. That movie is actually better than the novel, IMO.
Interesting question!
RE: Book or Show first? - wfmyers1207 - 11-30-2015
I've almost always read the books first. It's reading the books that give me any interest in seeing the movie. This has often led to disappointment however. Since Hollywood seldom does the books justice.
One exception. The Lord of the Rings trilogy. IMO they actually did those films well.
But, the Hobbit films were awful.
RE: Book or Show first? - jsgrimm45 - 11-30-2015
(11-30-2015, 11:48 AM)Lou Wrote: When confronted with a new movie or TV show that was based on a book(s) that you haven't read. Do you watch the show first? or do you read the book first? or does it depend?That can of depends I saw the Harry Potters movies first than read the books. In the past like the 50's 60's when I had time the books were out long before the movies now days it looks like the movies come so fast that you may not even have known books were out. I'm also cheapskate on books I wait until there are in paperback, so that my be my fault. For the most part I think the books are better and wish the movies would follow the book better. Also before I retired I don't have time (I worked jobs where I was on call) to read. Now with Terry Brooks I wish someone would do the movies as I have read 4 or 5 of his.
Bonus points for explaining and providing examples.
RE: Book or Show first? - izzy - 11-30-2015
Louis L’Amour was prolific writer in the western genre. His son Beau continues working with his father’s legacy today, cleaning up old mistakes, bringing forth new material that never was published, films etc. Anyway at some point his son made a comment to me that I found very interesting and one that changed my viewpoint on books vs movies. The comment was that a movie was not supposed to be a faithful adaption of just the book and that there is little point in doing the movie if all it does is animate a book. Given he is a writer, director etc, I gave credence to his words.
I was rather surprised by that, but after some other discussions I came to see that the primary tool the writer has is feeding your imagination which then fills in the gaps in the printed word and brings the story alive in your own head for you. A movie simply crystalizes one person’s interpretation and often it is harder for the audience to relate to then if they actually read the book. You can think of all the lousy, failed attempts to bring comic books to the screen before CGI allowed a more faithful adaption. For decades the mind brought the story to life far better than any movie could. And even now there is a lot of catch-up going on. So I agree with Belle, if you see the movie first you will likely crystalize a vision in your mind and take away the main tool of the writer, which is allowing your imagination to fill in the gaps for you.
Anyway back to Beau’s comments, a good example is when you look at the many adaptions of a Christmas Carol, some were very faithful adaptions of the book (ala Patrick Stewart) and some were relatively faithful adaptions that added to the storyline (aka Alastair Simms and George C. Scott). Simm’s film adding that Scrooge’s mother had died in childbirth and then adds a new element, that Scrooge became morally corrupted in business by his new mentor Jorkin and Scott fleshing out Scrooge’s time at school and illustrating his ruthlessness as a businessman among other touches including his relationship with his father and the small inheritance he was left that he parlayed into a fortune. And then other’s were adaptions that crippled the messaging of the book while adhering to its central principle )aka Owens 1938) noted for leaving out he two starving children “ignorance’ and ”want”, Scrooge’s fiancée who left him is ever mentioned, nor is Scrooge’s home ransacked.
So in the end, the book is the writer’s vision, and the movie is rather a wildcard depending on what the script called for and what survives the editing process. More than one director felt his movie was rewritten by the editing process.
RE: Book or Show first? - jsgrimm45 - 11-30-2015
(11-30-2015, 01:45 PM)izzy Wrote: Louis L’Amour was prolific writer in the western genre. His son Beau continues working with his father’s legacy today, cleaning up old mistakes, bringing forth new material that never was published, films etc. Anyway at some point his son made a comment to me that I found very interesting and one that changed my viewpoint on books vs movies. The comment was that a movie was not supposed to be a faithful adaption of just the book and that there is little point in doing the movie if all it does is animate a book. Given he is a writer, director etc, I gave credence to his words.Good READ. If you want a book and movie that is the same read Fail Safe and watch the movie. Just a minor change to the end.
I was rather surprised by that, but after some other discussions I came to see that the primary tool the writer has is feeding your imagination which then fills in the gaps in the printed word and brings the story alive in your own head for you. A movie simply crystalizes one person’s interpretation and often it is harder for the audience to relate to then if they actually read the book. You can think of all the lousy, failed attempts to bring comic books to the screen before CGI allowed a more faithful adaption. For decades the mind brought the story to life far better than any movie could. And even now there is a lot of catch-up going on. So I agree with Belle, if you see the movie first you will likely crystalize a vision in your mind and take away the main tool of the writer, which is allowing your imagination to fill in the gaps for you.
Anyway back to Beau’s comments, a good example is when you look at the many adaptions of a Christmas Carol, some were very faithful adaptions of the book (ala Patrick Stewart) and some were relatively faithful adaptions that added to the storyline (aka Alastair Simms and George C. Scott). Simm’s film adding that Scrooge’s mother had died in childbirth and then adds a new element, that Scrooge became morally corrupted in business by his new mentor Jorkin and Scott fleshing out Scrooge’s time at school and illustrating his ruthlessness as a businessman among other touches including his relationship with his father and the small inheritance he was left that he parlayed into a fortune. And then other’s were adaptions that crippled the messaging of the book while adhering to its central principle )aka Owens 1938) noted for leaving out he two starving children “ignorance’ and ”want”, Scrooge’s fiancée who left him is ever mentioned, nor is Scrooge’s home ransacked.
So in the end, the book is the writer’s vision, and the movie is rather a wildcard depending on what the script called for and what survives the editing process. More than one director felt his movie was rewritten by the editing process.
RE: Book or Show first? - irukandji - 11-30-2015
Do you ever wonder why someone would take a book and make it into a movie? For instance, Jaws. The book was boring and awful. Someone must have envisioned something there that could work. The movie was great, very scary on the big screen.
I am actually on the fence on this question. Salem's Lot is one of my all time favorite Stephen King stories. I also liked the mini-series as well, despite the differences in characterizations from book to screen.
I am a fan of the movie version of The Wizard of Oz. But I like the book much better. Same with Gone With the Wind.
RE: Book or Show first? - Belle - 11-30-2015
(11-30-2015, 01:45 PM)izzy Wrote: Louis L’Amour was prolific writer in the western genre. His son Beau continues working with his father’s legacy today, cleaning up old mistakes, bringing forth new material that never was published, films etc. Anyway at some point his son made a comment to me that I found very interesting and one that changed my viewpoint on books vs movies. The comment was that a movie was not supposed to be a faithful adaption of just the book and that there is little point in doing the movie if all it does is animate a book. Given he is a writer, director etc, I gave credence to his words.
I was rather surprised by that, but after some other discussions I came to see that the primary tool the writer has is feeding your imagination which then fills in the gaps in the printed word and brings the story alive in your own head for you. A movie simply crystalizes one person’s interpretation and often it is harder for the audience to relate to then if they actually read the book. You can think of all the lousy, failed attempts to bring comic books to the screen before CGI allowed a more faithful adaption. For decades the mind brought the story to life far better than any movie could. And even now there is a lot of catch-up going on. So I agree with Belle, if you see the movie first you will likely crystalize a vision in your mind and take away the main tool of the writer, which is allowing your imagination to fill in the gaps for you.
Anyway back to Beau’s comments, a good example is when you look at the many adaptions of a Christmas Carol, some were very faithful adaptions of the book (ala Patrick Stewart) and some were relatively faithful adaptions that added to the storyline (aka Alastair Simms and George C. Scott). Simm’s film adding that Scrooge’s mother had died in childbirth and then adds a new element, that Scrooge became morally corrupted in business by his new mentor Jorkin and Scott fleshing out Scrooge’s time at school and illustrating his ruthlessness as a businessman among other touches including his relationship with his father and the small inheritance he was left that he parlayed into a fortune. And then other’s were adaptions that crippled the messaging of the book while adhering to its central principle )aka Owens 1938) noted for leaving out he two starving children “ignorance’ and ”want”, Scrooge’s fiancée who left him is ever mentioned, nor is Scrooge’s home ransacked.
So in the end, the book is the writer’s vision, and the movie is rather a wildcard depending on what the script called for and what survives the editing process. More than one director felt his movie was rewritten by the editing process.
You bring up an important point about the author's perspective.
After reading the book Dune, I saw the movie and was completely disappointed. A little while later I saw an interview with the author Frank Herbert. Much to my shock, he raved about the film they made of his book. It's possible Herbert simply complimented the interpretation of his novel because it was in his best interest, but he seemed genuinely excited about what they did with his story.
I wonder if filmmakers who are adapting books to movies are more interested in making authors happy or simply creating films that will appeal to the broadest audience possible.
Either way, I imagine it's kind of a double-edged sword for authors. By signing on for a film adaptation of their book they can share their stories with a lot more people, but they have to give up a lot of control over their original vision in order to reach that expanded audience. It sounds as though L'Amour understands and embraces the changes that come along with that trade-off.
RE: Book or Show first? - izzy - 11-30-2015
(11-30-2015, 03:52 PM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: Good READ. If you want a book and movie that is the same read Fail Safe and watch the movie. Just a minor change to the end.
Thanks. I was thinking if you want to see movies that's only association with the novels are the title, try the James Bond series by Ian Fleming. The old joke was if they ever ran out of ideas for Bond films they could simply adapt the original novels.
(11-30-2015, 05:06 PM)irukandji Wrote: Do you ever wonder why someone would take a book and make it into a movie? For instance, Jaws. The book was boring and awful. Someone must have envisioned something there that could work. The movie was great, very scary on the big screen.
First a general comment. There is the opposite, when they make a book from the movie. Two examples spring to mind. Both the Night Stalker and Night Strangler were movies that became novels, although the Night Stalker was written before the movie, the movie was made, and that motivated a publisher to then publish the novel. But thee Night Strangler was Rice's adaption of a screen play by another author. Secondly, Louis L'Amour for example had to widely acclaimed books that were essentially books created from the screen play post movie release, Hondo and How the West was won. Hondo is a special case though, it was short story by L'Amour, called the Gift of Cochise that then became a screen play and movie; then L'Amour created the novel Hondo from the screen play based on his own work the Gift of Cochise - LOL!
About Jaws, you comment interests me. Maybe I was to young to "get it" when the movie came out, but the whole Hooper and Brody;s wife thing alluded me in the movie, but the novel made the affair very clear in graphic detail. I think that element was very lost in the movie, and the whole Hooper-Brody dynamic was lost in the movie.
(11-30-2015, 05:39 PM)Belle Wrote: It sounds as though L'Amour understands and embraces the changes that come along with that trade-off.
Louis L'Amour appears to have had nothing but contempt for th editorial process and the changes that would be made, but in the end if the check cleared that seemed to be the more pragmatic concern that won.
The son seems very honest, but he seems very different than his father. For instance one of the alterations he makes upon re-releasing a book is to make it more P.C. I am not fan of the whole P.C movement and personally I think you should let an author's or director's work stand is, but he can do as he wished with his family legacy.
The director comment, is my own bias against the colorization of classic films. If you want to see a disaster, watch the colorized version of it's a wonderful life. The Potter character is ruined in the color version.
Cheers...
RE: Book or Show first? - irukandji - 11-30-2015
(11-30-2015, 05:41 PM)izzy Wrote: About Jaws, you comment interests me. Maybe I was to young to "get it" when the movie came out, but the whole Hooper and Brody;s wife thing alluded me in the movie, but the novel made the affair very clear in graphic detail. I think that element was very lost in the movie, and the whole Hooper-Brody dynamic was lost in the movie.
I was interested in the background story behind Jaws, so I bought the book. I was actually more interested in the mechanics of the shark (nicknamed Bruce), but the story of the crew going up to Maine to film this blockbuster was really fascinating. Spielberg's vision for the film was to have the shark be the star of the movie, naturally. He didn't want big name actors to play in the roles. He also didn't like the characters in the book (I agree with him there). He took out the affair and made the characters into what we see on the screen. I thought they all had a terrific chemistry. That makes much more sense to me since they need to rely on each other on this boat chasing down a monster shark. I also liked the whole nice touch with the wife and kids. That made it a much more solid story than ruining it with an affair. The little boy imitating Brody at dinner is a classic.
I got to see the mechanical shark at Universal Studios in California. We were lucky because it was actually working the day we were there and it came right up next to the tram. It's a terrific effect. At Universal in Florida, we road a boat that the shark chased. Near the end of the ride, the shark gets blown up. Totally fun.