Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by TA (A) on October 27, 2004 at 20:06:23

In Reply to: Re: name a movie that was better than the book posted by RGA on October 27, 2004 at 17:32:27:

> Gee you know I can't think of very many films that really blow the books away.

I think books have the advantage of being able to give more time to character development. Also, the pace of reading allows for more intertwined stories and details to unfold. That build-up of character development and detail creates a certain emotional punch when you get to the climax of a novel.

A filmmaker has to pick and choose his battles to fit it all into a limited time (the audience has to absorb it all in one sitting), and the emotional payoff has to be more quickly brought to a boil and focused on fewer themes and ideas. Craming everything from a book into a film would confuse the audience, who has to connect all the dots while trying to follow the action, or it would gloss over too much and water down the ultimate emotional payoff. That's why characters and subplots get the axe in movies based on books.

On the other hand, films can convey certain things that books cannot, although I tend to think it's more stuff to the gut than the mind (like a sexy scene or a sense of thrill).

I've been reading books more lately, and I was noticing how it produces a certain satisfaction that I hadn't had for a long time watching movies. Not better or worse, just differently satisfying. And I got reminded by a post in a thread below how many times people will say, "aw, the book was much better than the movie."

I suppose the next question is, if you loved the book, how excited are you to see the movie? Think about how many times you come out of the theater muttering, "aw, the book was better than the movie."

"HO, HO, HO!" - Santa Claus