Hmm.. Movies based on books, from my experiences, aren't really all that great compared to the books.
The HP movies may look all spectacular and stuff, but the books have so much more depth and left out scenes and stuff. I haven't seen them all, though. Nor read them all, either.
Although I DO prefer the movies of the Bourne series. It's way different than the book series, but it's done much better. I mean.. in the book series, Bourne is an old man... jumping off roof tops. That's like... no.
Attention TFF! We're no longer nazis as we're perceived to be. Check page one for the new, improved regime!
==========
"I could care less." irks me as well. When used incorrectly. Obviously if it's used correctly then it's fine. (Duh, Rocco)
I agree entirely. Most movies adapted from books that I have seen pale in comparison to their original form. The HP movies are a prime example of this. The movies look pretty, but the script is hardly faithful to the book and lacks the brilliance of Rowling's writing. Harry is way too brilliant in the movies, whereas in the books he's really only average. Hermione is obviously the lead. Hehe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistress Sheena
Do you hear what you're saying, Rocco?
In the movies.... he's brilliant. But in the films.... he's a genius. o_o;
So which is he? XD;
You've kinda got me stumped there, bucko.
I believe that what Rocco means is that in the books, Harry is a complete dolt whereas in the movies he is depicted as an utter genius.
I concur. Harry Potter, especially, has slaughtered the books. Storylines gone, character personalities changed, HarryxHermione insinuated, Harry brilliant, Hermione in the background.. argh.
I also saw the Eragon movie when it came out a while ago. It was awful. Made a mockery of the book. But, as I recall, it was done by Spyglass and they screwed up the Chronicles of Narnia movies. That said, Prince Caspian was infinitely better than The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.
I think the only book-to-movie conversion I have been able to bear so far has been The Lord of the Rings. I can't stand it when they alter storylines. Yeah, it makes it shorter and easier to film. But it completely wrecks the story that people wanted to go and see on screen. :\
I don't get it. Why make a movie of something popular so people can see a representation of it on the big screen and then massacre it brutally so that it's not even recognisable? Well, recognisable, but nothing like as good as the book.
I do not like it. I do not like it at all.
I've given up on movies being better than books after seeing the screen adaptation of The Cider House Rules. I was so confused watching that film. Most of the characters were there, but they were doing completely different things, along completely different storylines.
A taster: In the book, Homer and Candy's son Angel discovers that Rose Rose is pregnant with her father's baby. It is he, in a beautiful twist of irony, who drives the unwilling abortionist, his father, to accept his identity and his role, and the good it can do.
In the film, Angel doesn't exist, and Homer finds out about Rose Rose through gossip in the orchard. He is not promoted in the film, thus spending most of his time with the pickers, so he finds out alone. Nurse Caroline, a pivotal character, doesn't exist either. Dr Larch is SLEEPING WITH (in the book he is celibate) Nurse Angela. And Fuzzy Stone seems far too old.
So yeah. Books are pretty much always better than their screen translations. I've only seen one of the HP films, and it even managed to suck more than the books do.
Actaully, one conversion I really liked was LOTR. I preferred the films to the books by a fair margin, actually. I really don't like Tolkien's style, and he never had enough of the smoochin' going on for my tastes.