books that are turned into movies

[PyRo]

Re: books that are turned into movies

Originally posted by illshowumyramrod
I don't understand this. I am not a big fan of Lord of the Rings. Actually I hate it.

Thank you :)

[Miscue]

The book for Forrest Gump was kinda stupid, I think the movie was much better. Tolkien is a really slow read... makes you sleepy.

[breg]

It's been my opinion that when a large detailed book is made into a movie, the end result is not that good. But, if you take a 20 or so page short story, and use that as a basis for the movie, then it's not too bad.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally posted by Steelrat
...

Wanna see a book murdered in conversion to a movie? Check out "Starship Troopers."

True. The movie bears very little relationship to the book. Same basic storyline, but told in an entirely different manner, glossing over the central theme. But I think the movie as done was more commercially viable than if they had stuck closer to the book.

I'd like to see more of Heinlein's stuff done on film. "Friday" comes immediately to mind.

[Eric Cartman]

I'm a voracious reader and I've read a lot of books by the authors mentioned in this thread. LOTR is definitely in the top 5 things I have ever read and I was horrified when I heard that they were making live action movies out of the books. I'd seen the animated attempts and thought that they were terrible. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the movies turned out. The vast majority of movies I have seen that were based on books I had read were, in my opinion, terrible. I hate it when I really enjoy a book and then someone comes along and gives their interpretation of the story on film. I think everyone creates pictures in their minds of characters that they are reading about. Everyone is going to have their own idea of what the characters should look like and sound like, so any single person's interpretation is bound to be different (and probably disappointing) to a lot of people who are seeing it. I thought taht the miniseries that was made out of Steven King's "The Stand" (also in my personal top 5) was an atrocious piece of garbage and should never have been made. I get far more out of reading a book than seeing a movie, but sadly I know I'm in the minority as far as that goes.

I don't know why I bother watching a lot of movies that will probably not even come close to the book. I guess it's the same kind of morbid facination that makes people look at train wrecks

[fire1811]

they should remake a new movie version of The Birds

chaw chaw

[Thordic]

Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Raymond Feist, and most fantasy authors are books for idiots. I'm sorry to have to say this but its true.

They churn out easy-to-read mass-produced crap, they are the Britney Spears of the fantasy genre. Their books are mindless pop.

I cannot stand them, they are terrible writers, IMO. The only reason they are "popular" is because a) the Fantasy field is a rather small one, so there isnt a lot of competition, and B) They are dumbed down to the read doesn't have to think.

I'll prolly take a lot of flak from these "author"'s fans, but I don't care, I'm used to it. But calling them "good" while saying Tolkein sucks just pisses me off, you are only demonstrating your own ignorance.

Tolkein's work is boring and dull for those who either don't want to think or those who refuse to imagine. For those out there who love to read, Tolkein sets up an amazingly constructed world full of detail that allows you to draw the story for yourself in your head. If you knew how to skim, the songs don't bother you, you can skip right by them quickly, getting the gist of them without reading every word.

Tolkein is no shakespeare, and yes, his language is a tad dry and he tends to be wordy, however when you put it all together the end result is MUCH more than simply the sum of its parts.

I'll make no comments about the Simarillion, though. That book isn't quite the same, but I don't think he set out for it to be either.

[Eric Cartman]

I've tried to read The Silmarillion about 5 times now and I just can't do it. I think Tolkien was a wonderful author, but I just can't get into that book. As far as Tolkien being no Shakespear, thank god for that! Now Shakespear was a lousy author. I'm not saying that because of the language, I just thought his storylines sucked! To each their own I suppose.
I think Thordic's being a bit harsh calling the works of the authors he mentioned "books for idiots". While they may not be the most cerebral works ever written, they are enjoyable light reads for a lot of people and I see no harm in that. Not everyone is at the War and Peace level, and you should read whatever you enjoy. I think that the reason that so few people read as opposed to just turning on the TV and surfing for hours is that their first experiences with reading are plowing through mind numbingly boring stuff like The Old Man & The Sea or Steinbeck's The Pearl and then having to analyze the book and find hidden meanings in every passage that the author never intended in the first place. Fortunately I was introduced to reading at home at an early age before school was able to ruin it for me. Not everyone has that advantage and that's a real shame.

[Thordic]

There's nothing wrong with books for idiots, Clive Cussler has made his career out of writing them. Its when people try to say they are better than established authors works that I get upset.

As for Shakespeare being terrible, there's two ways to look at Shakespeare when you really study him (I've studied his works in numerous classes, in addition to taking two courses focused solely on his works).

One, he wrote to entertain. He wasn't trying to make great literature, he was trying to write plays that were entertaining and made him money. His plays are full of dirty jokes and low-brow humor to attract the common man to his plays. Your average un-educated worker of the time would probably skip the theatre, but Shakespeare made it fun for them.

Two, his plays have incredible depth. Sure, I think that some people go overboard in trying to "interpret" him, but if you REALLY read the plays, the complexity he wrote into them is amazing. His writing ability was tremendous, he commanded total mastery of the english language. There are levels to his plots and stories your casual reader will never notice. For example, I've read Othello countless times, written at least 5 major papers on it, and studied it in 4 or 5 classes in varying degrees of depth, and while now you could probably say I'm fairly expert on the topic compared to most people, there are still things that I find upon each re-reading. That is what makes shakespeare great. His "main" storyline may seem weak to you, but if you studied it more, theres other things going on that you weren't even aware of.

[Thordic]

Note: Yes, I'm an English major with a concentration in Literature :)

[Eric Cartman]

Hey whatever floats your boat. The fact that Shakespear is so widely known to this day speaks volumes about how his work is perceived. You're clearly a fan, and more power to you. He just doesn't do it for me. I don't want to have to work at liking a book / play. I want something that grabs me right away. The kind of story that I can't put down because I'm dying to find out what happens next (even if my eyes are closing and I have to go back and re-read the last few pages)

There's nothing wrong with books for idiots, Clive Cussler has made his career out of writing them. Its when people try to say they are better than established authors works that I get upset.

I guess it's the fact that people who have different tastes and enjoy a lighter reading experience are idiots in your estimation that I have a problem with. If they are books for idiots, then it stands to reason that the fans of those books are idiots, myself included (Robert Jordan isn't perfect by a long shot, but I've thoroughly enjoyed the earlier books of The Wheel of Time).
I think that "better" is really a subjective term. It really amounts to what you enjoy more. If an author writes an incredibly intricate story with plot twists galore and numerous sub-plots and packs the book full of big impressive words and demonstrates an impressive mastery of the language, his story may still not appeal to me in any way and therefore an inferior author's work may be "better" to me. While he may not posess the skills of the other author, he is still the better author to me.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read George RR Martin or Terry Pratchett? I'm interested to get your impressions of them if you have.

Cheers.

[Thordic]

Fans of books for idiots aren't necessarily idiots. I personally think Clive Cussler is a terrible writer, but I own almost all of his books. They make for great reading at lunchtime. They are entertaining and easy to read.

I call them books for idiots because ANYONE can read them an enjoy them, even an idiot. There's no greater plot to understand, no subtleties to master. Theres no work required on the readers end to get everything the book has to offer. And theres nothing wrong with that, not only does it provide for stuff to read, but it makes bundles of money.

I'm all for books like that, because it introduces people to reading. See, the thing about reading is, quite often, once you get started, you are hooked. Eventually, fans of these sorts of books will want more, they will want a challenge, and then they'll move on to something higher.

Am I a perfect reader? Of course not. I have to struggle through some books (The Plague, by Albert Camus, is my current book, and its not easy to read. His writing style either doesn't translate well to english or is just generally hard to get through. But I make myself work at it.) The more you read, the more you want to read.

The only problem I have is when people who read these sort of books suddenly fancy themselves movie critics (Its like those people who only watch romantic comedies think they should suddenly start critiquing Stanley Kubrick movies). When reading, you should always keep a sense of humbleness. Thats my main complaint.

As for those two authors, no I havn't read them. I read about a book every day or two, though, so maybe I'll take a look at them.

[Eric Cartman]

FYI Pratchett's an English author who writes a fantasy series based on the Discworld. It's more comedy than fantasy and I've never laughed so hard at the written word. His work is completely silly (think Monty Python) and priceless.
George RR Martin is writing a fantasy series called A Song Of Ice & Fire. It's a very good series, but at the rate he's killing off the good guys, I'm thinking maybe the bad guys will win one after all, and that's kind of refreshing.

[Thordic]

Out of all the 'modern' fantasy writers I've read, my favorite is probably David Eddings.

Piers Anthony is also a favorite of mine, and his books are about as dumb as they come :)

[Eric Cartman]

Out of all the 'modern' fantasy writers I've read, my favorite is probably David Eddings.

Doesn't it bother you that the good guys always win with him? Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed his books, but his good guys never even face a serious setback let alone a good maiming or killing. They absolutely alway come through in the crunch. I want to see someone get offed!

I read all of the Piers Anthony when I was younger, but I don't follow his stuff anymore. There's only so much punning I can handle:)