As a general rule...

[rich_jacko]

...I don't do memes. This is mainly to do with trying to stick to my New Year's Resolution of wasting less time on t'interwebs, and only partly to do with expecting no responses to the current craze other than soul_rider being envious of my GameCube.

So instead I'll ask something entirely different (Woo! Rebellious!): Is it really worth seeing film versions of books you've already read?

Vice-versa I can understand. The film can give you a taste for wanting to read the "proper" story. But to me, reading the book first and then watching the film is akin to enjoying a many-course meal at a fantastic restaurant and then going to McDonalds.

The upcoming film versions of His Dark Materials and The Time Traveller's Wife give me The Fear. I'm already avoiding the Harry Potter films and I'll probably do the same for these.

Comments

[longhairedhippy.livejournal.com]

I don't always go to see "the film of the book", it depends. Mind you, sometimes I go merely to see what an awful botch job they've done in the adaptation.

Watchmen and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell are currently giving me the fear, but on the other hand, I can't wait for Stardust. I loved the book, and Neil Gaiman loves the film, so I'm banking on it being a good'un.

Is it really worth seeing film versions of books you've already read?

[morecake.livejournal.com]

On the whole, yes, unless it's been utterly panned. I like seeing other people's interpretations of a story and comparing it to the version I like, and seeing what the differences and similarities are.

[dave-chimaera.livejournal.com]

Generally it depends - if the film looks like its worth watching in its own right then yes, otherwise no.

Example: 300, Sin City, Jurassic Park were all books (comic or otherwise) that I loved but the films also looked very good as well. And for the most part were (Jurassic Park missed the depth of the book, but then it was a 2hr summer movie after all :) )

On the other hand theres Timeline which was a fairly enjoyable book but the movie looked absolutely excrable so was avoided.

Oh and the Harry Potter films are well worth watching IMHO - Each one has pretty successfully matched the tone of the source book.

I suppose a shorter version of my argument is "I take the film on its own merits - if it looks like something I want to see I'll watch it regardless of whether its a book I've read or not".

Hell, in some cases it can enhance the book - I clearly remember enjoying To Kill A Mockingbird a lot more after seeing the movie.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

Jurassic Park and The Princess Bride are the two exceptions I've thought of so far where I enjoyed the books and the films equally (or maybe even the films slightly better). In both cases, I saw the film first.

I've seen the first two Harry Potter films. The main problem I had with them is that the books are extremely episodic storytelling set over the course of a whole year. That doesn't really lend itself to a 2-hour film. You get the good vs. evil battles, but you don't get the sense of everyday life at Hogwarts that makes the books such a success. A TV series would have been a far better way to bring them to the screen IMHO.

[silverixnay.livejournal.com]

The films really get better as they go so I would strongly encourage you to watch 3 + 4 which we own if you want to borrow, or maybe arrange a time to watch at ours?

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

So I've heard, but I didn't particularly like the first two. Thank you for the offer, but I think I'll have to decline. I have to fight hard enough to keep the films out of my head when I'm re-reading the books as it is. I have a bit of a problem keeping film and book versions separate.

[pharrap.livejournal.com]

"Sometimes".

Sometimes remakes are better than originals, sometimes cover versions are better than the original artists, sometimes the film is better than the book, and yet sometimes they cast Matt Damon as Tom Ripley / Jason Bourne / James Tiberius Kirk / Matt Damon.

[thegreatgonzo.livejournal.com]

The Harry Potter films are much better than the books, but that isn't saying a right lot.

Often films can be good in different ways from the books, this is often the case with long detail heavy tech thrillers for example.

No film is bad *because* it has been made from a book.

[mathcathy]

I preferred the books.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

No film is bad *because* it has been made from a book.

Agreed. There are films I've enjoyed that are based on books, where I've read the book before, after, or have no inclination to read the book at all.

The films are a quick, easily digestible version of the story, and that's okay. Sometimes that's exactly what you want.

But I don't think I've ever seen a film (after reading the book) and gained any greater appreciation or enjoyment of the characters, the setting or the story.

More often than not, I find that what has been cut out (and quite necessarily cut out to make it work in any way as a film, I will readily admit) cheapens the experience for me.

[mathcathy]

Did you see the film version of Eragon? Was it any good?

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

I did and it really, really wasn't!

[bonedancer.livejournal.com]

The film version of Children of Men was actually better than the book.

[confuseddave.livejournal.com]

I think it probably depends on how well you can detatch yourself from the book. Obviously it's unrealistic to expect a film to capture every nuance of a book; but it's possible for some people to get het up about deviations which aren't necessarily bad per se, but absence of something expected is inescapably disappointing.

The example I'll quote is Everything is Illuminated. It was a pretty good film in it's own right, although an awareness of how much they'd changed from the book (out of necessity - it was a bit of a concept-driven book) did threaten to spoil it a little.

So basically, if you can let yourself be flexible, and appreciate how the director/actors/screenplay writers have interpreted source material that you've already interpreted (easy enough for me, because in a few months whatever I read becomes a bit hazy anyway - those with better memories might find it harder), there's no reason why films can be just as worthwhile as the book.

Sorry, long rambling answer... it's that time of night I think. :/

Everything Is Illuminated

[otter-girl.livejournal.com]

I saw that film because of Eugene Hutz and then read the book :D The book was really quite different...I didn't get why they made Alex's Grandfather's story so different in the film. It had a good soundtrack though, which you don't get in books :)

Re: Everything Is Illuminated

[confuseddave.livejournal.com]

As I say, I don't remember how different it was mostly because my memory of the book has gone hazy, but I do remember it being really different.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

I think it depends to a large extent on how attached I am to the book. I tend to be much happier about watching films of books I liked or thought were okay than I am about watching films of books I love.

Hence I was quite happy to watch film versions of Jurassic Park and The Lord of the Rings, but will be avoiding the films of The Time Traveller's Wife, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, and His Dark Materials like the plague.

[confuseddave.livejournal.com]

Fair call.

I often find that films are improved by having very low expectations... don't know if that'd work in this case, but if you know there's a risk it'll be bad and you prepare yourself for it to be really really awful you can only be pleasantly surprised.

[silverixnay.livejournal.com]

Would you avoid seeing a play because it's an adaptation of a book?

It's the same thing, I try to view everything in it's own right, but you naturally compare things. e.g. I love the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, but the film with Keira Knightly doesn't hold up to it, but I do recognise that for a film it is very good and well done. I also love the book.