Lois’s answer to “Hi Lois, this is Albert from Minneapolis, we have met at CONvergence many years ago. I would like …” > Likes and Comments
14 likes · Like
Whenever I see an on-screen version of a book, the book is almost always better. Occasionally the translation to screen works well enough; for example, with “Good Omens” and the Harry Potter series. In both cases, I think the author was given more influence than usual on the screen version.
"much is what of most interest to readers including the humor is actually happening inside his head"
Why I don't actually want most of my favourite books filmed.
YES! Books that take place in the mental space are hard to translate to screen.
And, as Lois says, the result would probably bear no relation to the books. Like the James Bond Movie "Spy who loved me" Only the title was by Ian Fleming - the entire movie was not related to his novel.
Princess Bride comes close to the book.
Accidental Tourist as well.
But most are terrible.
For me, the LotR movies made the books readable. Trying to read them pre-movies was an exercise in "OK, who the @#$% is Mithrandir, and why should I care about him??"-type confusion. The movies put faces to the names and gave it all a cohesive context that the text sorely lacks. Another example: the twist at the end of the last Hunger Games book works much better on-screen than it did on-page. But those sorts of exceptions are pretty rare, and like Lois, I have a hard time imagining how the inside of Miles' head could be translated to a visual medium.
Martha: I first read LotR in 1968, when I was 14, found it readable enough then, and reread it I don’t know how many times before the films came out. Peter Jackson’s films make quite a nice visual supplement to the book in places, but they get the story wrong in many small and not-so-small ways. Various times I’ve started to watch the films but became irritated and reread the book instead. Although I have watched the films all the way through at least once.
Like Jonathan, I first read LotR (and The Hobbit) long before the movies were thought of, probably about 1971 or so, and re-read many times. And enjoyed the visual supplement to the books, but was frustrated by the changes made, many of them foolishly/needlessly. But different strokes for different folks.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jonathan
(new)
Jan 19, 2024 10:20AM
Whenever I see an on-screen version of a book, the book is almost always better. Occasionally the translation to screen works well enough; for example, with “Good Omens” and the Harry Potter series. In both cases, I think the author was given more influence than usual on the screen version.
reply
|
flag
"much is what of most interest to readers including the humor is actually happening inside his head"Why I don't actually want most of my favourite books filmed.
YES! Books that take place in the mental space are hard to translate to screen.And, as Lois says, the result would probably bear no relation to the books. Like the James Bond Movie "Spy who loved me" Only the title was by Ian Fleming - the entire movie was not related to his novel.
Princess Bride comes close to the book.
Accidental Tourist as well.
But most are terrible.
For me, the LotR movies made the books readable. Trying to read them pre-movies was an exercise in "OK, who the @#$% is Mithrandir, and why should I care about him??"-type confusion. The movies put faces to the names and gave it all a cohesive context that the text sorely lacks. Another example: the twist at the end of the last Hunger Games book works much better on-screen than it did on-page. But those sorts of exceptions are pretty rare, and like Lois, I have a hard time imagining how the inside of Miles' head could be translated to a visual medium.
Martha: I first read LotR in 1968, when I was 14, found it readable enough then, and reread it I don’t know how many times before the films came out. Peter Jackson’s films make quite a nice visual supplement to the book in places, but they get the story wrong in many small and not-so-small ways. Various times I’ve started to watch the films but became irritated and reread the book instead. Although I have watched the films all the way through at least once.
Like Jonathan, I first read LotR (and The Hobbit) long before the movies were thought of, probably about 1971 or so, and re-read many times. And enjoyed the visual supplement to the books, but was frustrated by the changes made, many of them foolishly/needlessly. But different strokes for different folks.
