I read this joke the other day and it went.
How do you tell if someone's read the book before they've watched the movie?
They'll tell you, oh they'll tell you.
I couldn't stop laughing because well, that's me. And I apologize to my friends whom Ive ruined shows or movies for but I can't help it. The book is often times so much better.
Think of it as this way; I'll use food because well I like to eat, a lot.
The book is a Royal Red Robin burger, its got all these layers. The cheese, the meat,the egg, the lettuce, ketchup and bottomless fries.
The movie....its like a school cafeteria hamburger with 5 soggy fries.
For example. Characters in books are complex, the writing makes you create this version of a character that at times when brought to live is less than acceptable. And god forbid the actor is replaced in later movies.
One instance is Harry Potter (I'm also mildly obsessed with harry potter).
I typically read a book then watch the movie, however being 10 and really not into fantasy I need up watching the movie first. And I was hooked,so I read the books. I got sucked into a land of magic, and to this day with all our moving I guess my letter to Hogwarts was lost in the mail.
Richard Harris played the perfect Albus Dumbledore, he had the twinkle in his eye and reminded me that while he was old he was still fierce and caring at the same time. Unfortunately Richard Harris a passed away ad was replaced with Michael Gambon. Bad casting, were all too aware of the notorious almost strangling in the 4th movie. I just....no.
Movies tend to leave out important information while keeping seemingless unimportant things in it.
For this I'll use the Hunger Games, great books, not translated into movies very well...
I took my husband to see the first one when it first came out, I was super excited to watch it and show him this awesome movie where kids fight to the death because society's so messed up.
I don't know who left the movie theater more confused. Why wasn't Madge in the movie? Avoxes hello?
You have all this money to make this movie ad you're gonna get so much more back and this is what you give us?... A jungle with kids running from each other?..This is one of the rare moments he was actually happy that I read the book and didnt stop talking about it.
And then there are the movies that start out so good and you think OK they're staying close to the book,and in the end they're running out of time and just throw random things in?
I started out really into the movie and enjoying it, they could have gone more in depth about the aptitude test I'll let it go. But they completely forgot to film Edwards scenes!!! And there was a lot more chemistry between four and Tris that's all....I wasn't disappointed with the movie, But I did find Eric more attractive than Four.
However not always are movies a bad interpretation of the book.
Jurassic park was very loyal to the book. Also another time I watched the movie before the book, I was actually unaware there was a book until in middle school. One minor difference was that Hammond actually dies in the first book.
The shining was also a great adaptation, I prefer the second BBC version which is also like 4 or 5 hours and didn't have Shelley Duvall (who I find very irritating) but they put in everything the book had.
I know I'm picky. And I have ridiculous expectations out of my movies, after all I bet invested into my books. And every person focuses on different parts of books. I know there's no way tp perfectly translate word for word into a movie...
But someone tell me... How the hell is 50 shades of gray turning into a movie and its not.... porn??