This is a new segment, Featured Discussion. Where, I am looking at heading with this segment is more of a opinion based discussion. There is some that will be true and fact, but for the main part I want a good discussion, and I want people to chime in and talk. I will make my opinion and comments known as well. However please, PLEASE do not insult or degrade anyone else.
Featured Discussion:
When I was looking around at upcoming books, I happened to find myself on Epic Reads website (Here), and found this to be a great topic to add my two cents on this matter. First off I'll give you what Epic Reads proposes on the topic:
"It’s great to see the film adaptations of your favorite books, but one does not replace the other. Not only could they differ in plot, but you miss out on language and structure and description and secondary characters and all those lovely words. Perhaps work a movie into your book club schedule by planning to read a book and then watching the film version as a group. Then you can discuss how the two compare!"
First off I know most of you will answer the same way, or that's my expectations on this topic. However, I am known to be wrong and hope that those who view this topic differently than myself, to share their opinions and suggestions with me. That's part of the reason I love books, the interpretations and different meanings each person can come to, all while looking at the same thing; so I would love to hear from you and see your opinions as well.
Okay into the topic, first off I haven't seen a lot of movies that have turned into books, at least that I am aware of. However, when I took the time to go see The Hunger Games, I am going to have to find another book to relate to or another first, I was so interested in the movie it made me want to read the book. That's in my opinion how a good movie should be done. A movie shouldn't replace a book and a book shouldn't replace a movie; I have to agree with the original poster of this picture that the two should be treated separately.
When I finished reading the first book, The Hunger Games I was so upset with how much of the book was left out of the movie, that happens all the time and more often than not people are willing to ignore it and say the movie was better. Okay there may be some cases, but in my opinion more often than not, that's not the case. If you have to leave some important facts or character building events out, eventually that will play some sort of role in the movie and eventually the fact X is left out will mean near the end something will have to be left out. And I find that saddening and disheartening.
Movies and books, I enjoy both, but if I had to pick which one I would prefer over the other. I would have to say, Books. They are more in depth with the environment; Okay, let me explain, movies don't leave anything to the imagination, I am free to help fill in some of the blanks and make the story more unique to me. The characters in books allow the reader to connect to; in movies, I find myself disassociated with the characters in movies, and wondering why they are doing what they are doing.
Don't get me wrong I love movies, it's just when you want to compare which one would let me get into the plot and the characters more, it would definitely be the book. However, they both allow their own unique interpretation on the story. The movie tends to be more focused on the directors, actors, and those affiliated with the specified movie and their interpretations of what the plot and the story is; whereas, the book lends itself on the author and the reader to the interpretation of the book. I want to feel like the author is getting me involved, as well as the director and when there is nothing to the imagination in a movie, I feel left out.
So in closing I treat movies and books completely different. They are two different types of media and they convey two different types of interpretations of a similar story. However, the two have different groups that aid in the intrepretation, and aid in how much the view/reader are involved. My stance is simple, treat the two differently, view them differently, and don't really compare the two. There is no good correlation between the two and how good one is as compared to the other and saying that because the movie was good the book has to be good too, isn't always justified.
Okay into the topic, first off I haven't seen a lot of movies that have turned into books, at least that I am aware of. However, when I took the time to go see The Hunger Games, I am going to have to find another book to relate to or another first, I was so interested in the movie it made me want to read the book. That's in my opinion how a good movie should be done. A movie shouldn't replace a book and a book shouldn't replace a movie; I have to agree with the original poster of this picture that the two should be treated separately.
When I finished reading the first book, The Hunger Games I was so upset with how much of the book was left out of the movie, that happens all the time and more often than not people are willing to ignore it and say the movie was better. Okay there may be some cases, but in my opinion more often than not, that's not the case. If you have to leave some important facts or character building events out, eventually that will play some sort of role in the movie and eventually the fact X is left out will mean near the end something will have to be left out. And I find that saddening and disheartening.
Movies and books, I enjoy both, but if I had to pick which one I would prefer over the other. I would have to say, Books. They are more in depth with the environment; Okay, let me explain, movies don't leave anything to the imagination, I am free to help fill in some of the blanks and make the story more unique to me. The characters in books allow the reader to connect to; in movies, I find myself disassociated with the characters in movies, and wondering why they are doing what they are doing.
Don't get me wrong I love movies, it's just when you want to compare which one would let me get into the plot and the characters more, it would definitely be the book. However, they both allow their own unique interpretation on the story. The movie tends to be more focused on the directors, actors, and those affiliated with the specified movie and their interpretations of what the plot and the story is; whereas, the book lends itself on the author and the reader to the interpretation of the book. I want to feel like the author is getting me involved, as well as the director and when there is nothing to the imagination in a movie, I feel left out.
So in closing I treat movies and books completely different. They are two different types of media and they convey two different types of interpretations of a similar story. However, the two have different groups that aid in the intrepretation, and aid in how much the view/reader are involved. My stance is simple, treat the two differently, view them differently, and don't really compare the two. There is no good correlation between the two and how good one is as compared to the other and saying that because the movie was good the book has to be good too, isn't always justified.
