Films I watched this week

[Antony Moxey]

Vocal Minority said:

A book will afford you greater depth of plot and development - as you can allow an infinite amount of time to consume the art form- 500 pages, 1000 pages - whatever you need (obviosuly you can go to far) but 7,8,9 hours can easily be consumed by a book.

In a film you have to get the same content over in 2-3 hours.

But as you say there can be a much great visual and aural impact.

Swings and roundabouts isn't it?

What is it they say about a picture painting a thousand words? I guess it boils down to which medium you prefer and whether you consider both to deliver the same but in different ways. I know I much prefer film and will get more from it simply because I don't have the time or patience to do justice to a book so for that reason alone will always dismiss opinions that say the book was better - in my own case I know for a fact that that won't be true.

[popeyewhite]

Antony Moxey said:

I know I much prefer film and will get more from it simply because I don't have the time or patience to do justice to a book so for that reason alone will always dismiss opinions that say the book was better - in my own case I know for a fact that that won't be true.

That's all very well but is your argument simply you don't have time to read so the movie will be better? How would you know?

Simply put - when you watch a movie you're seeing another party's interpretation of a story. If you're happy to be led then sometimes this works incredibly well - Jaws for instance. The book's rubbish. However when you read a book you can allow your own imagination to fill in vast tracts of background information. A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a great story, but turned out to a lousy film.

[ClockworkCupcake]

popeyewhite said:

That's all very well but is your argument simply you don't have time to read so the movie will be better? How would you know?

Simply put - when you watch a movie you're seeing another party's interpretation of a story. If you're happy to be led then sometimes this works incredibly well - Jaws for instance. The book's rubbish. However when you read a book you can allow your own imagination to fill in vast tracts of background information. A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a great story, but turned out to a lousy film.

Indeed. But they can also diverge wildly too - "The Man in the High Castle" being a good example. I actually think the Amazon Prime mini-series was significantly better than the bool. Or, PK Dick again, the difference between "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and the film "Blade Runner" - they're so different from each other that it's a stretch of the imagination to say they are related.

About the only time a film will be a fair representation of a book is when it is the "book of the film". I remember reading the book of the John Wayne film "Rio Bravo" and it was very faithful to the film but even then gave additional backstory and motivation that were't covered by the film, because the medium of print allows that.

[Halb]

Books and films.
Ropey history.
The best book to screen adaptation in my opinion is Watership Down, the film did the book justice.

[jbudgie]

Antony Moxey said:

jbudgie said:

Halb said:

Cotty said:

A Walk in the Woods
Comedy/adventure tale of two friends hiking the Appalachian Trail. It was ok, couple of laughs 5/10
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1178665/?ref_=fn_al_tt...

Really wanted to watch that at the flicks.

I wouldn't bother, not a patch on the book.

Does that matter? You assume everyone who watches a film automatically reads the book if that's what it's based on. Having the attention span of a goldfish I haven't read a book since O level English Lit so couldn't care less how faithful a film is to a book and take the film on its own merits.

Matters to me.

If you don't read books then you are missing out on a lot.

[popeyewhite]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Indeed. But they can also diverge wildly too - "The Man in the High Castle" being a good example. I actually think the Amazon Prime mini-series was significantly better than the bool. Or, PK Dick again, the difference between "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and the film "Blade Runner" - they're so different from each other that it's a stretch of the imagination to say they are related.

The series TMITHC was better than the book, agreed, it delved into Japanese mysticism, a bit of Zen and a lot of Eastern culture..it was a heavy read, but rewarding. Consequently I can quite see why the TV series diverted somewhat from this. PKD's We can Remember it for you Wholesale was made into Total Recall, the cult Arnie classic. What people may not realise is the story is even better, containing a further couple of huge twists than turn the tale on its head. Again, made safer for a wider audience (read therefore: to make money).

ClockworkCupcake said:

About the only time a film will be a fair representation of a book is when it is the "book of the film". I remember reading the book of the John Wayne film "Rio Bravo" and it was very faithful to the film but even then gave additional backstory and motivation that were't covered by the film, because the medium of print allows that.

I think "book of the film" is open to individual interpretation as well. See: "Based on a true story", "Based on the book by..." etc etc . There's an ongoing discussion on here about the film "A Walk in the Woods"...other than featuring a walk and characters of the same name the book describes an entirely different experience from the author's perspective than the movie. The book was excellent, the film was execrable IMO. One of the problems when making a movie and 'leading' people into the story is you've got to have popular actors, an attractive location etc etc...all the bits one's mind will fill in when you read a book!

[PH XKR]

All about Steve, funny romcom, 5/7, not as good as the book

[Antony Moxey]

jbudgie said:

Antony Moxey said:

jbudgie said:

Halb said:

Cotty said:

A Walk in the Woods
Comedy/adventure tale of two friends hiking the Appalachian Trail. It was ok, couple of laughs 5/10
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1178665/?ref_=fn_al_tt...

Really wanted to watch that at the flicks.

I wouldn't bother, not a patch on the book.

Does that matter? You assume everyone who watches a film automatically reads the book if that's what it's based on. Having the attention span of a goldfish I haven't read a book since O level English Lit so couldn't care less how faithful a film is to a book and take the film on its own merits.

Matters to me.

If you don't read books then you are missing out on a lot.

Like I said earlier, we like what we like. I don't enjoy reading so I'm not missing out at all. To you I am because it's something you enjoy, but I don't so I'm not.

[Antony Moxey]

popeyewhite said:

Antony Moxey said:

I know I much prefer film and will get more from it simply because I don't have the time or patience to do justice to a book so for that reason alone will always dismiss opinions that say the book was better - in my own case I know for a fact that that won't be true.

That's all very well but is your argument simply you don't have time to read so the movie will be better? How would you know?

Simply put - when you watch a movie you're seeing another party's interpretation of a story. If you're happy to be led then sometimes this works incredibly well - Jaws for instance. The book's rubbish. However when you read a book you can allow your own imagination to fill in vast tracts of background information. A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a great story, but turned out to a lousy film.

I know a movie will be better - for me, not necessarily everyone - because I don't enjoy reading. Something I don't enjoy won't be better than something I do enjoy.

[Halb]

FFS, gonna have to read and watch both now.

[Pesty]

Child 44

Interesting film but couldn't hold my scepticism perhaps I'm just tired of the coward turned traitor and weak demure wife turning superhero massive man slayer hero in ever increasing improbable scenarios.

All wrapped up far too neat, could have been saved by a bleak ending. Hero gets everything the unjustly tarnished get saved children adopted , bad guys get dreaded, etc etc .


Dissapointing 4/10

[popeyewhite]

Antony Moxey said:

I know a movie will be better - for me, not necessarily everyone - because I don't enjoy reading.

You say a movie will be better than the book you haven't read? How is it possible to claim one thing is better than another if you only have knowledge of one of them?

[Antony Moxey]

popeyewhite said:

Antony Moxey said:

I know a movie will be better - for me, not necessarily everyone - because I don't enjoy reading.

You say a movie will be better than the book you haven't read? How is it possible to claim one thing is better than another if you only have knowledge of one of them?

FFS. Because I don't enjoy reading, therefore won't enjoy a book therefore will enjoy the film version better because I don't enjoy reading but enjoy watching films. I fail to see how something I don't enjoy can be better than something I do enjoy. Of course this won't be the case for everyone but it will for me - I know for a fact I don't enjoy reading, I don't, I've tried, I get bored, I find myself unable to read more than a few pages before I end up reading the same bit over and over and have no desire to pick the book up again (and before someone says I haven't found the right book yet, I've tried it many times with many different authors and genres). Reading just isn't for me.

That's how it's possible. I don't need specific knowledge of a specific book to be able to compare it to the film version because, regardless of the book, I know I won't enjoy reading it because I don't enjoy reading. You are obviously different, which of course is entirely your prerogative, but your judging me based on your own preferences.

[Vocal Minority]

Antony Moxey said:

jbudgie said:

Antony Moxey said:

jbudgie said:

Halb said:

Cotty said:

A Walk in the Woods
Comedy/adventure tale of two friends hiking the Appalachian Trail. It was ok, couple of laughs 5/10
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1178665/?ref_=fn_al_tt...

Really wanted to watch that at the flicks.

I wouldn't bother, not a patch on the book.

Does that matter? You assume everyone who watches a film automatically reads the book if that's what it's based on. Having the attention span of a goldfish I haven't read a book since O level English Lit so couldn't care less how faithful a film is to a book and take the film on its own merits.

Matters to me.

If you don't read books then you are missing out on a lot.

Like I said earlier, we like what we like. I don't enjoy reading so I'm not missing out at all. To you I am because it's something you enjoy, but I don't so I'm not.

I think we are all missing the point MASSIVELY with walk in the woods. MASSIVELY.

The real point we should be discussing is how does Bill Bryson....a man who looks like this.....



...get Robert Redford to play him?!

Whatever way you cut it - Bryson landed on his feet there


(I love the book, haven't seen the film - I'm not sure it would translate terribly well as there is a minor narrative to the book in the background, but most of it is a bit of a history/geography/sociology lesson)

[popeyewhite]

Antony Moxey said:

I don't need specific knowledge of a specific book to be able to compare it to the film version because,

Is this a wind-up?

You need some knowledge of one thing in order to compare it to another. That's what a comparison is

[popeyewhite]

Vocal Minority said:

The real point we should be discussing is how does Bill Bryson...
...get Robert Redford to play him?!

IIRC Redford approached him! I remember it as one of Bryson's better books. You get a true understanding of the size of the task ahead and the remoteness of some parts of the walk.

[ClockworkCupcake]

popeyewhite said:

You say a movie will be better than the book you haven't read? How is it possible to claim one thing is better than another if you only have knowledge of one of them?

Because he doesn't enjoy reading.

It's like saying that you have a nut allergy so, for you, a McDonald's burger is better than an exquisite nut roast prepared by a top chef.

Edit: Perhaps he should have said "enjoyable" rather than "better". Does that make it more comprehensible?

[popeyewhite]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Because he doesn't like reading.

It's like saying that you have a nut allergy so, for you, a McDonald's burger is better than an exquisite nut roast prepared by a top chef.

No it's not. He hasn't read the book, therefore can't make a comparison. compare: verb estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.
Anyway, let's get back to films eh?

[ClockworkCupcake]

popeyewhite said:

No it's not. He hasn't read the book, therefore can't make a comparison. compare: verb estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.

Well, I actually do have a nut allergy and I don't need to try a dish with nuts in it to know that a dish without nuts in it would be better for me.

popeyewhite said:

Anyway, let's get back to films eh?

Yes, absolutely.

[james_tigerwoods]

I watched "Now you see me" last night (the first one) - Thoroughly enjoyed it and I didn't expect to. It made me thing of Oceans 11 a lot too.