Why is the Book always better?

Books are better done in mini-series. The Colin Firth version of "Pride & Prejudice" is fabulous.

The Sci-Fi version of Dune, despite a low budget, was also quite good.
 
In books there is more involvement with the character whether done by the author or by my interpretation of his actions and motivations. I can sit with a book, put it down, think about what is going on in the story, by a close observer and identify with what is written.

There is an intellectual intimacy with the author that books afford, I have yet to experience that with a movie.
 
The only movie I recall that matched the book it was based on was The Hunt For Red October. Casting Sean Connery as Captain Ramius didn't hurt!
 
Can't think of the name of it at the moment but Richard Chamberland played an American marooned in Japan in a tv miniseries. I read the original novel and have to say the televised version was close and quite good.

I've often wondered what the screen version of any of my novels would be and have to admit that I don't think I'd be happy with what screenwriters to do to them.
 
Well, usually, anyway.

I've almost always found myself disappointed when I've gone to see a movie based on a book I've read, and I find that the movie is almost always never as good as the book.

I think this even applies when the movies are made by devoted fans who try their best to remain true to the source material. (Examples- the Watchmen movie, various interpretations of Dune.)

I have two theories about this. First, you can go into more detail in a 300 page book than you can in a 2 hour movie. That's part of it.

The other is that as a reader, you are doing a lot of the work imagining the scene and characters. The writer is moving the plot along, but you are the one casting the book in your own head and doing the scene direction.

Anyone have any other theories?

I guess you never read Sharknado did you? :confused:
 

Forum List

Back
Top