Oliver Twist
question
Is reading a book or watching a film on the same title the same?
Shahid
(last edited
May 23, 2014 10:44AM
)
May 23, 2014 03:15AM
I am faced with a dilemma in marking a book as the one I have read. I sometimes come across a title that I have watched as a movie. For instance, Oliver Twist, I have watched it as films, as the popular classic has many made after it, but then, I feel least inclined to read the book.
The question therefore is shall I mark all the titles I have watched as movies as the books I have read,or is that I must read the book?
[edit]
Thanks John and Agostino!
I always find it find it quite enjoyable in fact to read the book first and the filmatic adaption later. It is like 'since you have read the book now enjoy the movie', the movie then feels like a kind of reward of have read the book.
But what I call is dilemma of mine, is when the order is reversed, when I have watched a story on screen first, like for instance, The Enduring Love - a very fine film adaptation of the book, that I fail to see the point of reading the book. Then, if I see in the list here the book Enduring Love, should I mark it as read?
The question therefore is shall I mark all the titles I have watched as movies as the books I have read,or is that I must read the book?
[edit]
Thanks John and Agostino!
I always find it find it quite enjoyable in fact to read the book first and the filmatic adaption later. It is like 'since you have read the book now enjoy the movie', the movie then feels like a kind of reward of have read the book.
But what I call is dilemma of mine, is when the order is reversed, when I have watched a story on screen first, like for instance, The Enduring Love - a very fine film adaptation of the book, that I fail to see the point of reading the book. Then, if I see in the list here the book Enduring Love, should I mark it as read?
reply
flag
Shahid wrote: " Then, if I see in the list here the book Enduring Love, should I mark it as read?"
Rarely does a film adhere to book. I've see it only once, a minseries with Jane Seymour of East of Eden.
In the case of Oliver Twist, not even close. And The Great Gatsby in this latest film version, had Carraway in mental hospital and omitted the funeral and a good chunk of the book's denoument.
I don't think it would be entirely honest to comment on a book having only seen the film. It would put you at a disadvantage in discussions.
sometimes a film is much better than the book, as in Ordinary People.
Film and literature are two distinctly different mediums and should be treated as such.
Rarely does a film adhere to book. I've see it only once, a minseries with Jane Seymour of East of Eden.
In the case of Oliver Twist, not even close. And The Great Gatsby in this latest film version, had Carraway in mental hospital and omitted the funeral and a good chunk of the book's denoument.
I don't think it would be entirely honest to comment on a book having only seen the film. It would put you at a disadvantage in discussions.
sometimes a film is much better than the book, as in Ordinary People.
Film and literature are two distinctly different mediums and should be treated as such.
View 1 comment
No, you can't say you've read a book - watching a film of the book is NOT the same. That would be like reading a recipe and saying you've eaten the meal, or you've looked at the moon, so you've been there, or you've seen the sea, so you've swum the ocean.....need I go one? I think you get the idea.
Added June 23rd.....I watched The Hunger Games on Saturday. Now suppose I mention to a friend that I saw it on television, she is likely to ask if I read the book. My answer would have to be No - otherwise it could lead to a discussion about film versus book. How would I look with egg on my face for fibbing about it? I totally agree with Razibul's comments.
Added June 23rd.....I watched The Hunger Games on Saturday. Now suppose I mention to a friend that I saw it on television, she is likely to ask if I read the book. My answer would have to be No - otherwise it could lead to a discussion about film versus book. How would I look with egg on my face for fibbing about it? I totally agree with Razibul's comments.
As one who both reads the book and watches the films of the same title, It is always better to read the books. The films may be great, and they may cover half or majority of the book, but they still lack important details or scenes you will never see in the films. Hope this helps you. Happy reading!
deleted member
May 23, 2014 07:54AM
0 votes
They are both great ways to enjoy the same story. The book offers things a movie can't and vice versa. If you enjoyed one, you most likely will enjoy the other if you're not too rigid, inflexible or picky!
However, sometimes a film adaptation can simply be done horribly.
However, sometimes a film adaptation can simply be done horribly.
Quite often, the only thing a movie has in common with a book is the title and, like some of the comments have said, it would put you at a disadvantage in any discussion. A good example would be Roland Joffe's excrable adaptation of the Scarlet Letter which attempted to liven things up with scenes of masturbation and indian attacks and, of course, changed the ending to make it more palatable to modern audiences.
If I've read a roadmap does that mean I've actually taken the journey?
The book is the true reflection of the writer's mind and plot while the movie is aimed to be commercial success. There is a huge difference. The movies are sometimes changed to make it attractive to the viewers (often it works in reverse way).
Read the book whenever you get the chance.
Read the book whenever you get the chance.
I am a big believer of reading the book. I don't think you can say you have honestly read a book or grasped all of the story by just watching a movie. Movies are very enjoyable in their own right and can be done very well in sticking to the text but it should not replace reading the original work.
NO! Watching the movie and reading the book are very different! I never even mark in my bibliography even the best movies I see.
Please, do not consider yourself to have read the book when you have only seen the movie. Also, do not see the movie first, if ever.
For one thing, the movie can never give as much description and depth as the book. Just consult with yourself about that.
Please, do not consider yourself to have read the book when you have only seen the movie. Also, do not see the movie first, if ever.
For one thing, the movie can never give as much description and depth as the book. Just consult with yourself about that.
Linda Dobinson
Hi Ben, I agree 100% about books and adaptations not being the same, however I find it better for my peace of mind to watch first because if I have re
...more
· flag
· flag
You should always read the book first.
1) The book is usually more detailed, and therefore, has more
depth.
2) Movie versions edit for time, and leave out scenes that would be
too expensive to shoot.
3) Characters in films also are sometimes combined into composite
characters.
4) Endings and events can be changed by the screenwriter.
For instance: The black and white film version of Wuthering
Heights ends the movie at the first half of the book! The entire
second half is omitted, creating a false view of Heathcliff, as
romantic lover, when in fact, he acts heinously in the second half.
There are rare occasions when a film will actually enhance a story (in these cases, a play.) "The Sound of Music" and "My Fair Lady" both benefited from the big screen because of panorama scenery, visuals and other film techniques.
Overall though, my advice is to always read the book first!
1) The book is usually more detailed, and therefore, has more
depth.
2) Movie versions edit for time, and leave out scenes that would be
too expensive to shoot.
3) Characters in films also are sometimes combined into composite
characters.
4) Endings and events can be changed by the screenwriter.
For instance: The black and white film version of Wuthering
Heights ends the movie at the first half of the book! The entire
second half is omitted, creating a false view of Heathcliff, as
romantic lover, when in fact, he acts heinously in the second half.
There are rare occasions when a film will actually enhance a story (in these cases, a play.) "The Sound of Music" and "My Fair Lady" both benefited from the big screen because of panorama scenery, visuals and other film techniques.
Overall though, my advice is to always read the book first!
Adaptations miss out on scenes and also on other things that the author chooses to write, like inner thoughts or personality traits. Sometimes the actors may do a good job translating this to the screen, but not always. Besides, it depends on the person who adapted the script, the director's vision, etc. Sometimes, an author leaves something ambiguous for the reader to make their own mind as to what happened.
The only downside is when I had all this picture in my head of how characters and places look like and the movie doesn't really adapt to that. It takes me a while to adjust to the "new faces" of the characters that I read about.
The only downside is when I had all this picture in my head of how characters and places look like and the movie doesn't really adapt to that. It takes me a while to adjust to the "new faces" of the characters that I read about.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
