The Sword and Laser discussion
Have you ever checked out a book that a TV or movie was based on.
Robert wrote: "Just watched Stardust for the first time, I thought it was great. Worth me now catching up on the book?"I love the movie as well but my friend told me not to read the book because it's very different from the film and will probably confuse my expectations.
I just found out Eight Million Ways to Die is a book. I had no idea. I thought Oliver Stone wrote it, lol.
Tim wrote: "Robert wrote: "Just watched Stardust for the first time, I thought it was great. Worth me now catching up on the book?"The audiobook is brilliant - it's read by Neil Gaiman himself (he does a rea..."
Re: Stardust I LOVED both the movie aend book! I'm interested in this audiobook. I imagine that would also be a great media for that story.
I know a lot of people didn't like the movie of Stardust, especially of they liked the book. I think a lot of people were disappointed by how divergent the movie and book were...I loved both, though. They both worked for me in different, completely enjoyable ways.I've been thinking about this topic since I first saw the thread. I honestly cannot think of a book I've read because of a TV show or movie, either as "preparation" or "anticipation" or after the fact. I think I'm going to have to go actually LOOK at my bookshelf to see if I can think of any...
I actually prefer to watch a movie/tv series before I read the book. Usually when I've read the book first, I can't really enjoy the movie because I'm too busy picking out the inaccuracies. But if I see the movie first, I can judge it based on its own merits. Some movies/tv shows that have inspired me to read the books they were based on are: Game of Thrones, Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings, Fight Club, and White Oleander.
Kevin wrote: "Skaw wrote: "I started to read Déjà Dead because of the tv series Bones (which I love), but only got as far as the first chapter. It seemed to be missing the humor that made me like the tv show. Of..."I actually did read the books first. I thought the first book was good and the second book was okay. The biggest problem I had was that it ruined the second movie for me when I watched it in the theater because it was so different. I was more concerned with cataloging the differences then enjoying the movie.
Now looking back (and having seen the movie again), I think I liked the movies better. Just my opinion though.
Now, if I haven't already read the book, I wait and see the movie first, that way it isn't ruined cause I can't let go of the book. I couldn't watch the movie Jumper because I loved the book
Jumper so much. I could tell from the previews they changed it a lot.
I like the movie Stardust and bought the book, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
I read David Simon's Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets after watching IMHO one of the best shows ever on TV.I also read Contact after watching the movie which proved that sometimes movies can be better than the books on which they are based.
I read Storm Front by Jim Butcher after watching the short-lived TV series. Fell even more in love with the characters and plot lines, having more meaty descriptions in the books.
Isdihara wrote: "I read Storm Front by Jim Butcher after watching the short-lived TV series. Fell even more in love with the characters and plot lines, having more meaty descriptions in the books."That TV show introduced me to the Dreden Files as well. Okay show but it introduced me to a wonderful series.
I wouldn't have known that The Hunger Games or Harry Potter were based on books had the trailers for the films not said "based on the best-selling books". In both cases I watched the film first and in both cases I felt there was more to the story than the films portrayed. A good example was the way that Katniss treated her mother, which was only sort of explained in the film but was clarified properly in the book. So I picked up both series of books to get a better idea of what the story was about.I also picked up Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy as a result of watching The Golden Compass but I had an alterer motive there in that I was curious to see if it actually was as anti-religious as the reviews suggested. Incidentally, I read The Da Vinci Code for the same reason and found some hilariously blatant flaws in his reasoning!
I can't handle consciously watching a film if it is a book and I haven't read the book. I don't like that at all. If I read the book first then my interpretation of the material is my own and not influenced by the movie industry. Of course it is interesting when you come across a subpar book but it ends up being a great film.
Stan wrote: "Mostly the books tend to be better than the movies, but sometimes with a great director the movies can turn out better than the book."My general observation is that it's really hard to make a good movie out of a good book, but it's possible to make a great movie out of a mediocre or even bad book.
You already mentioned The Godfather.
Even Chuck Palahniuk thinks David Fincher's version of Fight Club is better than his.
Alistair McLean was a best-selling author who wrote The Guns of Navarone and a dozen other WWII thrillers, but today people are more likely to remember the film adaptations.
Who even knows about Who Censored Roger Rabbit? But everyone knows the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.
King's Ransom is one of Ed McBain's dozens of police procedural pot-boilers, but adapted as "High and Low (Tengoku to Jigoku)", it's a classic Kurosawa crime drama.
Is Jaws as important a novel as the movie is to film?
I started reading the Harry Potter books after watching Prisoner of Azkaban at the cinema and I'm glad that I did. The downside is that when watching the later movies you get disappointed when such and such a scene is left out.I've recently got into Legend of the Seeker and have started reading the Sword of Truth series that the show is based on. (Season 1 is based on the first book and Season 2 is based on the second one)
I work in a small town library and have seen the power that movies can have on book circulation. What impresses me the most is when a genre that circulates very poorly gets an increase due to a film or even a well done trailer. Sci-Fi does not circulate well, but The Hunger Games has been the most read book ever since the movie came out a couple months ago (and the sequels do quite well too!). Movies can be a great way to create buzz over a particular title, and if it results in a few more Hunger Games fans, then I'm all for it!On the other hand, I've encountered a patron who only reads books they make into movies. There have been a few situations when I have had to turn her down because the movie in question is not, in fact, based on a book, but just a movie. Whether a book gets made into a movie is not necessarily a measure of quality (or even of popularity), but on whether or not the title is likely to have wide appeal with movie goers.
As for my own personal reading habits, I do on occasion read a book when I see that it's being made into a good-looking movie. I have to read the book before I see the film!
I always intend to read the book if I have seen the film but rarely get round to it. The exception is the Harry Potter series. Until I saw the film I couldn't believe it would live up to the hype.
On the other hand I have read both Sookie Stackhouse and The Game of Thrones because of the TV adaptation (and Poldark way back when but that is ancient history)
I saved Games of Thrones of DVR until I'd read the book but have decided this was a mistake and will watch the second series before reading.
7 ebooks that have been adapted into films for 99cents today only http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012...
I do this all the time. I assume if the TV show is even marginally good the book will be even better. My top ones were Game of Thrones, The Southern Vampire Mysteries and Wicked (a play I know but it counts :) )
Tamahome wrote: "7 ebooks that have been adapted into films for 99cents today only http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012..."This is also mentioned in the Kindle Daily Deal thread...
Tamahome wrote: "7 ebooks that have been adapted into films for 99cents today only http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012..."Just beware, the one thing everyone remembers about Soylent Green was invented by the scriptwriters and is completely absent from Make Room! Make Room!
Sean wrote: "Just beware, the one thing everyone remembers about Soylent Green was invented by the scriptwriters and is completely absent from Make Room! Make Room!..."Soylent Green is made of scriptwriters!
For me, it depends. I have consumed both formats of many titles. Which I come across 1st can color my opinion of the other, but I have gone both ways, & my opinion of which was better has gone both ways. Some I am interested in 1 format but not the other. The advantage to seeing the film/TV 1st is that it sets the characters' look & voice in my mind that is easier to skim over in book form. Dresden Files: read the books while going through withdraw from the series. Love both, the books have a much more complex magical world. Based on the description in the books, Katee Sackhoff should have been cast as Lt. Murphy.
Harry Potter, True Blood, Roswell: love the video, no interest in the books.
A lot of Phillip K Dick's short story ideas have been fleshed out into film (credited & not) : Minority Report, Paycheck, Dark City, Screamers...
Hitchiker's Guide: the audio serial for BBC Radio was the original format, the books the best adaptation. The BBC miniseries more closely followed the books, but we all know what low budget BBC SF looks like. The film had the highest production value but was the worst adaptation (still OK, but not great). If Adams had lived to write the script, I'm sure the film would have been much better.
On a side note are book spin-offs of popular film/tv titles. Too many are outlined by editors & farmed out to unknown writers (Dark Angel). The Star Trek books are hit-or-miss. I hated the Han Solo Adventures.
Sean wrote: "Soylent Green is made of scriptwriters!"If only...That's usually my biggest complaint about adaptations. I hate it when they "punch it up a little" to the point where it looses whatever social relevance the original had that made it popular or influential.
That said, I never saw the film & the book is a hard read, being primarily a tirade against the horrors of uncontrolled population growth. The Stainless Steel Rat books are better.
Richard wrote: "If Adams had lived to write the script, I'm sure the film would have been much better."Adams did write the script!
I watched The Witcher TV series when I was 14, in Poland. Only caught three or four episodes, but I did end up seeking out the books afterwards. Have all seven on my bookshelf now.
I watched the movie, I am Legend, and noticed that it was based on a 1954 book by Richard Matheson of the same name. I found out later that a 1964 movie, The Last Man on Earth, was also based on this book. It is a Vincent Price movie that I have loved for a long time.
Mike wrote: "I watched the movie, I am Legend, and noticed that it was based on a 1954 book by Richard Matheson of the same name. I found out later that a 1964 movie, The Last Man on Earth, was also based on t..."There have actually been three movies based on the book. The one you missed is The Omega Man staring Charlton Heston from 1971. The first one is closest to the book and I think it's available on InternetArchive for free.
Julia wrote: "Isdihara wrote: "I read Storm Front by Jim Butcher after watching the short-lived TV series. Fell even more in love with the characters and plot lines, having more meaty descriptions in the books."..."I am with you on that the TV show was ok but the book series is one of my favorites and the tv show is was turned me on to him
I had seen teh film adaptions of Sir Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 and 2012 on TV and started reading some of Clarke's other classics. I skipped the original 2001: A Space Odyssey thinking that there was no need to revisit the story. On a whim I picked it up and really got a lot out of it. It's a fuller "extended version" of what was shown in the movies.
I'm another who came from the Dresden TV show tot he books and love them, although I was a bit surprised by how much sleazier the books tend to be. The 1954 I Am Legend adaptation stars Vincent Price in one of his best horror roles.
Some of the series I discovered after their movie counterparts:The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle
The Princess Bride by William Golden
Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan
Howl's Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones
The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Supertoys Last All Summer Long
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick
Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo
Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass
Le Mortem d'Arthur by Thomas Malory
So for me, the answrr is yes. As long as the premise intrigues me, I will pick up a book that a movie was based on.
I loved Stardust, though it was so very different between the movie and book. When a new movie or tv series comes out based on a book, I'll usually hold of seeing it until I have read the book. I did this with Game of Thrones, and in many ways grateful for it. If I know what's going to happen, I really struggle to finish a book, but I can watch a show if I know what will happen because I'm interested to see how the people will present it.
Unfortunately I did read the Twilight series because the movie was coming out, at the time I enjoyed them, but when I thought back I realised my mistake. I was editing as I went along (handy habit sometimes, but in this case just made me think it was an alright read). Though in a way it was a good thing to read because it showed how much better others are for their representations of female characters and relationships.
Oh, and of course, I have read the Sookie Stackhouse series, because of True Blood. Really enjoyed the books, however made things quite confusing because of the many differences between the two.
Over time I have had to learn to take the two mediums as different stories because they often have to change so much. GoT is an excellent example of a series changed between them, however that's because they have kept true to (most of) the characters and the story line changes are to keep it working in the visual world. However things like Harry Potter I cannot watch if I've read the series too recently. So many changes, too many of them to the core storline and character base which really gets on my nerves.
I wasn't familiar with The Dresden Files until the Syfy channel tv show debuted a few years ago. Now, those novels are some of my favorites.
If I know a tv programme or film that looks interesting is going to be made based on a book, I will usually try to read the book first. I think whichever you see first is usually the 'better' one, and since visuals can strongly distract from the way you would otherwise have imagined the book, I think it's harder to enjoy a book once you've seen it in visual form. If I have loved a show or film based on a book, I will always want to read the original, but I usually try to wait until my memory of it has faded a bit, so that I can enjoy the book for what it is.
It depends, for me. I saw the Dresden Files, True Blood and Dexter before I ever knew they were based on books; but I also read Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings before I ever thought they'd make a movie out of them. A good story is a good story, and I usually assume that if a book is being turned into a movie or TV show, it's probably a good story (Twilight excepted). I'm not very picky about having to read one or the other first. So I will sometimes look for the book that a movie was based on, though I'm more interested usually in seeing adaptions of something I've already read.
Actually, this raises an interesting question: how many shows/films are actually better than the books. Generally, books tend to be deeper, and on that basis alone, tend to be a more interesting read. But there are exceptions. The Vampire Diaries books by L.J. Smith are pretty poor compared to the TV show, and I prefer True Blood to The Southern Vampire Mysteries. I'd even go as far as saying the Game of Thrones TV show pips George R.R. Martin's books.
Other Paul wrote: "Generally, books tend to be deeper, and on that basis alone, tend to be a more interesting read. "I hear this argument a lot, but I really do think it has more to do with your first experience with the stories than anything. Not the right genre, but I tried to read the Bourne books after loving the films, and ended up hating the characters who were most different from the film ones. I wonder how the book might have seemed to me had I read it first. On the other hand, when much loved books get turned into films, they often don't match what my imagination made of them, and are pale in comparison. I think it's rare to find you can enjoy both, and the ones you can are real gems I think. :)
After watching the anime, and the movie I started the books of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, that was 2 years ago, now it's one of my favorites book series.
Oh, I've seen a couple of episodes of the anime and I liked it. Maybe I should try the books sometime. :)
Rachel wrote: "It depends, for me. I saw the Dresden Files, True Blood and Dexter before I ever knew they were based on books; but I also read Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings before I ever thought they'd ma..."Rachel, I couldn't agree with you more that a good story is a good story regardless of the medium.
Ick, my boyfriend tried to make me watch The Vampire Diaries so many times, (strange enough start to a story right there) but I just hated it. Too much like Twilight, but also so many other things which were terrible. I still do not understand why he loved it so much, he generally hates those kinds of shows being more a sci fi geek.
if ive watched a movie and realise ive missed the book then i will get it from the library. I recently only read and watched The Man Who Fell to Earth and im still deciding what i enjoyed most.
I just finished Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. I initially thought the book would be similar to the movie. Ok that was a mistake. However as I continued on reading the book, I got more engrossed in the story. I enjoyed the movie but the book was fantastic - and there was so much more content that it seemed like fresh content.Up next...Game of Thrones and, possibly, the John Carter of mars series.
I already posted this somewhere else, but movies that beat the book: Shoeless Joe is much better as a movie as Field of Dreams. Also, The Milagro Beanfield War comes alive under Robert Redford's influence.
Ashley wrote: "I've recently got into Legend of the Seeker and have started reading the Sword of Truth series that the show is based on. (Season 1 is based on the first book and Season 2 is based on the second one)"I started reading the Sword of Truth after watching just a couple of episodes of Legend of the Seeker. SoT seems to be a very polarizing topic -- People either love it or hate it with a passion.
Goodkind does tend to get a bit preachy towards the end of the series. Also, at least one of the books is downright depressing, while at least two others are snorefests. However, I loved most of it, so I count it as a win.
So much to comment on:I, Robot: Read it before I saw it and while the movie was a movie with a plot I actually see a LOT of the short stories in the movie. That is it's own polarizing discussion right there.
Harry Potter: I hadn't read them until after I saw the movie and I actually did the audiobooks (yay for Jim Dale) rather than the texts because I was commuting a lot and it passed the time well.
Stardust: My first ever, screen accurate, home-made Cosplay was as Tristan/Tristran from Stardust in his White coat. After seeing the movie I did make a point to read it and I found it a great read despite the differences. Again, like I, Robot, I understand the variations.
Twilight: I only read the first 3/4th of the book because of the hype about the coming movie. I am also not in Meyer's target audience so I don't feel bad lemming it.
I have a tone of books on the to read list that I'd ~like~ to read having met the characters in other mediums. GRR Martin is high (mostly to see if the books are as bloody and rape-happy as people lament) as are the Dresden novels.
Oddly the Hunger Games is ~not~ on my to-read list. While I liked the movie I strongly disliked the premise that it is "young adult" and no amount of "but you'll understand it better if you read it" is going to sway me to give up a day or two of my life to finding out.
This has happened to me a few times. I started reading the Dresden Files after the Sci-Fi Channel announced they were making a tv series based off the books, and I read Darkly Dreaming Dexter after watching the first season of the show.But then there are other books/series I got into before a tv/film adaptation was announced, namely GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire and the first four Harry Potter books.
Rob wrote: "So much to comment on:Oddly the Hunger Games is ~not~ on my to-read list. While I liked the movie I strongly disliked the premise that it is "young adult" and no amount of "but you'll understand it better if you read it" is going to sway me to give up a day or two of my life to finding out. "
You are doing yourself a disservice while they call it young adult it much more adult then young and really good, way way better then twilight
Rob wrote: Stardust: My first ever, screen accurate, home-made Cosplay was as Tristan/Tristran from Stardust in his White coat. After seeing the movie I did make a point to read it and I found it a great read despite the differences. Again, like I, Robot, I understand the variations.I love that movie. I recently got the book and it's on my to-read list
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Never Let Me Go (other topics)The Milagro Beanfield War (other topics)
Shoeless Joe (other topics)
The Man Who Fell to Earth (other topics)
The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Philip Pullman (other topics)Elmore Leonard (other topics)
James Sallis (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Cormac McCarthy (other topics)
The audiobook is brilliant - it's read by Neil Gaiman himself (he does a really good job), and then afterwards he discusses it in a kind of 'making of'.