FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What's the difference between novel and film





linux1993
Now I am watching the BBC TV series "Sherlock Holmes", Actually I think that the TV series is more attractive than the novels and films .How do you think of them ?
TurtleShell
I love the books, but have yet to see the show. I've heard good things, however.
Marcuzzo
99% of the times I hear people ( including myself ) say, "I read the book and it was better".
I'm not sure if it is because of the fact that you know the story after having read the book or simply because your imagination can run freely when reading the book.
bukaida
When you read a book, the description of scenes has different effects on different people. Everybody will view the story in their own way. In movies, you see only what the director wants you to see or the way only he viewed the things. So obviously it becomes monotonous and boring. You hardly will use your brain for viewing it. There is a little scope of imagination in viewing.
TurtleShell
Yet the movie version of Jurassic Park was, like, way better than the book. waaayyy better.
codemaster
In my opinion the difference is, The novel and Movie are some how different sometimes. They creators always have to change something. My favorite book was Percy Jackson and the Olympians, but the movie was way better.
rjraaz
Definitely Novel is better than the movie. Movies are always makes with extra content like song etc. And sometimes these extra content not sufficient to achieve the novel exact story or material.
inoshi
There are certain times when a movie is better, especially when a person is unable to imagine what the author wanted, or doesn't have tome to read, or wants to be told a story than have to wield one's way through it. At that time then it helps to have a great film production.

E.g., 2001 a Space Odyssey, especially at the time it came out was better than the book, and it probably reached more people, and captured a certain zeitgeist of the society, some of which was so visually stunning and revolutionary, you know immediately that it operates in a non-literary way.

Text is not all, neither is image. Wink

Inoshi
Josso
*sigh*

Books are better 99.9999% of the time because of the increased amount of detail. The main problem is you can't fit a large novel into 1 film (which is what is usually done) and for some reason these days people don't have the attention span for a long film (I think the industry has decided this). A film based on any other medium is basically almost always not going to be as good as the original medium - AND visa versa. Yes novels are more interpretive than the cinema medium however this whole "I don't have the time to read books" attitude that seems to resonate particularly strongly in some people is complete nonsense. Most people are in denial about having to look up words or not being able to read fast enough. Guess what if you had read more? You'd be better at it. Continuing to learn language throughout your life is EXTREMELY important for your ability to express/explain yourself properly and reading is one of the easiest ways of doing this. The rest are just lazy or don't want to prioritise reading over other forms of entertainment.

This may seem harsh I'm sure some people genuinely don't have to time to read or anything else but yeah - just my 2 pennies.


Quote:
E.g., 2001 a Space Odyssey, especially at the time it came out was better than the book, and it probably reached more people, and captured a certain zeitgeist of the society, some of which was so visually stunning and revolutionary, you know immediately that it operates in a non-literary way.


An insult to Clarke imo. That movie is a classic example of a novel being twisted into something it kinda isn't for the general public - and leaving out huge chunks of important narrative. Oh and btw I do love that movie as well. You are right about some points there.
deanhills
I agree. I've always been disappointed by the movie after I've read the novel. The General's Daughter with John Travolta was one exception for me. That was a GREAT movie! Book by Nelson DeMille was also great.
Josso
I'm desperately trying to thing of an exception right now but honestly every movie/novel combination seems to suck on the movie side. Well when I say suck I mean it can still be good but not be AS good as the novel in my experience.

They are making a movie version of Hyperion I heard recently. Combining the first two books into one movie Crying or Very sad whyyyyyy
deanhills
Agreed. I remember James Michener with his epic sized novels and people who tried to make movies on his books. All of the attempts had failed miserably.
standready
Josso wrote:
Books are better 99.9999% of the time because of the increased amount of detail. The main problem is you can't fit a large novel into 1 film (which is what is usually done) and for some reason these days people don't have the attention span for a long film (I think the industry has decided this). A film based on any other medium is basically almost always not going to be as good as the original medium - AND visa versa. Yes novels are more interpretive than the cinema medium however this whole "I don't have the time to read books" attitude that seems to resonate particularly strongly in some people is complete nonsense. Most people are in denial about having to look up words or not being able to read fast enough. Guess what if you had read more? You'd be better at it. Continuing to learn language throughout your life is EXTREMELY important for your ability to express/explain yourself properly and reading is one of the easiest ways of doing this. The rest are just lazy or don't want to prioritise reading over other forms of entertainment.

Very well said, Josso! Film just lacks the time to fit in everything that is in the book even with cutting the book into two films as some have done.
inoshi
It's probably best when comparing the genres and media not to expect an equivalency. Works for me.

The detail in books is filled in by a person's head, so I would say that your statement about increased amount of detail is purely relative to a particular person.

I'm all for textual literacy, however we're living in a world where the traditional forms of literacy have declined and other media have began to tug and pull us in new directions. Not everybody will have textual literacy as we may be used to it now, or in the very near future, as programming becomes more programmed, and icons, ideograms and image gain our attention.

I'm unclear about how it's all going to pan out, but I find it to have some very exciting ramifications in terms of education and a new global literacy. One thing that comes to me is that people of this proposed literacy will have an advantage over those who do not have it.

How to make it available, affordable and participatory for the largest amount of people possible?

Inoshi

Josso wrote:
*sigh*

Books are better 99.9999% of the time because of the increased amount of detail. The main problem is you can't fit a large novel into 1 film (which is what is usually done) and for some reason these days people don't have the attention span for a long film (I think the industry has decided this). A film based on any other medium is basically almost always not going to be as good as the original medium - AND visa versa. Yes novels are more interpretive than the cinema medium however this whole "I don't have the time to read books" attitude that seems to resonate particularly strongly in some people is complete nonsense. Most people are in denial about having to look up words or not being able to read fast enough. Guess what if you had read more? You'd be better at it. Continuing to learn language throughout your life is EXTREMELY important for your ability to express/explain yourself properly and reading is one of the easiest ways of doing this. The rest are just lazy or don't want to prioritise reading over other forms of entertainment.

This may seem harsh I'm sure some people genuinely don't have to time to read or anything else but yeah - just my 2 pennies.


Quote:
E.g., 2001 a Space Odyssey, especially at the time it came out was better than the book, and it probably reached more people, and captured a certain zeitgeist of the society, some of which was so visually stunning and revolutionary, you know immediately that it operates in a non-literary way.


An insult to Clarke imo. That movie is a classic example of a novel being twisted into something it kinda isn't for the general public - and leaving out huge chunks of important narrative. Oh and btw I do love that movie as well. You are right about some points there.
Radar
Agreed with the comments that books have so much more detail than movies possibly can. It just a part of the medium, and it's hard to get around.

Best example of this for me is Time Traveler's Wife. The book has an incredible amount of detail, and the movie by comparison feels like everyone is talking five times faster than they need to. The book has such a better sense of... space, and of character. The art of the words on the page, the medium itself, is half the joy of reading, so I understand why movies very often struggle to live up to expectations.
Radar
Agreed with the comments that books have so much more detail than movies possibly can. It just a part of the medium, and it's hard to get around.

Best example of this for me is Time Traveler's Wife. The book has an incredible amount of detail, and the movie by comparison feels like everyone is talking five times faster than they need to. The book has such a better sense of... space, and of character. The art of the words on the page, the medium itself, is half the joy of reading, so I understand why movies very often struggle to live up to expectations.
spinout
Did you knaw that in sweden we call a short story a novel and a novel a roman! Smile
inuyasha
That depends on what kind of people you are. For me, I think both are equally attractive~

Despite of your topic "Sherlock Holmes", I suppose those who are fond of imagination may probably like reading novels or other books when they can fully power up their imagination Very Happy And those who prefer a more direct and simple way to know the whole story may enjoy movies.

I guess that's also related to the story or the content itself. An action film may not easily described in one's words. On the other hand, some books, like Name der Rose, may not be that vivid if they are presented on a screen.
Related topics
D difference between Anime and Tokusatsu... anyone know??
Difference between a Jr. Admin & MOD
Difference between watch & wife.
Is there a difference between "I know" and "I
Difference between Contests and Marketplace.
Whats the difference between Core Duo and Hyperthreading?
what is the difference between primary partition?
Diff: Windows 2000 Vs Windows server 2003
What is the Difference Between Love and Affection
What is the difference between these?
difference between windows xp service pack and sp 2 rc 1
difference between Pentium D, Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon
Difference between <div> and <p>...?
Actionscript2.0 - Difference between var :Object and new Obj
Difference between asian and hollywood movies
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.