float_on_alright: first rule of tea club never talk about tea club (first rule of tea club)
 
First up is Stardust by Neil Gaiman. Okay, I know the villagers sharpening their pitch forks. I don’t mean this as an insult to Mr. Gamain. The book displays great craftsmanship, but his style just didn’t suit me. He is quite funny and I would bet every penny I’ve got that he’d have done a better job than Eoin Colfer at writing the follow up in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy; I feel sure that his style would have been perfect to continue the Hitchhiker’s Trilogy. He stays surprisingly grounded for fantasy and while that’s not a bad thing, it isn’t my preference. In story that is a great adventure full of magic and action, his resolution was logical and it felt anti-climatic. Perhaps the biggest part of my preference for the movie is that I saw the movie before I knew it was based on a book and it set the plot and the expectations in my mind. I think that reading the book first would have given me a (possibly dramatically) different opinion.

Second is Lord of the Rings (thankfully none of my friends are wealthy enough to hire a "cleaner"). Tolkien was a genius - Hello, he created an entire language complete with ruin like symbols and an entire world for his epic series; no one is arguing that the man was brilliant. I read The Hobbit first as a school assignment and I liked it. Granted I liked it less at the end when my favorite dwarf was dying and I finally realized he WASN'T a girl after all and that there were in fact no female characters of any significance. That aside, I did enjoy reading The Hobbit and thought I should read the rest of them. I just didn’t like it. I can’t begin to describe to you how badly I wanted to like it. How disappointed I was that I didn’t love it. It bored me, half put me to sleep. Every once in a while I’d get to a point I was enjoying and he’d break off to spend four pages describing scenery. I ended up skimming and skipping large portions of the second and third book just to get through them. Sorry Tolkien fans, he just isn’t for me.
float_on_alright: first rule of tea club never talk about tea club (first rule of tea club)
 
First up is Stardust by Neil Gaiman. Okay, I know the villagers sharpening their pitch forks. I don’t mean this as an insult to Mr. Gamain. The book displays great craftsmanship, but his style just didn’t suit me. He is quite funny and I would bet every penny I’ve got that he’d have done a better job than Eoin Colfer at writing the follow up in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy; I feel sure that his style would have been perfect to continue the Hitchhiker’s Trilogy. He stays surprisingly grounded for fantasy and while that’s not a bad thing, it isn’t my preference. In story that is a great adventure full of magic and action, his resolution was logical and it felt anti-climatic. Perhaps the biggest part of my preference for the movie is that I saw the movie before I knew it was based on a book and it set the plot and the expectations in my mind. I think that reading the book first would have given me a (possibly dramatically) different opinion.

Second is Lord of the Rings (thankfully none of my friends are wealthy enough to hire a "cleaner"). Tolkien was a genius - Hello, he created an entire language complete with ruin like symbols and an entire world for his epic series; no one is arguing that the man was brilliant. I read The Hobbit first as a school assignment and I liked it. Granted I liked it less at the end when my favorite dwarf was dying and I finally realized he WASN'T a girl after all and that there were in fact no female characters of any significance. That aside, I did enjoy reading The Hobbit and thought I should read the rest of them. I just didn’t like it. I can’t begin to describe to you how badly I wanted to like it. How disappointed I was that I didn’t love it. It bored me, half put me to sleep. Every once in a while I’d get to a point I was enjoying and he’d break off to spend four pages describing scenery. I ended up skimming and skipping large portions of the second and third book just to get through them. Sorry Tolkien fans, he just isn’t for me.
float_on_alright: i'm known as actually (severed head! just tea for me)
(Part 1 is here)

There are a few movie/book sets that I like equal to each other. Gone with the Wind is the first of them. The book was amazing; yes, it takes about 200 pages to get into it, but Mitchell does an amazing job of making you root for an unlikable character, one who does morally questionable (sometimes disgusting) things but often for reasons you can (kind of) justify. Most of Scarlett’s actions can be classified as either the wrong thing for the right reason or the right thing for the wrong reason, but she has moments, though sometimes small, when you admire her or feel for her. The setting is arguably one of the most tumultuous in America’s, albeit short, history. The reader watches as good intentions drive on the road to racism and hell in a way that is both horrifying and fascinating. The movie brings the characters fear and desperation to vivid life. Both are masterpieces as far as I am concerned.

Pride and Prejudice
staring Kiera Knightly and Sense and Sensibility starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet are also favorites of mine. In case you hadn’t noticed, I like Jane Austen, but a lot of her commentary is about a time that we no longer experience as our reality. Her ideas about people and relationships and even some of the struggles of women have not changed, but these movies let the audience experience the yearning of the story without letting the differences in time, customs, laws, speech, and life get in the way.
float_on_alright: i'm known as actually (severed head! just tea for me)
(Part 1 is here)

There are a few movie/book sets that I like equal to each other. Gone with the Wind is the first of them. The book was amazing; yes, it takes about 200 pages to get into it, but Mitchell does an amazing job of making you root for an unlikable character, one who does morally questionable (sometimes disgusting) things but often for reasons you can (kind of) justify. Most of Scarlett’s actions can be classified as either the wrong thing for the right reason or the right thing for the wrong reason, but she has moments, though sometimes small, when you admire her or feel for her. The setting is arguably one of the most tumultuous in America’s, albeit short, history. The reader watches as good intentions drive on the road to racism and hell in a way that is both horrifying and fascinating. The movie brings the characters fear and desperation to vivid life. Both are masterpieces as far as I am concerned.

Pride and Prejudice
staring Kiera Knightly and Sense and Sensibility starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet are also favorites of mine. In case you hadn’t noticed, I like Jane Austen, but a lot of her commentary is about a time that we no longer experience as our reality. Her ideas about people and relationships and even some of the struggles of women have not changed, but these movies let the audience experience the yearning of the story without letting the differences in time, customs, laws, speech, and life get in the way.
float_on_alright: i'm known as actually (self medicating)


I think I'll start with movies that claim to be based on a book, but you wouldn’t have known if they didn’t have the same title and a few characters with the same name. Blood and Chocolate is the best example of this of which I’m aware. There are parts of the first five minutes if the movie that match the first five pages of the book. A girl, who is actually a werewolf, accidently leads hunters to her family’s house. This leads to the death of some of her family and pack members. Now older, she (Vivian) just wants a "normal" life. She meets a boy named Aiden, they start to fall in love but she can’t tell him her secret and their relationship is causing turmoil amongst the pack. Honestly, if they had changed the title and a couple characters names they would not have had to buy the rights to the book. Vivian’s age, the plot, and the villains are barely similar while the setting and resolution unrecognizable to readers of the book. It was as if they read the first few pages and said, "Right, we can see where this is going, let’s write a script and make a movie"; t
he problem, of course, is that Blood and Chocolate (the book) does not go where you expect it to go, which is part of what makes it one of my all time favorite novels, especially amongst Young Adult reads.

float_on_alright: i'm known as actually (self medicating)


I think I'll start with movies that claim to be based on a book, but you wouldn’t have known if they didn’t have the same title and a few characters with the same name. Blood and Chocolate is the best example of this of which I’m aware. There are parts of the first five minutes if the movie that match the first five pages of the book. A girl, who is actually a werewolf, accidently leads hunters to her family’s house. This leads to the death of some of her family and pack members. Now older, she (Vivian) just wants a "normal" life. She meets a boy named Aiden, they start to fall in love but she can’t tell him her secret and their relationship is causing turmoil amongst the pack. Honestly, if they had changed the title and a couple characters names they would not have had to buy the rights to the book. Vivian’s age, the plot, and the villains are barely similar while the setting and resolution unrecognizable to readers of the book. It was as if they read the first few pages and said, "Right, we can see where this is going, let’s write a script and make a movie"; t
he problem, of course, is that Blood and Chocolate (the book) does not go where you expect it to go, which is part of what makes it one of my all time favorite novels, especially amongst Young Adult reads.

float_on_alright: i'm known as actually (High Functioning Sociopath Sherlock)
 
Some movies based on books may not be as great as the books on which they are based but they still make good movies that are enjoyable and manage to capture at least some essence of the book (Scott Pilgrim). Some movies based on books are disappointing because they miss the point and/or destroy the plot arch so that the plot in the book sequels would no longer make sense (Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief) or just suck in general (choke *Twilight* coughÂ… eh- hem, sorry).

There are a few movie/book pairs that I like equally for assorted reasons (Gone with the Wind for example because I think they are both masterpieces in their own right). Then some movies that claim to be based on a book you wouldn’t have known if they hadn’t kept the same title and a few characters with the same name (Blood and Chocolate). But, though few, there are movies I liked better than the books on which they’re based (God protect me and forgive the sacrilege).

Truthfully, I spend far more time in front of a television/movie screen than is healthy for one person to spend, but I love looking for (sort of) modern day (or not so modern day) archetypes and retellings in television and film. I’m sure that this is related to my love of “twists on a tale” and “characters reinvented”. At any rate, I intend to take a few posts to examine just a few book/movie pairs that strike me for whatever reason I feel like at that particular moment.
float_on_alright: i'm known as actually (High Functioning Sociopath Sherlock)
 
Some movies based on books may not be as great as the books on which they are based but they still make good movies that are enjoyable and manage to capture at least some essence of the book (Scott Pilgrim). Some movies based on books are disappointing because they miss the point and/or destroy the plot arch so that the plot in the book sequels would no longer make sense (Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief) or just suck in general (choke *Twilight* coughÂ… eh- hem, sorry).

There are a few movie/book pairs that I like equally for assorted reasons (Gone with the Wind for example because I think they are both masterpieces in their own right). Then some movies that claim to be based on a book you wouldn’t have known if they hadn’t kept the same title and a few characters with the same name (Blood and Chocolate). But, though few, there are movies I liked better than the books on which they’re based (God protect me and forgive the sacrilege).

Truthfully, I spend far more time in front of a television/movie screen than is healthy for one person to spend, but I love looking for (sort of) modern day (or not so modern day) archetypes and retellings in television and film. I’m sure that this is related to my love of “twists on a tale” and “characters reinvented”. At any rate, I intend to take a few posts to examine just a few book/movie pairs that strike me for whatever reason I feel like at that particular moment.

Profile

float_on_alright: i'm known as actually (Default)
Kate

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
23 4 56 7 8
9 1011 1213 1415
1617 1819 202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 06:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios