The Movie Wasn't Like the Book!
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Re: The Movie Wasn't Like the Book!
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012, 14:20
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Yes, I agree on Queen of the Damned. They did an excellent job on the movie.min wrote:And Queen of the Damned was just as inaccurate, but I loved the movie- one of my favorites!!
But then I'm also looking forward to the new movie of Anna Karenina- it incorporates the whole idea of Russia at the time acting as though they were all on stage with these masks in a dream instead of looking at reality. I'm looking forward to seeing Joe Wright and Tom Stoppards interpretation of the book. Plus Keira Knightly, Jude Law, and Matthew Macfadyen will bring to life the characters from the book in a great way. No doubt about that.
Wow!!! I did not know they were remaking Anna Karenina. It sounds like they have selected a great cast. I am torn as I saw an older version of the movie (can't remember which one), and then I read the book. It will be hard to watch this happening again.
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 02 Sep 2012, 17:14
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
- Bookshelf Size: 0
BUT I'm really looking forawrd to the Anna Karenina- like I said, it mostly takes place on a stage and looks extremely interesting. I have full faith in Wright and Stoppard. (heres the trailer btw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPGLRO3fZnQ)
they're also doing great gatsby with leo dicaprio and tobey macguire. interested to see that one too.
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012, 14:20
- Bookshelf Size: 0
But that is one of the reasons that remakes should be taken for just what they are; entertainment. I think Leonardo deCaprio will do a great job as Gatsby, but in the trailer he seems to act very violently often. That was not F. Scott Fitzgerald's character at all. But again, it can't be the real Gatsby as it probably would not draw an audience today. And of course I have not seen the movie, but only snippets so.....
I am sure there are comedies coming out as well, but did they have to release two such tragic movies at the same time? What do others think? Is it possible for a remake to get closer to the books than previous versions; is it possible to get close at all? Should we just relax and consider it as a movie and not worry about its connection to the book?
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I love to see the characters of a book come to life and to see how other people interpret them- actors on the actions of the character and directors on the scenes and all of that. Watching it come to life with people who do it well is so exciting. I'm just sad that most people won't read the book too. Books take longer I guess :\ I just think people get a bit TOO crazy when it comes to "that wasn't in the book". You can notice, but the negativity and not wanting to watch it because of little things like that, just ridiculous in my opinion. Seems snobbish. (No offense meant to anyone btw, just giving my opinion)
- Fran
- Posts: 28072
- Joined: 10 Aug 2009, 12:46
- Favorite Book: Anna Karenina
- Currently Reading: Hide and Seek
- Bookshelf Size: 1208
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-fran.html
- Reading Device: B00I15SB16
I'm really looking forward to the new version of Anna Karenina & nice to know they are true to the text ... but then who is going to improve on Tolstoy
A world is born again that never dies.
- My Home by Clive James
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 02 Sep 2012, 17:14
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I don't think it's that extreme.. Authors and movie producers/directors/actors are two different things. Plus, the author gets credit and money for their art when turned into a movie form in the expression of a different type of art. It's authors like the 50 Shades of whatever series that takes away from the art of literature, not a book being expressed in movie form... and as for remaking things and changing them to be expressed in a different way is like changing your perspective and looking at something in a way that you have never thought to look at it before. I think it expands your mind into realizing that it's not just the one way... there are different ways to look at everything
- barrieralex
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 19 Sep 2012, 19:26
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-barrieralex.html
- DATo
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 5796
- Joined: 31 Dec 2011, 07:54
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Hi Barrieralex,barrieralex wrote:I think sometimes movies have to change a bit because books often tell and don't show. One movie that was absolutely awful but the book was great was the time traveler's wife. On a separate note, the should have made "the wedding" into a movie.
I both read the book and saw The Time Traveler's Wife movie and I thought they did a pretty good job with the film considering the time restraints required of a movie. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you disliked the movie. Please understand that I am not criticizing your opinion, I am just curious to learn the things about the movie that disappointed you.
― Steven Wright
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- DATo
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 5796
- Joined: 31 Dec 2011, 07:54
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Time Traveler's Wifemin wrote:Yeah, I second that :) I've heard good and bad things about it- would like to hear both of your thoughts on the whys actually :)
The Book:
Well, first of all, I think Audrey Niffenegger did an amazing job with the sequencing of the timeline in the book. The sequencing, though complex, was exceptionally well detailed and presented in a very original way and with a bit of practice became easy to follow. I cannot praise her enough for this. Also, she did not waste a lot of time explaining the mechanism which caused the time-travel to occur. The premise for the mechanism was sufficiently established and then, for the most part, left alone. My main complaint with the book was that Niffenegger took the adage "Write what you know about" too seriously. Niffenegger is involved in art and her character, Clare, is also involved in art. Niffenegger fills a lot of literary real estate with descriptive digressions involving art, cuisine, wines and prenatal care (when Clare is pregnant) ... much more than I wanted to know in all cases. These digressions did not justify the time they took to read, nor did they contribute in any essential way to the story. But for a debut book - her first effort - I think she did an outstanding job.
The Movie:
I think the selection of the cast of the movie was a good one. Eric Bana did a great job as Henry, and, though I did not think so at first, I later came to fully appreciate Rachel McAdams' characterization of Clare. In fact, I liked the performances of all the actors, especially the child actor who plays Clare and Henry's daughter toward the end of the movie. The movie was very well edited: leaving out superfluous filler material and concentrating very well on the essential parts which I felt were dramatized in a manner which was very true to the book. The ending differed from the novel but frankly I preferred the movie ending. I have a feeling that this may be barrieralex's main complaint with the movie. The ending of the book was almost an exact clone of the ending of The Ghost And Mrs. Muir (1947). I'm not saying that Niffenegger copied it but the similarities were too close to ignore and left me with the strong impression that this is where she got her material ... I admit I may be wrong but it left me feeling uneasy. The movie ending was far more original.
― Steven Wright
- kara_pifer
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 22 Sep 2012, 16:19
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kara-pifer.html
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 02 Sep 2012, 17:14
- Bookshelf Size: 0