Do as you please but it's the movie which is great, just in case you didn't notice. :O)
What, you mean somehow the book sucks but the movie's awesome?
I don't know, with stuff like that, I can see myself falling asleep in front of the movie but being gripped by the book. Some books can even make action scenes or fights interesting, while the movie versions are all "when are they skipping to the interesting stuff?".
And when the psychological aspect might be important (like, say, in a prison) I can imagine just how much would be lost in an adaptation.
Not saying I'll never watch the movie. I might if I like the book. I just wouldn't risk it as it is.
If that's true, then I'll have something to look forward to when I finish the book
I don't know, the book was there first. Watching the movie first would feel like reading a sequel first. Or watching a remake before the original. Nothing horrible if it does happen, but something I prefer to avoid.
I don't think that it's reasonable connecting a release date with the quality of a content but if you prefer doing it this way then it's okay as well. Actually i would be more than surprised if you wouldn't. :O)
How did you get into my mind? Seriously though, I didn't like the Odyssey movie; I mean it was a great adaption, but for some reason I loved the book and hated the movie. I'm not sure how I would've felt about a Rama movie, although I probably would have liked it better.
I don't think that it's reasonable connecting a release date with the quality of a content but if you prefer doing it this way then it's okay as well.
That's not exactly it... Like, there are sequels that are better, but I still want to read the first one first or see the first one first... Just to have the background. It's more of a "at the time this was released, would I have had access to the other one already?". I tell myself if I had been there when the movie was released, I would have read the book already, so I should do it in that order. If I'm making sense. Because it's based on it.
I also wouldn't read the novelisation of a movie before watching the movie. I find it more interesting to see the second one and wonder why they made this and that change, and stuff like that, and who they picked as actors...
Also, reading before watching the movie or knowing who's acting in it means I can make my own idea of the characters, instead of just seeing the actors from the movie when I read the book, which I feel would deprive me of something.
I think you can argue for as well as against this. In the end it's a personal preference and personally i'm less conservative here and just head straight for the medium which attracts me the most. Sometimes this is the book, sometimes it is the film. In this case i found the movie a lot more interesting than the book but again do as you please as long as you watch the film at some point. ;O)
So, finally saw Shawshank Redemption. Following people's advice, I did something weird... I started reading short story first, then stopped partway through and watched the movie. I plan on reading the rest of the short story but I need to get my hands back on it now.
Now I feel I can answer Guru's previous post, that I hadn't read at the time to avoid spoilers. Both events had already happened when I stopped in the written version.
I'd say it's not nearly the same, but I've never read the book, so I can't compare the two. Just from reading the Wikipedia summary of the Steven King story, I can say that I noticed two major plot points that were altered for the movie. One of them (
the suicide of Brooks
, for those who have seen it and are wondering what I'm talking about) is simply omitted from the summary and may have been in the original story, and I feel the other (
the warden killing Tommy, rather than moving him to a lower security prison
) was improved in the movie and better served to cement the main villain.
I can't remember exactly, but it seems to me the first one did happen. When I saw the movie, I was expecting it to happen and I don't think I made it up. I would say it wasn't focused on as much, but the story is more of a collection of events, several of which don't happen in the movie, and it's out of chronological order so it's a bit hard to be sure. I liked the way it was written though, felt much more realistic, like someone remembering it, complete with some details that seem completely unimportant but contribute to that "true story" feel.
The second one, I actually disliked that change. In the story,
the warden basically corrupts Tommy, telling him, "you shut your mouth and you'll go to a better prison", and he accepts for the sake of his family, who will be able to visit him.
To me, it made the story more realistic as well. First,
Tommy isn't as much of a "martyr" anymore, or devoted to Andy. He's a real human being who might feel like crap for it, but is going to let Andy stay in prison if that means he gets to see his wife and kid once a week instead of getting beaten up regularly.
Secondly,
the warden seemed completely reckless to me in the movie. So many witnesses. So many other people involved. So many ways to track what happened, so many traces. In the story, he did it discreetly, in a way that could never be proven or tracked back to him. It made me feel the powerlessness of Andy more. Nothing he could do about it. In the movie, the warden is even exposed for the murder, too. To me, that shows how completely reckless that was. It makes him all the more scarier and smarter when there doesn't seem to be a way to get him for it
Okay, now on to my comments:
Past the first five minutes of "wait, they picked a black guy to play the Irish red-haired guy nicknamed "Red"?", I thought the casting choice was amazing. Great acting there. I loved it.
For the story itself, well, I guessed the end very early into the book, and thought it was even more obvious in the movie (and keep in mind I hadn't, and still haven't, read the end of the book). So I think that took the "wow" factor out right away, because there was no surprise.
On the other hand, it didn't prevent me from enjoying both. I just saw things coming from a mile away. In the end of the movie, I was waiting for
the warden to pick a rock and throw it at the poster, only for the rock to go through
. I was sure it was going to happen, it just seemed like it had to. And it did. Although he kind of took his time with it.
I have no clue if that happens in the book as well, mind you.
I thought the end was nice. I thought the movie respected what I've read of the short story nicely. I could tell who was who pretty much right away, even for characters who weren't supposed to be there at the time. Some stuff changed orders but that was fine.
All in all, I prefer the written story. It seems to me the movie added extra violence and yet somehow removed the "scary and with no escape" feel, which is a feeling I really got from the short story, and that's appropriate for a prison story. The casting choices were great, I will totally agree with that, and I can't say I wasted my time watching the movie, but if I had to pick one, and even though I haven't finished the short story yet, I preferred the short story.
I think the final conclusion to that is that it's certainly not a movie I would have decided to watch on my own, or a story I would have decided to read on my own. It's a good and a bad thing: I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have because it isn't my kind of story, on the other hand I like widening my horizon and trying new stuff, and as far as movies/short stories that aren't for me are concerned, it's a good one.
Yeah those are the same guys who do Rifftrax, where they riff on mainstream movies just as themselves. By the way, this got me to watch Alien for the first time. It's a very silly movie; the actual movie.
Man on Wire - Moody atmosphere and i just was amazed that someone did this.
The Ghostwriter - I liked the ending of the movie, also the music then.
Gegen die Wand - Again, so powerful, very good movie.
Comments
What, you mean somehow the book sucks but the movie's awesome?
I don't know, with stuff like that, I can see myself falling asleep in front of the movie but being gripped by the book. Some books can even make action scenes or fights interesting, while the movie versions are all "when are they skipping to the interesting stuff?".
And when the psychological aspect might be important (like, say, in a prison) I can imagine just how much would be lost in an adaptation.
Not saying I'll never watch the movie. I might if I like the book. I just wouldn't risk it as it is.
Just trust me, blindly, i know it's hard for you! :O)
I don't know, the book was there first. Watching the movie first would feel like reading a sequel first. Or watching a remake before the original. Nothing horrible if it does happen, but something I prefer to avoid.
Oh..well...um...you see..what I meant to say was... [jumps out of a window]
How did you get into my mind? Seriously though, I didn't like the Odyssey movie; I mean it was a great adaption, but for some reason I loved the book and hated the movie. I'm not sure how I would've felt about a Rama movie, although I probably would have liked it better.
Hard to say, i liked the book but i think i was just too young to fully appreciate it when i was reading it, so the film kind of opened it for me.
@TTG
Now this would be a licence!
That's not exactly it... Like, there are sequels that are better, but I still want to read the first one first or see the first one first... Just to have the background. It's more of a "at the time this was released, would I have had access to the other one already?". I tell myself if I had been there when the movie was released, I would have read the book already, so I should do it in that order. If I'm making sense. Because it's based on it.
I also wouldn't read the novelisation of a movie before watching the movie. I find it more interesting to see the second one and wonder why they made this and that change, and stuff like that, and who they picked as actors...
Also, reading before watching the movie or knowing who's acting in it means I can make my own idea of the characters, instead of just seeing the actors from the movie when I read the book, which I feel would deprive me of something.
Now I feel I can answer Guru's previous post, that I hadn't read at the time to avoid spoilers. Both events had already happened when I stopped in the written version.
I can't remember exactly, but it seems to me the first one did happen. When I saw the movie, I was expecting it to happen and I don't think I made it up. I would say it wasn't focused on as much, but the story is more of a collection of events, several of which don't happen in the movie, and it's out of chronological order so it's a bit hard to be sure. I liked the way it was written though, felt much more realistic, like someone remembering it, complete with some details that seem completely unimportant but contribute to that "true story" feel.
The second one, I actually disliked that change. In the story,
Okay, now on to my comments:
Past the first five minutes of "wait, they picked a black guy to play the Irish red-haired guy nicknamed "Red"?", I thought the casting choice was amazing. Great acting there. I loved it.
For the story itself, well, I guessed the end very early into the book, and thought it was even more obvious in the movie (and keep in mind I hadn't, and still haven't, read the end of the book). So I think that took the "wow" factor out right away, because there was no surprise.
On the other hand, it didn't prevent me from enjoying both. I just saw things coming from a mile away. In the end of the movie, I was waiting for
I have no clue if that happens in the book as well, mind you.
I thought the end was nice. I thought the movie respected what I've read of the short story nicely. I could tell who was who pretty much right away, even for characters who weren't supposed to be there at the time. Some stuff changed orders but that was fine.
All in all, I prefer the written story. It seems to me the movie added extra violence and yet somehow removed the "scary and with no escape" feel, which is a feeling I really got from the short story, and that's appropriate for a prison story. The casting choices were great, I will totally agree with that, and I can't say I wasted my time watching the movie, but if I had to pick one, and even though I haven't finished the short story yet, I preferred the short story.
I think the final conclusion to that is that it's certainly not a movie I would have decided to watch on my own, or a story I would have decided to read on my own. It's a good and a bad thing: I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have because it isn't my kind of story, on the other hand I like widening my horizon and trying new stuff, and as far as movies/short stories that aren't for me are concerned, it's a good one.
Man on Wire - Moody atmosphere and i just was amazed that someone did this.
The Ghostwriter - I liked the ending of the movie, also the music then.
Gegen die Wand - Again, so powerful, very good movie.