|
and my mind tells the same. This was my point when posting this question. 
|
|
|
|
|
I've read all of the Reacher novels other than the last 2 or 3 as they are not as good. I also made myself watch "Reacher" with Tiny Cruise. Reacher is 6'5" and Cruise is 5'6". However, it wasn't that bad. It wasn't that good. But it wasn't that bad. 
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I've read all of the Reacher novels other than the last 2 or 3 as they are not as good.
How do you know if you haven't read them? (I only ask as I am in the process of going through them now).
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. I started to read a couple of them and think that they should not have been written: he had already taken the character as far as he should have. The last one I read felt like it was really stretching to tell the story. That's just my feeling: I may well be wrong. I really liked the earlier novels: Reacher is a very likable character.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I really liked the earlier novels: Reacher is a very likable character.
I agree, though I'm starting to find the love interest in nearly every story a bit repetitive and obvious. Although at least Child doesn't go into to much detail about the love-making which I can find a bit cringe-worthy in other peoples books.
|
|
|
|
|
After reading the reply I "SHRUGGED", again and again......
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer books to movies, especially when I've read the book before.
I find the movie usually disappointing, there are exceptions to that rule, but these are few.
But I have to admit, sometimes you just want to put your mind in buzz-mode and be entertained.
That's when movies come in handy, don't think just watch.
Oh, and you've picked a great book, I read that 6 months ago. And kept on reading the "Jack Reacher"-series. There were one or two I didn't like that much but I'm currently reading "Bad Luck and Trouble", book 11. So have fun and happy reading.
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what the genre, 95% of the time the book is a far better choice. I was tempted to say 100%, but then remembered a few books that were written after the movie, and those are uniformly disappointing. Not only do movies always omit details in order to meet a run time goal, they skip such critical steps as background development and character depth. Sometimes - all of the Jack Ryan movies except "... Red October" for instance - appear to have been made by people who have never read the book, nor had it read to them. These movies aren't even the same story as the book of the same title.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point(s). 
Did you happen to waste any time with the Stephen King / CBS TV series "Under the Dome"? Not even close to the book. Bad enough that important story lines were dropped but they added new ones for no apparent reason. 
BTW - I happen to be in the middle of reading all of Clancy's "Jack Ryan" novels in chronological order. Just started "Debt of Honor".
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: I happen to be in the middle of reading all of Clancy's "Jack Ryan" novels in chronological order.
Good move! Every few years I have to do the same; they never get old, even as I do.
I've never understood the attraction of Stephen King, having read one or two of his early works and not being interested by them. I just don't "get" horror stories, I guess. Reading the newspaper is all the fright and psychotic delusions I can process. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: I've never understood the attraction of Stephen King
I actually like most of King's stuff... its the newspaper that I stay away from.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience when the movie based on a book the book always better, and that - IMHO - because of the lack of details you can have in a book. However it does not mean no for movies - there are very good movies based on good stories that you never get in books...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
definately books are more interesting than movies but only when you read the book first and may be watch movie later. what happen with me recently that i have already watched movie "life of PI" and now i am reading the book..but now i do not feel like reading book as i can only imagine actors when i read the book. so i quit reading this book and now will go with some other option.
Ravi Khoda
|
|
|
|
|
When you say book I am assuming you mean fiction type.
I actually feel guilty if I spend hours reading a "story" compared to a book on self-growth or something I could use in life or business, with the amount of books that could do an impact in life plus work plus family, there is no time for fiction. I also enjoy the visual effects like in Lord of The Rings and Thor.
So definitely a movie.
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Tibi wrote: I also enjoy the visual effects like in Lord of The Rings and Thor
I bet you have far better visual effects in your imagination than the one that you see in the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
I free my imagination for other fantasies
(code fantasies, if you are wondering!)
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
Well then fictional books are not for you 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you on book being better in all genres (at least those genres I like to watch / read). There are exceptions, but they're rare. I'm also a bit against JRR Tolkien's sagas - LotR is not a "quick" read - you need a vacation to enjoy it at "leisure" otherwise you're going to hate its verbosity. Similar examples exist, but I'd say they are the chicken teeth between the feathers!
One example where it varied between sequels. I liked the Dune movie better than the first set of Dune books they were based on (not the original 1984 version, but the one which came out in 2000's). This was because IMO Frank Herbert had a very rambling writing style, sometimes I found it torture to read through the book. The movie did however amputate much of the story. Some of the later books however were written at a much better pace, and the latest are actually written by his son in conjunction with Kevin J. Anderson (the writer of XFiles) - these I REALLY liked (gobbled them up over a year to the expense of not watching a single movie / TV show the entire year).
The 2nd "set" of movies (Children of Dune) was al-right, but by then I've wrestled through the first books and have found the jewels at the end - which meant the movies were just snippets from the books, and badly thought out imagery as compared to what my brain could render. When I re-watched the Dune movie, I didn't like it as much as before. I could actually see scenes my mind made up from the book which was not in the movie - and to me that had a detrimental effect on the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
Govindaraj Rangaraj wrote: I am not sure if everyone feels the same way as I do.
I used to, but I've come to realize that it's like a play -- different interpretations of the same material. Taken like that, I can often enjoy both, although not too close together.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I always found it best to watch the movie then read the book.
The book will always have more detail and more characters.
The movie will always leave scenes out that you wanted to see, or blend characters together, or even change the point of the story.
Rarely will you not be disappointed when you see the film version. Some exceptions, Bladerunner was a much better movie than the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Bladerunner had scenes that were lifted directly from the book, but the wrappers in the movie made them much better than their context in the book. I thought the Harry Potter movies were better than the books (towards the end) because the movies remembered they had a story to tell and I think JKR had forgotten that with the dollhouse she had created and was just having too much fun playing with them than in telling a story.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
Like most of the other answers, I would go for the book every time. However there are some exceptions. Some of the current vamplit is just as dire in book as in film form. On the other hand some films based on a short story actually manage to do the original justice by developing subjects that were only hinted at in the short story. A prime example (for me) of this is Total Recall (the original of course, the re-imagining was 50 shades if dire), based on a short story by P. K. Dick.
Other examples where the film doesn't spoil the book:
The Birds
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Shawshank Redemption
|
|
|
|
|
Usually books have a lot of detail that gets edited out from the movies for time constrains, so most of the time books are better than their namesake movies, however, I usually like to mix them on moderation.
|
|
|
|
|
In general I think it is best to regard movies of books as separate forms - they almost never live up to what I thought the author was trying to convey. One exception - Brideshead Revisited, where the TV adaptation was as near as possible to perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
