Topic started by venKat (@ kraken.fw-sj.sony.com) on Tue Oct 24 15:13:09 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Before I have seen the Jurassic Park, the movie, I happened to read the novel of Chricton and felt the terror with Zero-Graphics. Kudos to Chricton.
There are tons of novels made to movies almost all of Chricton and old ones like Schindler's List, Gone with the wind, Howard's End.......
My personal opinion is that the novels made a great impact on me than the movies. I am not blaming the actors or directors. I believe novels gives more imagination to one than the movies.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: roopesh (@ 202.9.175.244) on: Thu May 31 08:23:47
  
  Why hasn't Sphere been mentioned anywhere out here. I think it's an excellent picturisation of the book, except that damn thing (I dont wanna give it away) flying off in the last scene.
  
  And, ravi sundaram said:
  5. The movies will beat the novels when they
  create a sense of anticipation and then force
  you to wait for the suspence. Cant flip to the
  next page quickly in a movie. That is why
  science-fiction movies and hitchcock thrillers
  are better as movies than novels
  
  But yes, if you do give a good build up of suspense, you are making the fella turn to the next page faster. Has happened to me with Crichton and King. Anyway sci-fi flick Lost World sucked. And J.Park came nowhere close to the bk.
  
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ 63.65.68.246) on: Thu May 31 14:08:59
  
  I got a movie version of the novel Women in Love, by D.H.Lawrence, from a public library. (Man, these libraries always amaze me with their collections of some of the finest movies ever made and which you get free of cost). It was a nice experience to go through the movie version of one of the greatest novels. Lawrence is a difficult writer and can easily be misinterpreted. What struck me in the movie was that there was a fine attempt to grasp at the Lawrencian sense of emotional relations as they arise from physical relations between men and women and between men among themselves too. It is told far better in a flowing narrative so charactarestic of Lawrence, in the novel, but then it wasn’t at least misinterpreted in the movie. Lawrence has been considered to be the greatest novelist of this century by many well reputed critics for his analysis of human relations in relation to the mental development it has had through the long years of civilized history, and this movie did justice at least to the extent that it could arise a curiosity in knowing more about the writer.
  
  
• From: David (@ spider-ntc-ta083.proxy.aol.com) on: Tue Jul 24 07:04:21
  
  Novels let the reader explore the mind of the main character, you just simply can't do that in a film. Because all of a movie is what the characters are expressing through talking.
  
  
• From: Srini (@ 12.39.64.157) on: Fri Aug 10 10:29:01
  
  tShankar,
  
  I agree with u MacLean's novels were made into good movies. But not so with Papillion. The book is a great one! But the movie is a mockery of it. I read in an article that the director of the movie had to cut it short becos of lack of funds.
  
  Come any day " Novels are the best"
  
  
• From: anu (@ ppp-200-1-62.bng.vsnl.net.in) on: Mon Sep 3 09:29:16
  
  How do u rate the work BenHur, the winner of several oscars?
  
  
• From: hanzel (@ 202.9.168.43) on: Sun Sep 9 06:51:55
  
  it is not fair what u are trying to say..... i agree, most books dont come within miles of the original book........ but all of u say about crichton, king etc. we should remember that these authors are some of the best in the profession..... the actors and the directors ,they just cannot compete with crichton ..... his books picturise everything much better than the movies.......... but what about 'silence of the lambs' and 'hannibal' and 'exorcist'? all of these books are superb... but the movies seem to grab you much more than the books........ i am not saying that blatty and harris are not good authors, but the movoies seem somewhat different and better........
  
  
• From: RJ (@ 203.199.72.210) on: Tue Oct 30 00:44:55
  
  Probably, it's also got to do with what u see first: the movie or the novel. If you saw the movie first, the novel might seem a drag.
  
  Any experiences?
  
  
• From: topclone (@ 146.189.231.245) on: Tue Oct 30 20:54:05
  
  "If you saw the movie first, the novel might seem
  a drag." Tell me about it! I remember being absolutely mesmerized by Ben-Hur and his celluloid escapades in my childhood. And so, when I got hold of the Lew Wallace's opus (calf-bound vellum copy, no less) I was all set to read up a storm. But alas! The written lines were so positively insipid that it seemed as though Charlton Heston and William Wyler had paid a greater tribute to our hero than Mr.Wallace himself.
  On the other hand, watching "The Man in the Iron Mask" hardly satisfied my appetite for swash-buckling adventure despite the considerable box-office clout of all its stars (even the suspiciously effeminate Leonardo). The movie was simply no match for Dumas's masterpiece.
  And I was as engrossed by Peter O'Toole do his stuff in 'Lawrence of Arabia' as I was while turning the pages of "Seven Pillars of Wisdom", the real Lawrence's memoirs.
  As for the others:
  Silence of the Lambs: Better Movie
  Hannibal: Book rules!
  River runs through it: Book wins.
  Emma: Book (despite Ms.Paltrow's excellent effort)
  Pride and Prejudice: Book (despite my mania for Colin Firth)
  One flew over the cuckoo's nest: Movie (Jack was too good)
  To kill a Mocking Bird: Hmmm.Tough one.
  Little Women: The Book.
  
  This list could go on and on. But to spare myself the effort and spare you the grief, I'll just say that this book-to-movie transition can only be as good as who's making the movie and who's in it. (Imagine Joel Schumacher trying to remake Ben-Hur with Mark Wahlberg in the lead).
  So all those Potter and Tolkien fans out there, keep your fingers crossed.
  
  
• From: roopesh (@ proxyle02.ext.ti.com) on: Tue Dec 25 08:09:07
  
  Topclone, the "Iron Mask" is a shame of a movie. Full of holes, and definitley not well visualized. By itself, it a !@$@% movie.
  
  David, I disagree that the characters don't get to show in a movie. Indian movies employ dialogues to move the plot, while Hollywood emplys dialogues to reflect the character (Thanks: Rajiv Menon). Yeah, they can't do it as good as in a book, true.
  
  Hanzel, I think it'll be interesting to watch 'Coma' and 'The Great Train Robbery', where Crichton is a director. Have ya?
  
  
• From: sKyE (@ cache01.flow.com.au) on: Thu Jun 19 07:18:03
  
  I believe it iz tru dat novels provide more imagination for the story than the film but sometimes watchin da movie first can b quite that much beta>.. as it is easier 2 understand who everyone iz..wen relating to the film to kill a mocking bird i believe it woz easier to understand, and more enjoyable to c characters come to life on screen!
  
  
• From: Author (@ 034.a.004.syd.iprimus.net.au) on: Sun Oct 5 23:14:53
  
  It's very simple. Novels are not movies and visa-versa. Movies are BASED on novels, thus they are not the novel directly. For example. Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire" or "Queen of the Dammed" They both do not follow the book exactly, but are there own adaptation. As a writer, I can honestly say that movies, though can't express emotion like novels can, convey it in a differnt way, with music and so forth.
  We also have to consider various peoples attempts to portray a novel as a movie, and readers imagination and patience to read books...
  It is difficult to compare both movies and novels to each other because they are so different.
  Basically, it depends on peoples opinions.
  
  
• From: Amanda Guzman (@ pool-162-84-209-99.ny5030.east.verizon.net) on: Mon Feb 23 17:43:25
  
  My question is that I will like to know if the novel The Bluest Eye has a film, and if you guys have it.
  
  Thank you
  
  
• From: Adam (@ s010600401015f3a2.wp.shawcable.net) on: Fri Jun 4 19:18:04
  
  What public domain novel or novels would make a great film? (That haven't been filmed already)
  
  
• From: droogies (@ wc09.mtnk.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com) on: Thu Jul 8 23:10:38
  
  hey...i've read all your comments and they are all quiet enjoyable. To my amusement all the books you talked about are books that my classmates from grade 11 english class chose to read and watch the video to be able to compare them in an essay format. I do not know much about them myself but now i am really excited to hear their presentations about the books and their adaptations to the movies. Yet, im still wondering about the book i chose and since you seem the right people to ask (sounding so smart and all) i am going to ask you. What do you personally think of the great novel, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess? I do believe that the novel is better than the movie, although the movie is quiet good by itself and very detailed. thx and ciao!
  
  
• From: Terry (@ host-212-158-208-21.bulldogdsl.com) on: Thu Sep 2 09:52:18
  
  Misery the movie says it all. The book was superb.
  
  
• From: bkgaur (@ 210.212.89.4) on: Tue Sep 28 13:18:17 EDT 2004
  
  picturization is always commercial,so see movie for entertainment and not for a true version of novel.Bapsi Sidhwa's Ice Candy Man has been made in to a film in the same way-The Earth 1947 .
  
  
• From: Seth (@ ip-66-186-251-243.dynamic.eatel.net) on: Wed Nov 24 09:17:17
  
  I was wondering. I read this really awesome book by Fern Michaels. The name of the book is called "Captive Splendors" I was wondering if ANYONE--ANYONE at all could tell me where I can find the movie that was made from this novel. My e-main is big_swole_19_70515@yahoo.com I would really appreciate any help anyone can give me.
  
  

Want to post a response?