It's that time of the week again ....
Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?
I want the same thing from both books and movies: a good story, well told, that doesn't treat me like an idiot. I want to be transported, to escape, to be inspired. Whether I'm holding a book in my hand, or sitting in the dark with the smell of popcorn, that's what I want. :)
Edited to add (because I may have misinterpreted the question); as for adaptations, I don't think about it most of the time. If I've read the book first, I compare the movie, but I try not to think "but they left that bit out!" and if I see the movie first, then read the book, I find the differences interesting. But I don't deliberately avoid adaptations. I love both mediums, so either way, I'm happy. :)
5 comments:
Good for you, Maree! And yeah, entertainment do counts!! :D But being a booklover, it still annoys me to find the movies didn't follow as closely as the books. ;P
Actually I like to watch crappy movies (slapstick ones) with no stories for entertainment value. So that I don't have sit down and think afterwards!
:D
My BTT post!
I came to pretty much the same conclusion. With the exception that I avoid tear-jerker movies but love it when a book makes me cry.
I didn't think of adaptations at first either.
I usually end up reading the book after I see the film. Happy BTT.
I too love both the mediums and always feel that they-left-that-bit-out criticism for movie adaptations is rather unfair. It's never easy to include every bit from a book into a 2 hour movie.
Post a Comment