Book vs. Movie

[hamount]

I usually like the books better than the movie based off of a book. I think it interferes with the creativity process, once I see a movie the character image I'd created based off of the books description is trashed.

[swampdonkey]

I'm sure I am in the minority, but I like Stephen Kings movies better than his books. He's a little too descriptive for me. but I love the movies!!!

[RJK1981]

I actually have a friend who feels that way as well about King. I personally love him being descriptive, allows me to get to know the characters more, but can understand that some might want less

[mlouisdixon]

2001 is my favorite movie; I've never read the novel, but i did read "The Sentinel"-the short story 2001 was based on years later; it really didn't add anything to my enjoyment of the movie. I can't imagine 2001 the novel being necessary to my understanding of the film....

I got to thinking about the 2001 film vs novel idea and decided to do a bit of research. I thought I'd read something about this back in high school. Here is an exerpt of the Wikipedia article:
__________________________________________________ ______
Parallel development of film and novelization

The collaborators originally planned to develop a novel first, free of the constraints of a normal script, and then to write the screenplay; they envisaged that the final writing credits would be "Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" to reflect their preeminence in their respective fields.[27] In practice, however, the cinematic ideas required for the screenplay developed parallel to the novel, with cross-fertilization between the two. In a 1970 interview with Joseph Gelmis, Kubrick explained it this way:

"There are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film...I think that the divergences between the two works are interesting."[28]

In the end, the screenplay credits were shared while the novel, released shortly after the film, was attributed to Clarke alone, but Clarke wrote later that "the nearest approximation to the complicated truth" is that the screenplay should be credited to "Kubrick and Clarke" and the novel to "Clarke and Kubrick".[29]
__________________________________________________ __________

MLD

[TerryE]

Another interesting point about 2001, the book. Based on the early treatment, the book takes place in orbit around Saturn. The cost for the special effects of Saturn ended up being prohibitive as compared to using Jupiter, so Kubrick went with Jupiter, even though the book kept the Saturn setting. Many years later, when the theory of water under the surface the moon of Europa came out, Clarke used that idea as the leaping point of 2010, in essence making a sequel to the movie, not his own novel.

One thing about the book that was so helpful was Clarke's pointing out that the aliens created the monoliths as a means of stimulating intellectual growth in underdeveloped species. Kubrick made the point with the apes, but a lot of people lost that idea with Dave's trip. Plus I love the passage of the book that describes the aliens and their plan.

[frik51]

Pop quiz: what's the best movie ever?
Answer: 2001: A Space Odyssey!
Science Fiction or otherwise.

sk

[RJK1981]

Pop quiz: what's the best movie ever?
Answer: 2001: A Space Odyssey!
Science Fiction or otherwise.

sk

I will have to watch this one again, but the one time I watched it I was very disappointed with it as I heard such good things, and then found myself incredibly bored while trying to watch it. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood for it

[srboone]

Pop quiz: what's the best movie ever?
Answer: 2001: A Space Odyssey!
Science Fiction or otherwise.

sk

I agree 1000%!!!

I was only 3 when it came out, but I caught it theatrically during it's 25th anniversary run. Greatest movie-going experience ever for me. Tho there was the back row with Beth during "The Little Mermaid"...

[frik51]

I agree 1000%!!!

I was only 3 when it came out, but I caught it theatrically during it's 25th anniversary run. Greatest movie-going experience ever for me. Tho there was the back row with Beth during "The Little Mermaid"...

I was in my late-teens when it came out and saw it for the first time while on holidays in London. NEVER had I seen anything like it. This movie towered over all others I had ever seen. Throughout the following years I caught it whenever and wherever I could - always on the big screen of course; the bigger the better. Plus, I always sat front-row center!

I will have to watch this one again, but the one time I watched it I was very disappointed with it as I heard such good things, and then found myself incredibly bored while trying to watch it. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood for it

Maybe you saw it on television?
Let me re-phrase this: most likely you saw this on television?
And,horror-of-horrors, a full-screen (4:3) version?
I own a 60"flatscreen and own 2001 on blu-ray, but it doesn't even come close to rivalling the theatrical experience.
This is one you just have to see in a movie theatre.

In the UK there's a so-called widescreen weekend every year.
70 Milimeter movies are shown on one of the few Cinerama screens left.

http://www.in70mm.com/pictureville/index.htm

Often 2001 is one of them.

sk

[mlouisdixon]

I saw 2001 when it came out which puts me at about four and a half. It was a very surreal experience since I had no clue what was going on, but it made a huge impression on me. I never forgot that movie. Now, when I saw it again as an adult it suddenly made sense. I won't even go into what I thought it was about from a four-year-old's perspective. I'll point out one thing though--I did think a giant baby attacked the earth in the end!

There was a remastered version released in the 80's that I did go to see and it was an awful experience. The print had some kind of flaw that made a popping sound throughout the film. It was barely noticeable except in the outerspace scenes. It seemed to get louder and louder as Dave moved about in what was supposed to be silence.

Oh well, I'm going to wait until my kids are old enough to appreciate this before I watch it with them. They'd surely get bored because there isn't enough explosions and car chases.

MLD

[peteOcha]

Tho there was the back row with Beth during "The Little Mermaid"...

Ahhh.... back row, so many great memories! Who says a boring movie has to be boring...

[Nocdar]

There are a few problems with comparing film to books. First, something like Let the Right One In is a rich and fully realized story in print. To make it into a movie would have required nearly three hours to tell. Film studios are forced to hack away at a story till it fits into the two hour "ideal". The story isn't told fully, but rather it is sold into a box. Let the Right One In was made into a film by the Swedes and then Hollywood gave it a shot. I've seen both and neither came close to getting it done. If I hadn't read the book first (which sadly, is the norm) I would have thoroughly enjoyed either film. But knowing what was missing... well, they lacked the original feel.
The all time worst book to film I can think of was Eragon.
Films require nothing from the viewer. What is meant to be seen is there, spelled out in all its Blue Ray-ness. In a novel, the look of the setting and the sounds are delegated to the reader. Sometimes those two come very close. I enjoyed the trilogy, Lord of the Rings, though the Hobbits looked less Hobbity than in my several readings. But it took nearly ten hours to give us those three books and is the best book to film I can think of. I'd love to see them do The Hobbit.

[miki74]

They are doing the Hobbit. Comes out in 2012. I am really looking forward to it as I love LOTR.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

[cdfan]

Maybe you saw it on television?
Let me re-phrase this: most likely you saw this on television?
And,horror-of-horrors, a full-screen (4:3) version?

sk

I am going to commit this exact sin later today. 2001 aired last night so I taped it to watch later today for the first time.

I also plan to rent Clockwork Orange before it is removed from On Demand so I can finally compare that to the book.

[frik51]

I am going to commit this exact sin later today. 2001 aired last night so I taped it to watch later today for the first time.

Sacrilige indeed.
2001 demands to be seen on the big screen.
In the theatre it's an overwhelming experience.
On a 4:3 screen it's a dud!

sk