Kapil Nevatia

Director / CEO, Sunjewels Group

This conversation is closed.

Why dont we enjoy the movie as much as the book ?

You name it - Harry Potter, Girl with the dragon tattoo, thrillers .... Is it the time shortage, inability to cast certain parts, censoring ..... ? When you read, you are allowed to create your own pictural imagination; in the movie you cant imagine and the cast itself maybe very different ... could it be our inability to accept that change easily ?

  • thumb
    Apr 27 2011: Books are just more personal. They're almost a set of instructions & parameters within which your imagination can run wild. When you read a book you're creating, when you watch a movie you're observing.
  • Apr 26 2011: Well, I honestly believe a book and a movie are 2 completely different mediums of visual art and trying to compare the 2 cannot be done. Yes, ideas are taken out of books and transformed for the movie screen but once that idea is a movie the concept is entirely different. Because it is not only about the original idea but also the way the new artist perceives it and executes it, resulting in a new presentation of the idea.
    with a book, the reader dreams up the visuals. it allows every single reader to become an artist with their imaginations as the tools to paint the pictures in the book.
    with a movie, the audience is seeing the idea of the book from a collective point of view of the director, producer, writer whatever (i dont really know anyhting about the movie industry). The pictures of the movie are forced upon the audience without any real imagination on the audience's part.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2011: Hi Kapil;
    I think of this question very often (including whenever a new part of Harry Potter is released!). I don't think that's a general rule, but there are really rare exceptions. For example The Lord of the Rings -I enjoyed the movie more than the book!

    I think the main reason for this is that when you are writing a book, to make it interesting you consider different parameters than you do when making a movie.
    For example, I recently watched "Veronika decides to die" based on Paulo Coelho's book. That sure was a nightmare! they really had it changed. There was this schizophrenic patient who never talked during the book and this fact made his relation with Veronika special, but in the movie, I couldn't believe him standing in the middle of the hospital shouting "Veronikaaaa!! Let me go..." (or something like that).
    Later on I thought to myself that maybe there was no better way to make a movie out of such a spiritual context.
    Maybe that's the answer. That some contexts can't be communicated via visual media, and trying to push them into a movie makes the movie weird and unpopular. That really depends on what most of the movie makers regard as movie-evaluating-criteria.
  • thumb
    Apr 28 2011: Fully agree with what @ Katie Youg posted here. Moreover there are more people out there who don't or can't read book but enjoy movies only movies. So generalization of your premise is not valid to my feeling.
    Yes there are also people who enjoy book more but that's not the majority.
    Besides , it's not possible to capture everything of book in to a movie as canvass of book is much wider. I enjoyed more the book Da Vinchi Code than the movie. On the other hand enjoyed both the book of "Pother Panchali" by Bivuti Bhushan & its film by Sattayjit Roy but from completely different perspective (for the reason of enjoyment actually I tried to forget the book while watching the movie and vice versa).
  • Apr 27 2011: because books can be more realistic then movies, if i read a book about a dragon who rules a small village with fear i can imagine it much better then you could make it.

    It is also on part by the directors taking too many creative changes to the story i.e: in Lord of the Flies (spoilers) piggy dies by getting hit by a tumbling rock and landing onto a rock slab in the ocean, but in the movie he gets hit by a rock and just drops, as if he was knocked unconscious, that killed the best part of the book (IMO).
  • thumb
    Apr 26 2011: Books can let our imagination run bigger and wider than movies.
  • thumb
    Apr 26 2011: because it is easier to start 4 books at one time than 4 movies .
  • thumb

    Sky F

    • 0
    Apr 26 2011: I know it doesn't really pertain to the topic, but it kind of does, I would just like to state that I enjoyed watching Slaughterhouse Five after I finished the book. I didn't even think it would have been adaptable.
  • Apr 26 2011: No matter what I feel as though we are going to like and accept our ideas and pictures more than anyone else's. Our egos if you want to call it that, allow us to believe that our form of a character is "better" or more accurate than someone else's form.

    I think another great thing about books compared to movies is the ability to put it down and come back to it. We can allow the concepts and meanings to permeate our thoughts for a night or however long rather than being fed a storyline continuously for 2 or 3 hours.
  • thumb
    Apr 26 2011: i think people watch movie for diffrent reasons, i apreciate them as art in of themselves. it alows me to be in someone elses imagination, unlike a book.
  • thumb
    Apr 26 2011: A reader is constantly involved with creating the visual atmosphere. The words that you read allow you to mold a particular understanding. When I read "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad, my imagination was simply injected with something profoundly appetizing. I love the book, but once I watched the movie I sort of lost the credibility of what I built about such a beautiful book.

    In my honest opinion, movies eliminate the imaginative process we normally undergo while reading a book, unless it's accurate.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2011: For most, reading a book allows for the opportunity to create ones own movie version. We are in control of the imagery which unfolds on every page and while the given circumstances are dictated by the author the environment is created within the mind. The smallest detail is an image of the interpretation of each individuals perception, which, when added together creates the world as the reader would have it be. The film version is another persons reality of this truth and, one which is limited by time, budget and a second set of given circumstances, the ability to create that world on film. While today's film techniques are amazing, they still do not, nor possibly ever will equal that of the imagination.
  • Apr 25 2011: I'd say it has to do with the fact that with a book, you get every single fact thats important to the story. with a movie, a lot is left out.

    If you read the book before you saw the movie, chances are you'll like the book better, simply because it will seem like the book did a better job explaining the important facts in better detail.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2011: One of the more interesting findings from the work of Csikszentmihalyi and others is that reading has many of the ingredients that promote the intense pleasure of flow, whereas movies and television have the opposite effect.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2011: Books allow us to create every nuance of the environment, setting and characters ourselves and they have the time to flesh out all of the details. Movies predetermine the look of everythng and that might not quite match our imaginings. They also have to fit into such a short time frame that many details are deleted.
    Movies are fun but never as satisfying as the book.