Movie covers....GRRRRR!

[Jimmy Magnusson]

With the majority here - hate them with a vengeance, especially if the movie title is different to the book.
Worst one I ever saw said:

That's really hideous.

 

[ratsy]

I really don't care that much. It is not the cover I am interested in but the writing inside. I have a copy of Dick's "Blade Runner" and I understand that no one would watch a movie called "do androids dream of electric sheep" The movie watchers and book readers on a lot of levels are different. Book readers arent necessarily turned off by titles especially if it is by an author they really like.

 

[Lady of Winterfell]

I'm with the majority here, I much prefer non movie covers. It doesn't need to be the original cover and artwork for me, just not the movie version. When a friend recommended I read The Other Boleyn Girl, I went to the bookstore to find it, and they had tons with the cover of Eric Bana, Scarlett Johanssen and Natalie Portman, and a couple with a painting as the cover. I paid the extra couple bucks for the non movie version one.

I do have the LOTR trilogy with the movie covers though. But I hope to replace them someday with different ones.

 

[Pyan]

I have a copy of Dick's "Blade Runner"

No you haven't, ratsy, because PKD never wrote a book called Blade Runner, - and he had a good reason for calling it Do Androids...

The other problem is that you have to look really hard to see if you're buying a copy of the book as written by the original author, or the "novelization" (dreadful word) of the film.

But it does work the other way sometimes: Raymond Chandler wanted to call one of his novels The Second Murder, his publisher changed the title to Farewell, My Lovely, and the rest is history...

 

[ratsy]

No you haven't, ratsy, because PKD never wrote a book called Blade Runner,

Well I can guarantee you that the publishers and authors sell a lot more books when a hit movie is based on their novel. I am sure that a lot of people bought Jurrasic Park after the movie came out. I dont know how much the author really cares when they are rolling around on a pile of money

 

[Clansman]

No you haven't, ratsy, because PKD never wrote a book called Blade Runner,

Well I can guarantee you that the publishers and authors sell a lot more books when a hit movie is based on their novel. I am sure that a lot of people bought Jurrasic Park after the movie came out. I dont know how much the author really cares when they are rolling around on a pile of money

Actually, that particular author, Michael Crichton, no longer cares, as he sadly passed away recently.

Yeah, movie covers suck, but the movies do bring more people to the books, which is a good thing. After a while, the movie covers disappear. I wonder if Terry Goodkind is going to rename his books The Legend of the Stink-- ahem. Seeker.

 

[ratsy]

I will admit that I never would have read Wizards first rule if it had the new cover...Worst Richard ever!

 

[Clansman]

I would have never read Wizard's First Rule if I had known how bad the series would get by book no. 3.

 

[CBellenis]

Depends on the book/film. I Robot would be irritating as it's got so little to do the Robot stories. On the other hand, Stardust was done well so I wouldn't mind Clare Danes on the cover.

 

[CBellenis]

I would have never read Wizard's First Rule if I had known how bad the series would get by book no. 3.

Bit off topic, but did you also struggle though all 10 - hopefully? and will we feel obliged somehow to do the same with the films?

 

[Wiggum]

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n25/n127159.jpg

One of the best books I've read in the last ten years.

By one of my favorite authors.

I don't have anything against either Penelope Cruz, or Matt Damon, but please, a floating head, kissing poster shot on the front of a National Book Award Winner?

Floating head posters for the actual movies are bad enough.

Just.Plain.Sad.

 

[Clansman]

No, my struggle stopped at Naked Empire, about four books too late. Naked Empire hit the bin. I am ashamed to say that I made it that far, because it was really not worth reading.

 

[steve12553]

No you haven't, ratsy, because PKD never wrote a book called Blade Runner, - and he had a good reason for calling it Do Androids...

The other problem is that you have to look really hard to see if you're buying a copy of the book as written by the original author, or the "novelization" (dreadful word) of the film.

But it does work the other way sometimes: Raymond Chandler wanted to call one of his novels The Second Murder, his publisher changed the title to Farewell, My Lovely, and the rest is history...

Bladerunner/ Androids is fascinating because I enjoyed both but consider them as completely separate entities. The book was intelligent and well written and the movie was well made and visually stunning but the movie is merely "based" on the book. Grabbed a few names and some interesting concepts but don't put a movie cover on the book. That's ludicrious.

The worse case of novelizations showed up in the James Bond books after the copyrights had expired. I'd read the original books from a public library as a teen and had a terrible time trying to find them 20 years later because they were selling the novelizations.
I enjoy good movies and frequently look for the books they are based on because I like to know what the author originally thought and how he/she developed the concept before they made it palpable for the movie masses.

 

[williamjm]

No you haven't, ratsy, because PKD never wrote a book called Blade Runner, - and he had a good reason for calling it Do Androids...

The worst thing about that example is that the title Blade Runner is meaningless for the book, the term blade runner was invented for the film (actually it was taken from a book by another author) and never appeared in the book.

 

[Rosemary]

I certainly don't like books with 'movie covers' and especially those with pictures of the actors. So far I have been lucky and haven't had to search for an original cover and may that continue!

 

[sffhound]

I don't care that much, though the Blade runner example plain sucks.

In the case of Twilight I actually bought the movie cover on purpose, because I love the movie and think the books are hilariously bad. Why did I buy it? Well, I used the word hilarious, didn't I? The first book is just one long gigglefit, and I sure need that right now.

 

[One_With_No_Name]

I'll dissent.

I don't mind them. Even own a few, even a couple of those particularly obnoxious ones with pictures from the movie inside of them. (And, embarrassing though it is, I did buy one of the Twilight paperbacks this month with the movie cover. Hey, it was the only readily available copy about (and no, it wasn't a very good book)) And judging from how many copies abound in used bookstores, they must sell pretty well, which is good for the publishers.

It mostly depends on whether I read the book after the movie's out, or before. If after, the movie's characters are burned into my mind no matter what, so it doesn't particularly matter. Otherwise, I buy my books only on quality of which edition it is (content-wise) and how pretty the covers are, and I'm not much for the classic SF illustrations, and I'm picky about color. There have been a few covers so ugly I have a hard time getting over them when I read the story...

Careful there, some of us liked the series so much that they purchased and read all 4 in 5 days... haha.

 

[Lillyanna]

The bookstore I go to will sometimes have several published versions of a novel --- but the one with the movie cover will often be a little cheaper. So it's a toss-up for me; it all comes down to how much I'm willing to pay for the binding (and hardcover vs softcover).

 

[ratsy]

One thing is for sure, I would never buy a movie version of a book in hardcover. I dont think this happens ofter since they usually just reprint a book in paperback when the movie comes out.

 

[Silent Speaker]

As much as movie covers annoy me, I find that they are quite easily avoided. However.... there is something that p*sses me off to no end, and this time it is quite inescapable since the damn practice is on EVERY BLOODY BOOK!

It's those little comments found (invariably and infinitely annoyingly) on the front covers of books, those "No.1 New York Times Best Seller!" crap or, to take an example from a book I am currently reading (Erikson's "Memories of Ice") "A master of long, and forgotten epochs, a weaver of ancient epics" -Salon.com

What the bloody hell is "salon.com"? And why should I care what they think!? Mind you that one wasn't so bad.

Like what someone said about Lewis' books, perfectly fine cover but they see fit to tell obvious: "now a major motion picture!" spoiling it. Like we don't already know that it's a movie now?! If it was a "major motion picture" we no doubt would've choked on all the advertising well before we were told by some book cover.

Now, another one, randomly selected from the my bookshelf (Feist's "Rise of a Merchant Prince"): "Tons of intrigue and action"-Publisher's weekly.

What? Who? (why?)... I don't care dammit! I wish that publishers would cease with cluttering the covers of books with such crap, detracting from wonderful artwork and the like. It truely ruins covers and books would be much more attractive without them.

You know what it is? It's "book-litter", these insipid little words of praise, which I imagine are supposed to persuade one to purchase the book in question but usually produce the opposite effect in me.

One day someone has to raid the publishing houses to exterminate these parasites and end their plague once and for all! (the little comments that is )

Bah!

(as you can see, this really gives me much rage and annoys me more than movie covers )