Books that you find hard to read after watching the film.

Ian Fortytwo

A Poet, Writer and eclectic Reader.
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
1,424
Location
Somewhere on this mortal coil.
Several books that I have read, then watch the film, I cannot read again.
The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, are two.
Another is The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Another is Dune.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is yet another.
Of course another is The Hunt for Red October.
Yet another is The Ipcress File.

There are probably more.

However one film that did not put me off the book was The Spy Who Came Out of the Cold.
 
I had read Death on The Nile a couple of times having forgotten the ending, after watching the film I can't read the book again. As for the Hitch Hikers Guide to The Galaxy, well that's simple there was no film version, no no it was never made, I never saw it, it doesn't exist.
 
I had read Death on The Nile a couple of times having forgotten the ending, after watching the film I can't read the book again. As for the Hitch Hikers Guide to The Galaxy, well that's simple there was no film version, no no it was never made, I never saw it, it doesn't exist.

I know this is not a going to be popular opinion but I loved The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy film . The film was hilarious ..:D And for the record. Ive read and loved the book too.:cool:
 
I know this is not a going to be popular opinion but I loved The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy film . The film was hilarious ..:D And for the record. Ive read and loved the book too.:cool:


The books, the tv series, the radio series, the computer game and the movie are all unique experiences; no two are quite the same, and this was done purposely.

Adams at least wrote the screenplay for the big screen version, so at least what we saw to a significant extent was what he had envisaged. The end result was.. different and... interesting, not always in a good way.

I'm glad we got that version, rather than another that had no input from the great man. But for me the tv series is the best version. The actors cast were perfect for the role; I can't imagine anyone being more 'Arthur Dent' than Simon Jones - and I always have had a crush on Sandra Dickinson (Trillian).
 
The books, the tv series, the radio series, the computer game and the movie are all unique experiences; no two are quite the same, and this was done purposely.

Adams at least wrote the screenplay for the big screen version, so at least what we saw to a significant extent was what he had envisaged. The end result was.. different and... interesting, not always in a good way.

I'm glad we got that version, rather than another that had no input from the great man. But for me the tv series is the best version. The actors cast were perfect for the role; I can't imagine anyone being more 'Arthur Dent' than Simon Jones - and I always have had a crush on Sandra Dickinson (Trillian).
Well when you look at the TV series apart from Trillion all the core characters were played by the original radio cast. As for the screen play of the film I thought that all the funny lines in the film seemed to be lifted straight from the radio series.
 
I'm the opposite, if by chance I watch a film before reading the book I find I can no longer enjoy the film after reading the book.
I've had to convince myself, when a book I've read has been made into a film/series that it is just a story featuring some elements of the book and not a true adaptation. Stops me throwing things at the screen or ranting at it.
 
What is it that makes them hard to read after watching the movie? Are they ruined for you, or is the visual memory stronger than the imagination?

I do struggle with the thought that your imagination is somewhat compromised as you can now only see events or characters as they are in the film. I recently listened to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy audio books and although i did enjoy them, i missed visualising the cast of the TV series (who i believe were also the original cast for the radio drama). I'll listen to the story again, as it is a favourite, but i'll go through the radio drama in future.
 
Can't think of any, BUT:
Read Stephen King's "Misery" after watching the film several times. It's a very good book (his best, imo) but the character of Annie Wilkes is kind of flat. Kathy Bates really brings Wilkes to life in a way that was lacking in the book.
Also, I had to look up Kathy Bates' name, kept thinking of Kathy Burke, she might have been a great (very different) Wilkes
 
I tried reading 'Fight Club' by Chuck Palahniuk after watching the film and it just seemed pointless. They did such a great job of adapting the story that I don't know why anyone would choose to read the book instead.

Sometimes they change things and leave a lot of stuff out when adapting a book for the big screen but that's not the case with 'Fight Club'.
 
I tried reading 'Fight Club' by Chuck Palahniuk after watching the film and it just seemed pointless. They did such a great job of adapting the story that I don't know why anyone would choose to read the book instead.

Sometimes they change things and leave a lot of stuff out when adapting a book for the big screen but that's not the case with 'Fight Club'.
Don't break the first rule!
 
My imagination is very good, and like to visualise the characters myself and once I see an actor portraying the characters my imagination portrayal is destroyed.
That doesn't sound all that good. I have my own conceptions, and someone else's don't erase mine.

What happens when you watch two adaptations to the same book? Does one's visuals invalidate the other's?



I go back to books because I love the details that will never make it to the film, and the actual prose. My favorite books are a joy to read.
 
Sometimes a movie brings additional dimensions to a story that simply cannot be replicated on paper. The audio and visual feast that is 2001 is one, Fight Club is another.

Again sometimes actors bring added dimensions to a book character. Pete Postlethwaite as Obadiah Hawkeswill is one, (as mentioned above) Kathy Bates in Misery is another and Jack Nicholson in The Shining is a third

If a movie is poorly adapted, or the character much different to what I visualise (eg Frodo), then I forget about them and it doesn't spoil the book for me.

Having said that, if I watch the tv or movie version before reading the book, it's almost impossible for me to visualise my own depiction of a character.
 
The Maltese Falcon is pretty much the same. The 1941 film brings the characters to screen so well that the book almost feels like an over blown script, before the rewrites trims it down.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top