According to some sources books that have the most chance of succeeding now are those that read the way a movie would run. Does that sound right to you? Should a book really be trying it's best to behavior like a film?
I don't like reading books that read like movies. It would just be too short and I read because I love all of the detail. I love knowing what the characters are thinking. What I really don't like is when that adapt TV shows and put them into book form. They feel so forced and awkward.
If you mean should the movie version of a book follow the story the way the book originally wrote, my answer is "Yes, I would prefer it did." I say that because I have seen some movies based on books, and the only similarities between the book and the movie was the names of the characters. Lord of the Rings (parts 2 and 3) are my favorite examples. I felt that it was like they just decided to make up a whole new story.
Nope, I mean that according to some "experts" a book should read the way a movie runs. And I personally think that is stupid. If you want a movie then you should turn on a tv or hit the internet. If you want to read and actually exercise the instrument between your ears then you should be prepared to actually take your time. Of course in my case I tend to read the way a marine eats - in frighteningly quick manner.
Agreed! I read because I want a more in-depth experience than a film can provide. I want to use my imagination to build up the characters in my mind and guess at their motivation, and try to work out whodunnit before the detective gets there. Like you, I'm a quick reader - love that analogy - but I still get a lot more from a book than a movie.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Do you mean a book should be read like a script? Or people should read a book the same way a film is made (I.E. soundtrack, setting)? I'm comfortable just reading the way a book is intended: words on a page with proper sentences and paragraphs. I saw someone reading that new sex book, "50 Grades of Shadows," or something along those lines, and I couldn't believe they actually have emails in those books.
Well Mr.Trump, the idea is you write your book to be as cinematic as possible i.e. you write it to read the way a movie should run. So you spend less time on character development, you use lots more descriptions, you keep up a fast pace... et cetra. Think of the later HP books which lost quite a bit of what made the first couple okay.
There are different types of literature that do not have to be a script to sell. The author identifies the audience, just like a movie, but mustn't be as fictitious to be relevant. Bottom line I would love to read a book that is not cinematic.
I agree that it's stupid. It's like dumbing down books! A book is so much more detailed and full. I love losing myself in a book. All books made into movies lose something. As far as I'm concerned, this is a horrible idea.
Um I don't think so because if books read like movies are filmed it would read 1) out of order and 2) It would read like a manuscript in theater. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
I think you've nailed the problem - people are trying make a sell. They think that every book is going to be a movie like Harry Potter or LOTR. Personally I don't like to see a book being made over because even if everything isn't thrown out (like in Ella Enchanted) so much is changed or rearranged that it might as well be a different story (like Harry Potter and the whitewashing).
I don't think so. Books are a lot longer then movies.. If a book read like a movie it would most likely not be very long at all and probably some what boring. Books have a lot more detail written out.
No! I do not agree that books should read like movies. In fact, it should be the other way around. I usually find that books are a whole lot more descriptive and interesting. A movie doesn't even compare to the way a book has been written. Sometimes the movie may have the best actors and scenes, etc but if you have read the book before it was made into a movie, you will always find that so much has been omitted and this leaves you feeling a little cheated.
Well put, I have found that it is best if I do not see a movie I have already read the book for. Ella Enchanted was horrible, the only thing they kept in the film was the title and the issue of obediance. That was it, all the rest was made up and poorly at that. Even when the best attemot us made there is gernerally a great difference in the material and it seldom for the better.
If anything, movies should be more like books instead of all the 1 hour 30 minute cuts I keep watching. I want something that actually tells a story. I remember watching Advent Children on DVD and then seeing the movie on Blu-Ray. It was a totally different movie, not only with better quality and added effects, but consistent scenes without choppy editing.
Most movies are derived from books. I always like to read the book first and then see the movie. The book gives more details that the movie could not add for time sake.
Reading a book is not the same as watching a movie made from the book. Take, for example, The Hunger Games. I watched the movie first. Then I read the book. The book was actually better because it could explore things which cannot be depicted on the screen.
My vote is to keep a book as a book and a movie as a movie; they are two very different things and shouldn't be mixed up or confused. I like both types of media but prefer a book by far. You have the chance to decide for yourself what the characters and scenery look like without someone else doing that for you. If a scary part is coming up you don't know ahead of time by the type of music being played. If a book is being made into a movie I always read the book before going to see the movie so my imagination is free to picture things as I want to see them. So my answer is no, I don't think a book should be written as a movie.
