For some reason, so many movies feel they must make it in at under two hours in order to retain the attention of the viewer. Everything crisp, to the point and in fact covering all the main areas of a book too. And finally a camera sees everything; a human eye can only focus on one thing at a time. You open them, you read them. I feel if movies and series based on books would follow the book's story, which doesn't mean it has to include every last detail, then those movies and series would do a lot better than what they have been.
The first reason I believe this is so is because movies are more visually appealing. To be fair, the Wachowski Siblings made a visually gorgeous film. Though I agree that the book is always better than the movie, but I think Shawshank Redemption, can be made an exception. But then someone decided it would be a good idea to adapt into three long, complex, bloated movies. It is a memory aid. What he wrote became Jaws. Even though Tom Bombadil may have been important to the awesome author of the books, don't you think it might have been cheesy in the film? You also pick up new ways on how to write better while you read a book.
I always end up comparing the two and coming to the conclusion the book was better. One redeeming quality: Martin Freeman makes a perfect Arthur. For example, a film that precisely follows a novel likely would be too long for most audiences to sit through at a single showing, so some things must be left out. Jekyll and Captain Nemo is a clever one, but becomes less so when paired with Sean Connery muttering canned dialogue and head-butting people. Reading a book doesn't have to cost anything at all because you can rent it from the library, no one says you have to buy a book in order to read it.
It's also one of the most relaxing things to do. She has to meet her lover Sam in lunch breaks and they cannot get married because Sam has to give most of his money away in alimony. Moreover, by this description, a book can delve deeply into the story itself. With a book the reader can internalize from their own perspective and imagination, and it is different for each person. With books, there are only a small amount of jobs per book. I think that authors should always be included on set and in the making of a movie based on their book. He soon finds however that his friend has changed and has become an arrogant conqueror, full of the grandeur of Rome.
Even when a library does have a movie section it is often small and they are very limited with the selection of movies they have. People who love reading are frequently disappointed by the movie versions of their favorite books. Plus book reading is a sacrosanct exercise. Also in certain book store there are cafes in them making it a nice place to have a drink and talk with friends. In both these cases, though, the filmmakers stuck to the spirit of the book, even if they tweaked the storyline or moved the story to Chicago.
It's like they could completely mess up the book and still make a better movie than that. You didn't realize how crucial music is in a film, did you? When I read this short story by Stephen King, it didn't feel as gr8 as was the movie. With more jobs, the world's economy becomes better. Movies are short: I do agree that books are meant to be read in parts. King's characters came film-ready, and Kathy Bates's blood-curdling portrayal of Annie Wilkes impressed and terrified enough to win her a Best Actress Academy Award.
There are no two people reading together a book. And I only need like 11 hours to watch the extended editions. The film version of Gone with the Wind, for example, omits the fact that had two children by her first two husbands, and she really disliked the children. I think most of my disappointment is simply expectation. They have invested a great deal of imagination in mentally picturing characters and settings in the book.
Through fate and good fortune, Judah survives the galleys and manages to return to Jerusalem in the hopes of finding his mother and sister, who were also imprisoned, and to seek revenge against his one-time friend. Steven Spielberg adapted from by Alice Walker I can honestly say that the only reason I believe the movie version of The Color Purple is better than the book is because the movie was a staple in my household before I came across the book. Audiobooks Listening to one person's voice can be boring is just your own opinion and doesn't back up your argument in the slightest. Take 'The Fault in Our Stars' as an example. You just proved how important role movies play in filling up your shuffles and mp3 players.