Except for the fact that there are literally no visuals, and a "cast" of one. Those tend to be important fim aspects.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There are ¨literally no visuals¨ only if you haven't got an imagination. And a cast of one is when the reader isn't good at portraying them, when he's good (e.g. Stephen Fry) he manipulates his voice to sound different for each character, whether it be their accent or pitch or intonation.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Seriously? Your going to use the imagination argument. The entire point of seeing a move instead of reading the book is for the visuals. What if Avatar had a $5 budget, and te audience was told to "use their imaginations"? And it's still only one person. Books tend to have characters of at least two sexes. No matter how amazing Stephen Fry's voice is, he doesn't make a convincing woman. Besides, sometimes a films portrayal of a character makes it better for me. Alan Rickmans portrayal of Snape made him one of my all time favorite fictional characters.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's not his voice, he could sound like shit for all I care, it's what he does with his voice. And yes, reading a book is so pleasurable in the way that //all// its visuals are from your own imagination. They flew off on a dragon across a fucking lake, but in you mind you can see that as magnificent as you like, better or worse than the film. And yes, if the author is good enough, a detailed description //could// be better than what was in that film. I might be biased though, because I utterly hated it. Unlike just the visuals that one gets to see in the film, the reader gets to feel what the character feels. Books are not just stories. I was bored, downloaded the Harry Potters that Stephen Fry did (after not having seen or read it in a long time) and all his inflections of the voice + the author's descriptions made me see different people from the films. With the know-it-all voice of Hermione, or the Irish accent of Seamus, everything. The imagination is far greater than what you think it is. A film is but the literal portrayal to the audience of what the director saw in their imagination while reading. It's only a second view of 7 billion personal ones of each human on Earth.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, but no man can be as versatile as an entire cast. Remember, this isn't a debate of book versus movie. It's audio book versus movie. I'm not denying books are better, I'm saying there's a reason (besides monetary gain and appeasing stupid people, believe it or not) books are turned into movies. Aside from those, the real fans go for the visual experience. But I'm also not entirely unbiased. I can't just hear things. Doesn't work for me. I either have to be reading along, or watching something. I know what imagination is capable of. I've got one. But comparing it to actual film is kind of a cop out. It's like "what's the safest way to go skiing? Don't go skiing." And the director does to get his own personal style in there. What if his interpretation is better than mine, in my own opinion. As I said, Rickmans Snape changed the whole character for me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Alan Rickman is one of a few good interpretations. Ron is meant to be tall, Hermione ugly, etc. etc. You can't use one great example to hide all thousands of bad ones.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'll admit, Ron is supposed to be tall. But who said Hermione' supposed to be ugly? She was described as nerdy, and average looking. At first, she looked the part. TThey couldn't predict she'd get hot. You can't use a couple bad example to say any good examples are the exceptions.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You don't think there's more bad movie interpretations than good ones? What? For every new movie based on a book, there's a 10% chance of it actually being good.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm saying that no movie interpretation could be worse than literally no movie. Remember, the fans ALREADY HAVE the books. If they really love them, they'll want to see something new. Somebody else's interpretation. If the only difference is that they hadn't imagined the characters with Stephen Fry's voice, then it's not really going to affect how they think about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm just saying reading/listening to a book makes a perfect film for everyone personally, a film is, like I've sad before, the idea that the director personally got from the book. This is like arguing that a cover of a song is better than an acoustic version of a song - "They've already heard the song normally, they don't need it again, better listen to someone else's interpretation."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A perfect story, maybe. But a film is something entirely different. And no, it's not really like that at all. It's like saying the Beatles cover of Love Me Do is the best cover. Even if it's the best, it's not even in the running for best cover.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well an audiobook is nothing but a slight elaboration of the book, and a film is a short visual person of what the director saw. A cover is just the same, it´s what the other singer thinks of the song no matter what you personally think.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And, like any good movie, narrated by Morgan Freeman.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

As much as I love films, I agree with this. Hearing someone else read every word for you really activates your imagination. You can close your eyes and picture everything. Whereas if you're reading the book yourself, you have to concentrate more on the text.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Pet Peeve: Films are BASED on the book, which means they don't have to follow it exactly!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Good example: The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Amazing movie, barely follows the book.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Is there a particular reason this is in the "food" group?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I see you're new here.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I've been on this site for seven months if that's what you mean.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, before the whole group thing, there were 8 tags you could choose from.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That makes sense, but why put an irrelevant tag on it? Why not just leave it without a tag? Were you required to put at least one tag on a post?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You won't understand. It's like how we don't understand why our parents wore silly pants in their youth.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Okay, that makes sense....I think.....

by Anonymous 12 years ago