I don't know about you, but as a book lover, movie adaptations never quite live up to the books. I am one of those people that goes to see a movie of a book I've read and will spend the whole time comparing it to the book - "the book did this..." or "that didn't happen in the book!" are usual things that get whispered to the poor person next to me who came to the cinema with me.

I don't do this to be snobby or geeky about story-lines  but it is genuinely true, the book is better. Maybe it is because there is so much of the 300 odd pages that you can find into a 90 minute film, or maybe the fact that when I read my head creates an image and I don't want to see a different version of that image. I get attached to stories when reading and so when that is given to me in a different image, I get even more attached to the original image I created. I mean that's the point of reading write? Creating that world inside your head from the words on the pages.
That is also why I will generally refuse to watch the film until I have read the book, if I want to read it. This does mean I always miss out on seeing the films I want to when they're in the cinema, but it pays off in the end I'm sure. If I watch the film first it then takes alot to make me read the book. Not only do I know what is going to happen, but the image is already given to me visually so I don't get to delve into the book as much and create my own world from the words.

This view though, I've found, is only ever shared by book lovers. Those that don't read as much aren't normally as bothered by the book/film differences, they can just watch/read it for what it is - which could be considered a blessing in some ways. Many a story line has been massacred by the films. Twilight for example is a good, if not cliche example to use. I actually found the books really quite amazing to read, even if paranormal isn't my thing. I read all 4 books within about a week, taking them with me everywhere and reading in every spare moment kind of thing. I was entranced by the romance of it all. But the film ruined it for me - not only did it create crazy, obsessed teen fans swooning over the characters to over extremes, but I found that the performance on screen lacked the same kind of passion and love that was portrayed in the books. I know that books are easier to convey emotion and thoughts as you can write in narrative whereas on screen it has to more visual and dialogue but it never seems to quite hold the same magic that reading a book does?

I have however found a few films that live up to the standards set by the book. 'One Day' and 'Time Traveler's Wife' both conveyed the magic and romance told in the story and the choice of actors/actresses were excellent which really brought the characters to life. The only film I have found so far where I have preferred the film to the book is 'The Notebook' surprisingly! I think the book is very good and I would recommend it but it does follow a slightly different route to the film. I think because the film has become quite iconic in its own right, slightly separate from Nicholas Sparks' novel that actually I was quite surprised how different it is from the book. But in all honesty my favourite bits of the film: the 'if you're a bird, i'm a bird' scene for one isn't even in the book! I was both surprised and impressed at the screenwriters for putting such beautiful scenes in that enhanced the story even more.

I think this is a situation that is never going to be resolved for me, the book will (almost) always be better, but then I would pick a book over a film any day, that's what you get for being a aspiring publisher. I like films, but I like watching them in isolation without the books, in order to appreciate them, rather than constantly comparing every word or action and I think that is how it should be.


http://ef64.tumblr.com/post/35801102133/never-judge-a-book-by-its-movie