Suggested by: Superfastreader:
Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?
Don’t forget to leave a link to your actual response (so people don’t have to go searching for it) in the comments—or if you prefer, leave your answers in the comments themselves!
I do want something different in a book than I want in a movie. When I read I want something that my mind can munch on, beautifully written or poetic language,the inner conflict of the characters. This doesn't always translate well into film. A director can sometimes get around this with beautiful cinematography or really, really great acting but it's tough. I've actually been impressed lately by a couple of BBC versions of classic novels: Jane Eyre and Bleak House. I understood Jane's attraction to Rochester better (and no it wasn't Toby Stephens. Well, he helped.) and Esther's distaste for Skimpole was more obvious. However, I found BBC's Persuasion ending was strange and un-Austen.
Sometimes a director or producers can take a totally different direction from the book. I've often found that the endings of movies have been completely different than the books to appeal to moviegoers' tastes. Sometimes for the better. The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) was not only spectacular to look at but the ending was much more satisfying than the book's. I think it appealed to a modern audience where the book's might have been fine for a 19th century French crowd.