Carrie
question
Movie Vs. Book, which do you think is better?
Vaneet
(last edited
Oct 09, 2013 07:29PM
)
Oct 09, 2013 06:50PM
Now I know most of the time this is an obvious question and people always say the book is better, and I agree. But it seems like not everyone does think so. And when the author of the actual book itself feels like the movie adaptation is better then his own book, you just gotta ask.
For anyone who hasn't seen such comments, here's what I read:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/20...
Now maybe his words got twisted. I have no idea why he would say such a thing and, in the least rude way possible, I think Stephen King is insane, haha. His book is amazing and I don't think the film is better.
The movie was enjoyable for the most part, but the ending was horrible. And regardless, I loved the book a lot more. It was the first Stephen King book I had ever read (which is funny considering it's his first book, but pretty sure I planned it that way as I knew it was his first and I knew it was such a classic) and I loved the way it jumped from articles to interviews to the narrative.
Now, granted, I don't expect this to be translated to the big screen. It might not come across very well in a movie to be honest. As long as the actual narrative comes across well in it's entirety, I'm happy. The movie was done well for the most part. The acting was good, the screeching sound when she used her powers was a tad annoying but I think it all worked. But, naturally, I feel the book hashed out everything a lot more, like the characters. And so I found it more enjoyable.
For the ending, I much prefer the book version. The way she destroys the town shows her turmoil and the way she kills her mother shows the might of her powers. Now I think I saw someone mention that King may prefer the movie as it takes out the destruction of the town...not sure why. If anyone can shed some light on this comment with some source, that would be great as I want to understand. And that's not the part that bothered me in the movie. I'd prefer to have it in, but if they take it out...so be it. And even the way her mum died, I did like the imagery so either is good.
The part I hated is the way Carrie died in the film, and the way their house got sucked into the ground. For me, it felt torn away from the book. The book showed Margaret as a fanatic, and while the ground sucking/Carrie grabbing Sue scene had a lot of impact, it send the wrong image. Instead of showing Margaret as a fanatic, it made me feel like Margaret was right all along, and they were kinda dragged to hell for their sins. Maybe I'm wrong, but it came across off for me.
I'd only watched a few bits of the film before I read the book, and then watched it in its entirety. For me, standalone the movie is good. And even after you have read the book the film is somewhat enjoyable. For me, after reading the book, the movie just falls a little flat and isn't as good as the book, plus I get annoyed when details are changed in adaptations. That didn't fuel my dislike. That was the change in imagery and the character development not being as good. I'd much rather read the book then watch the film. What do you all think?
For anyone who hasn't seen such comments, here's what I read:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/20...
Now maybe his words got twisted. I have no idea why he would say such a thing and, in the least rude way possible, I think Stephen King is insane, haha. His book is amazing and I don't think the film is better.
The movie was enjoyable for the most part, but the ending was horrible. And regardless, I loved the book a lot more. It was the first Stephen King book I had ever read (which is funny considering it's his first book, but pretty sure I planned it that way as I knew it was his first and I knew it was such a classic) and I loved the way it jumped from articles to interviews to the narrative.
Now, granted, I don't expect this to be translated to the big screen. It might not come across very well in a movie to be honest. As long as the actual narrative comes across well in it's entirety, I'm happy. The movie was done well for the most part. The acting was good, the screeching sound when she used her powers was a tad annoying but I think it all worked. But, naturally, I feel the book hashed out everything a lot more, like the characters. And so I found it more enjoyable.
For the ending, I much prefer the book version. The way she destroys the town shows her turmoil and the way she kills her mother shows the might of her powers. Now I think I saw someone mention that King may prefer the movie as it takes out the destruction of the town...not sure why. If anyone can shed some light on this comment with some source, that would be great as I want to understand. And that's not the part that bothered me in the movie. I'd prefer to have it in, but if they take it out...so be it. And even the way her mum died, I did like the imagery so either is good.
The part I hated is the way Carrie died in the film, and the way their house got sucked into the ground. For me, it felt torn away from the book. The book showed Margaret as a fanatic, and while the ground sucking/Carrie grabbing Sue scene had a lot of impact, it send the wrong image. Instead of showing Margaret as a fanatic, it made me feel like Margaret was right all along, and they were kinda dragged to hell for their sins. Maybe I'm wrong, but it came across off for me.
I'd only watched a few bits of the film before I read the book, and then watched it in its entirety. For me, standalone the movie is good. And even after you have read the book the film is somewhat enjoyable. For me, after reading the book, the movie just falls a little flat and isn't as good as the book, plus I get annoyed when details are changed in adaptations. That didn't fuel my dislike. That was the change in imagery and the character development not being as good. I'd much rather read the book then watch the film. What do you all think?
The problem with the book was its fractured narrative. Excerpts from My Name is Susan Snell and other extraneous publications destroyed the actual narrative pacing so in that respect the movie was cleaner in storytelling.
Carrie the book felt a lot like King learning to write, all of his subsequent books had a firmer grasp on plotting and momentum. That's not to say it is a bad book, but in this instance I'd say definitely, the film is better.
The hand grabbing Sue at the end of the movie was Carrie's hand and in a dream sequence (which brilliantly was filmed backwards and at night to give it a more uneasy feel), not Margarets. Or am I misinterpreting your meaning?
The new movie comes out soon and is billed as being more faithful.
Carrie the book felt a lot like King learning to write, all of his subsequent books had a firmer grasp on plotting and momentum. That's not to say it is a bad book, but in this instance I'd say definitely, the film is better.
The hand grabbing Sue at the end of the movie was Carrie's hand and in a dream sequence (which brilliantly was filmed backwards and at night to give it a more uneasy feel), not Margarets. Or am I misinterpreting your meaning?
The new movie comes out soon and is billed as being more faithful.
Oct 09, 2013 07:01PM · flag