The Sword and Laser discussion

First of all let me apologize in advanced if this was already discussed. I did several searches and didn't find anything. But it's more than possible that I didn't word my search criteria right.

Last summer I was looking around a bookstore at a nearby mall I haven't been to in several years. In there I decided to pick up the Game of Thrones, mainly because this message board I go to had a discussion thread. While I was there I was talking to the cashier and she mentioned that when a show or a movie comes out sales of the book they're based on actually goes up. Which I took to mean that most people are interested in checking out the original

I thought about it after awhile and realize I do this a lot. So I'm just curious if anyone else has done. this

I've been meaning to read Flashforward and I know the show was only loosely based on it.

I used to work in a book shop and yes this is true sales do increase with one exception. If the publisher brings out an edition of the book with the movie/tv show cover people tend to buy the original cover in preference. I think this is because of the points you raised Robert.

I finally read the Harry Potter series after having seen all the movies. I read the first Dresden Files book after the TV show . . . . I probably won't read any more as it was just okay and I've got no shortage of other things I'm interested in reading.

All the time. I actually made a shelf for these books under the tag "adapted-to-film." And yes, I also try to avoid the editions with cover images from the films.

I try to avoid seeing the film/TV show before reading the book. If I hear about a movie based on a book (most recently Hunger Games) that I haven't read, I'll try to read the book first as fast as I can.

I haven't seen the Dresden Files TV show, but I'd heard about it and thought to myself: "I think it's time I read the book." So I did, and now I have plans to read the second one in the series as soon as I get the chance to.

So mostly it works like that (although in most cases I read the book without even knowing there was a movie being made - for the longest time I had no idea that Blade Runner was actually an adaptation of one of my favourite books).

I've usually already read the book. I always know the movie will be a different story, with just basic elements from the book. I only get frustrated when they are different enough that they are not even the same story.

I Robot - OK movie, but no relation at all to the book. You wonder why they even bothered to use the same Title.

Starship Trooper - Some 'B' grade movie cheesy fun - but nothing at all like the story, even the main character was changed from being a Filipino to being a blond haired, blue eyed Anglo.

The only one I can think of is True Blood got me to read the whole Sookie Stackhouse series.

All the time, especially growing up. There's no shame in it.

Blade Runner got me to read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (very different from the movie) and from there I went on to read almost everything PKD ever wrote.

I do this all the time. Most notably with the Cormac McCarthy adaptations of No Country for Old Men and The Road. Although with The Road I had to delay reading the book by about 6 months because of the awful, depressing, yet awesome story that it is.

I never would have picked up these books if it had not been for the No Country for Old Men movie that hit so big a few years ago.

I loved the mass effect games and attempted to read the novelization of them but they were not my cup of tea.

Sometimes there's a book that has a huge buzz, but I will not read it until a show is made of it. That's usually because, when it comes to reading, I'm stubborn about being swayed until enthusiasm is such that I hate to feel left out. Some books that I read because of a show being made of are A Game of Thrones and various Stephen Kings. I grew up with movies based on Stephen King's books, so I took him for granted and didn't bother reading him much until now. At that time, I thought literature was more important, but I now realize that every genre has something to teach you. Being focused on only one genre really limits what you can learn.

If anyone has seen the film Drive but has not yet read the book by James Sallis, I highly recommend it.

And remember - today's literature was yesterday's pulp novel.

A majority of Charles Dickens works (Tale of Two Cities, etc..) were published as serial short stories in pulp newspapers under the name "Boz" Dickens.

I've really been enjoying the tv series Justified and have been meaning to read the Elmore Leonard novels/stories that the show is based on.

Poetry used to be more popular than novels.

Stan wrote: "And remember - today's literature was yesterday's pulp novel.

A majority of Charles Dickens works (Tale of Two Cities, etc..) were published as serial short stories in pulp newspapers under the na..."

I honestly tend to avoid a book that's newly being made into a movie. I kept hearing that Hunger Games was an awesome series so I had planned to start it, then I heard about the movies being made now I just keep pushing it back. I somehow feel like it's insulting in a way. I wouldn't be surprised if authors these days only write something they want made into a movie. I mean, it's the only way for a book to make it big these days right? The real story isn't on the television, it's in the book.

Admittedly too though I have read some things after seeing the movie. Harry Potter for instance. I started reading those several years after the movies started. I'll read a book based on something on tv but as a general rule I wait till the hype goes down.

I also NEVER like getting the movie covers of anything. I'd rather find a nice old used copy of something. I didn't actually own ASoIaF when I started reading it, but now I hunt for them in used stores so I can find the old covers. The older the better.

Stan wrote: "Starship Trooper - Some 'B' grade movie cheesy fun - but nothing at all like the story, even the main character was changed from being a Filipino to being a blond haired, blue eyed Anglo."

I am a huge fan of that movie. I consider it a fantastic parody and always an enjoyable watch. The book is one of my personal favourites and I absolutely adore it. The movie is completely different from the book and should be considered an entirely different work. That's how I view them, at least.

Mostly the books tend to be better than the movies, but sometimes with a great director the movies can turn out better than the book. It's the exception, but examples exist, like

The Godfather - OK crime novel - excellent artistic film. Raised the bar for dramas, let alone crime dramas.

Princess Bride - Funny slapstick novel, some argue a much better film

Hunger Games - Average/good young adult post apocalypse book - ridiculously good movie adaptation (ridiculously). I'd give the book a B or B- grade, but the movie an A.

A long time ago HBO did a movie called-
Cast A Deadly Spell (Fred Ward).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka-1ek...
I thought the movie was terrific.
FYI- The online color is horrible and the VCR isn't much better.
I'd really like to see this again in HD.
The frustrating part was that there was no "book."
At least not per se. The movie does homage to the old books.
(The private eye is called Lovecraft).
They did make one other made-for-TV movie (Witch hunt)
which I didn't think was quite as good.
I don't generally like series books but
in this case I would have made an exception.

Stan wrote: "I Robot - OK movie, but no relation at all to the book. You wonder why they even bothered to use the same Title"

Yeah, when I was in middle school, I did a research paper on I, Robot because I liked the movie so much. You can imagine my surprise, although I still liked the book.

I'll check something out if it looks interesting. If I first became known to it through advertisements for a movie, that's that. But I do try and read a book before I see the movie. It's easier for me to not constantly compare the two that way. And yes, I will always go for the original cover over the movie edition.

Stan wrote: "Princess Bride - Funny slapstick novel, some argue a much better film "

I preferred the movie but I did see it before I read the book.

Kim wrote: "I preferred the movie but I did see it before I read the book."

I'm the other way around; I read the book first but ended up preferring the movie. I love the book as well, but there's just something about the movie that strikes a chord with me.

Robert wrote: "I generally try to avoid doing it, but I think we can all be guilty of getting into something as a result of huge promotion for a story being presented in a different media form.

I think the main ..."

but in not reading something simply because its being promoted aren't you just as much a slave to the marketeers. Even if you're not doing what they want you too, you're still not acting of your own free will, they still have just as much an influence on you.

I almost always find that I enjoy the book more than the movie. I expect this has been discussed and debated ad nauseam, so no profound insights from me on the power of imagination and such. I remember reading Shōgun and missing sleep because I couldn't put it down. The TV series was a real letdown.

On the other hand, most of the books that came out after a popular movie or TV series have also failed to live up to the standard of the original. Maybe books is books and shows is shows and never the twain shall meet?

I do it all the time...I find the worse the movie adaptation the more likely I am to check out the source material. Especially if the movie seems choppy or lacks enough back story to make sense. Sometimes it means that the source material is richer than the attempt at adaptation. But it sucks often enough of the time as well.

I have done this a few times, the biggest ones were the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind and Game of Thrones, but I usually try to read the book before I watch the show or movie.

Normally I am the other way around in that I tend to have read the books before the TV/film gets picked up, then tend to be disappointed in the visual version.

In general the accepted wisdom seems to be that the books will likely be 'better' - a lot of the time because there is a lot more depth in a 200 page book than a 2 hour film.

Blade Runner is one of the only examples I can think of where I preferred the film vs the book - not sure if its because I saw the film first in this case, or because such huge changes were made vs the source that its almost a different work, or just that its an exceptional film.....

Not sure if there are any other examples that people can think of where the film/TV show is arguably better than the source material (outside of cheesy tie in books)?

Yes, I will sometimes buy the book if the film is based on it (but not the other way around - I won't bother with the novelisation of a film)

Most recently I did this with The Hunger Games - read the first book rapidly in the couple of days before seeing the movie, and then read the other two in the week after. The book and film were very close (although here in the UK, the film was cut to get a 12A certificate); I'm not sure I'd rate one over the other. Oftentimes though they are very different.

Just last week I picked up a copy of Battle Royale at a second hand bookshop (not started reading it yet though), having seen the film many years ago. Also, after Blade Runner came out, I went through a whole spree of Philip K. Dick short stories.

HOWEVER, (and maybe this is the snob in me) if I'm buying the dead tree edition, I will try and find a copy in the original cover an not one with "now a major motion picture" blasted all over it.

Most of the time if I like the movie I look to see if it is based on a book. Most of the time if there is a movie coming out I wait to read the book until after I see the movie. I find that most of the time the movie falls short of the book.

Right now I am reading Relic by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. It is the first in a series that the movie The Relic from 1997 was based on and I am really enjoying it.

The three Stig Larsson 'Millennium' books I also read after seeing The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and before seeing the other two movies (Swedish versions of course). That was the only time I've ever bought the blu rays and then bought again when the extended editions came out. I didn't even do that for Lord of the Rings!

Now I'm a massive Noomi Rapace fan, and am *so* looking forward to Prometheus... (and of course the upcoming Sherlock Holmes blu ray!)

I usually try to read books first unless I didn't realise that something was actually based on a book.

I watched the Legend of the Seeker series and absolutely loved it but had no clue it was based on Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth books. I've only just recently started reading the books and unfortunately find I prefer the television series. I can't say for sure if that would be the case if I'd done things the other way around though.

Ian wrote: "Not sure if there are any other examples that people can think of where the film/TV show is arguably better than the source material (outside of cheesy tie in books)? "

Try this. One of the older threads discussing this very topic. Maybe time for a revival?

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3...

I picked up Déjà Dead by Kathy Reichs after watching a couple of episodes of the TV series 'Bones'. I have not got around to it so no opinion yet.

I watch books turned to movies not movies turned books. But not while i'm readign the series i.e never saw harry potter till i read the last book

Hi, I'm Monique Rockliffe, new to the group. This is always an interesting topic because I've seen movies that are better than the books and vice versa. I must say, where King is concerned, almost always the books are better than the TV shows and movies. I am dying to see what they're going to do with The Dark Tower and with The Stand. The first TV series for The Stand was pretty good for its time, just a little cheesy now. I hope they do the book justice this time round.
Saw The Hunger Games recently but have not read the books. I'd love to hear what you guys think who have done both.

Monique wrote: "Saw The Hunger Games recently but have not read the books. I'd love to hear what you guys think who have done both."

I liked the movie much better. I liked the books, particularly the first one, but the movie brought the entire world to life in a way that I never experienced while reading the book. Some things are better dealt with in the movie (the explanation for the Hunger Games, the juxtaposing of the poverty of the districts with the Capitol, the reality show aspect) that I felt the book was lacking in.

The books were okay. The movie was fantastic.

I'm very often introduced to new books by their movie or tv series trailer. This was how I started reading Game of Thrones, Eragon, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games. However, after I get a taste of the original medium I become extremely critical of the adapted medium. I haven't watched The Hunger Games (I hear the movie is the exception to the rule) but I hate the movies of Eragon, Percy Jackson and Harry Potter with a great passion. I like the Game of Thrones series but I'm beginning to worry they're straying from the spirit of the novels.

Matthew wrote: "I'm very often introduced to new books by their movie or tv series trailer. This was how I started reading Game of Thrones, Eragon, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games. However, after ..."

Oddly, my hubby is reading the Game of Thrones books one at a time, the relevant book before each season, and he's watching the TV series, as well. He informs me when the TV series strays from the books. Personally, I have no desire to read the books right now and might do so only when the entire series has ended on TV. I find I can't read something when I already know the storyline however different it may be. I love just the TV series at the moment.
But as I said in my post,that unless the makers of the TV or movie adaptions are brilliant craftsmen and understand the sublties of the books and know how to translate them onto the screen, with all the emotions and colours of our limitless imaginations, then I'll go with the book anyday!

Monique wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I'm very often introduced to new books by their movie or tv series trailer. This was how I started reading Game of Thrones, Eragon, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games...."

I'm usually not very fond of adaptations. I've already skipped one week of Game of Thrones because I didn't feel like I should bother with it anymore (I didn't really like Clash of Kings anyways). However, Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson will always have a special place in my heart and I aim to read the books one day when I have the time.

Matthew wrote: "Monique wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I'm very often introduced to new books by their movie or tv series trailer. This was how I started reading Game of Thrones, Eragon, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter and T..."

Ditto :) How awesome are the movies!!

Monique wrote: "Saw The Hunger Games recently but have not read the books. I'd love to hear what you guys think who have done both."

Hey Monique.

I must say that even though the movie is good and I enjoyed it quite a lot, IMO the book was better. The movie felt more rushed to me. Not so much the plot, which was pretty much all there, but in terms of emotional impact. In the books you spend all your time exclusively in Katniss's head, so you get a lot more about how she feels and thinks about things and how events impact her and her relations with the other characters. The book also has a lot more side characters for Katniss to interact with that give us more insight in Katniss's personality and the events of the world in general. The movie just didn't deliver that in the same way.

For example: the scene where Katniss' sister gets picked as a tribute and she volunteers in her stead. All the elements relevant for the story are there in the movie, but in the books that scene is more elaborate, has more build up and is shown from Katniss' point of view so her horror at the situation feels more intimate and emotional IMO than the movie version managed to convey.

Dissenting opinion.

I read the Hunger Games novel, and thought it was an OK, but not all that grand of a book.

Then I saw the movie and was extremely impressed how the director was able to communicate in a glance or a grimace what the novel took paragraphs to explain.

Re: Katniss - in the book the plotting and manipulations she did after entering the games made her come off kind of cold and calculating to me. The movie did a better job of showing how she was just reacting to the situation more than coldly plotting. It made her more approachable as a character.

I completely agree with you, Stan. The visual element added to instead of detracting from the overall mood of the story. I felt like each shot was carefully assembled (trying to overlook my overwhelming hatred of shaky cam for a sec) in order to maximize the emotions of the characters.

Jennifer Lawrence was amazing as Katniss and in no way did I feel that I didn't know what was going on in Katniss' head. My best friend hasn't read the book and he agrees with me; Katniss' motivations and emotions were as easily understood as if she had told you about them.

KevinB wrote: "For example: the scene where Katniss' sister gets picked as a tribute and she volunteers in her stead. All the elements relevant for the story are there in the movie, but in the books that scene is more elaborate, has more build up and is shown from Katniss' point of view so her horror at the situation feels more intimate and emotional IMO than the movie version managed to convey."

To be honest, I felt that sometimes the tense moments in the books were a bit drawn out and it took away from the raw emotion of the moments. Besides, you need to account for the fact that it is two completely different mediums we're talking about - unless you wanted monologue upon monologue from Katniss which would've made for an extremely dull movie, there had to be a way to show her inner turmoil and fear without actually saying it. The shot was very well done, in my opinion - not to mention that her screaming insistence on volounteering was heart-wrenching.

Billy wrote: "I used to work in a book shop and yes this is true sales do increase with one exception. If the publisher brings out an edition of the book with the movie/tv show cover people tend to buy the origi..."

A friend of mine used to work in a bookstore, and noted that when a movie came out it would increase sales of a book, but afterwards books that had been steady sellers (ie Harry Potter) would drop off in sales. Likely from people deciding to see the movie rather than read the book.

Princess Bride is the only adaptation I can remember reading because of the movie. (I'm surprised no one mentioned Neverending Story yet, or Narnia--but I read the books first)

Out of Sight by Elmore Leonard is pretty good, and not too long either. Great movie with George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez.

I think the question, for the most part, is a bit too easy. Of course movies and tv series get their books read. With thousands of books released every year, it's impossible to keep any track of them all. So movies and tv shows are the best form of advertising for a book. If the adaptation is good, then they'll be that much more likely to check out the book.

On another note: I keep hearing people say that they read the book before the movie/tv series. For the most part, I find that doesn't help my enjoyment of either doing it in that order. I find reading much more cerebral, while watching a movie I can relax my mind a bit more. As such, if I read a book first I just keep thinking, "that was different; they did that line-by-line..." and so forth. That comparison doesn't bother me as much when reading. If anything, a fantastic book is best watched first so then you don't set your expectations too high (see Hitchhikers Guide).

I started to read Déjà Dead because of the tv series Bones (which I love), but only got as far as the first chapter. It seemed to be missing the humor that made me like the tv show. Of course, I may not have given it enough of a chance.

I read The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy because of the movies. In their case, I think the movies are better - especially the second book. The only thing similar about them is the title.

I also read Dexter in the Dark because of the tv show. It wasn't bad, but I haven't read the other books in the series, though I still might get around to them.

All the time, though I prefer to read the book first. Lately if I hear of a book I want to read coming out as a movie, I go and get the book first. Case in point, I am currently reading Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter in anticipation of the upcoming movie.
I like the show Castle and am toying with possibly reading the Nikki Heat books that the main character is writing in the show but we don't actually get to know what they are about in the TV series.

Skaw wrote: "I started to read Déjà Dead because of the tv series Bones (which I love), but only got as far as the first chapter. It seemed to be missing the humor that made me like the tv show. Of course, I ma..."

Your view on The Bourne Supremacy might have been different had you read the book first or if Robert Ludlum was alive for the film makers to have the movie be actually based on the book. I think Robert was still alive when they started filming The Bourne Identity was a major reason it was based on the book at all. I hated the second and third film so much becuase I read the books before it came out, which to me was so much better and emotional. I even went back and listen to them on abridged audio.