I read the books because I loved the movies . . . and I finished reading the books because I loved the movies (those books are REALLY long for someone who didn't much like reading). I think if someone's a reader, they'll read the books. If they like the books enough, they might watch the movie/series based on it. If someone's not a reader, they'll watch the movies/series, and if they love them enough, they might read the books as well. That's the way it is for me and my family, anyway.
Well if we are being honest. I must admit I didn't But that hasn't stopped me from reading nor has it effected me in a negative way just cause I missed out on LOTR reading as a kid and still haven't read them. But hey if someone saw the movie and then read the book, that's fine to. I got my reading start with comics and still read them but also got into normal books (which I prefer) as I got to be around thirteen. If its any sign of hope. My ten year old cousin has taken up reading which he previously told me he disliked. He's not reading Harry Potter or The Hobbit or anything but I'm just glad he found something he likes.
That's really heartening news. I worry that film / TV might kill reading altogether, but maybe not. However, if a book gets made into a film and then people don't read THAT book any more, I think that's a real shame.
In your opinion, which is higher: the quality of the books as books, or the quality of the movies as movies?
Well. I think that's a valid concern (always has been) but heck at this point film and tv have had years and years to kill off reading and it hasn't managed it yet. In fact for better or for worse with the internet and just general changes, there are probably more literary and text based fiction being put out today then ever before. Be it from traditional publishing with physical (and ebooks), self publishing, web/blog novels and all sorts of things. They even have a Reading Rainbow app now and the show got put on Netflix..... There are still short story contests for magazines out there, stuff like creepypasta and Chilling Tales for Dark Night for amateur writers to try their hand at. I'm not saying all of these are great literary works or anything but people read them, write them and listen to them and watch them to get into reading. They even have people on youtube who talk about books. Heck there are still very big best sellers that kick butt every year or so and of course the old classics don't really ever go away. In fact I think TV can be used in favor of books and it is sometimes is but not enough. I think the internet is wonderful for that though. So that's a big positive for getting teens and kids into reading now. It is that there are a lot more things to grab their attention first but in turn there are so many ways for one to be introduced to reading and writing either through their own means, school or now various happen chances on the internet. Heck I even hear Amazon has a plan of opening up a lot of physical book stores and still make a killing selling books (isn't that what they originally at first mainly? A book shipper?) Also to clarify about TV and books. I meant that tv could be used to promote books maybe more, in some form like the web has been doing but that's unlikely. Still, I think books still have a strong fan base of constant readers and 'every so often' ones. That's why they are still around. But hey its okay! I worry about it to and I hear if you worry about the worst possible thing, then whatever happens will be much better then that! Good to worry. Put the worry in the writing.
The comparative quality isn't really my concern. I'm more worried about people deciding not to read a book because they've seen the movie. (The movie may be better than the book, but they can't make that judgement unless they read the book.) I haven't seen the Harry Potter movies myself because I didn't get all that interested in the books. I read the first one and partway through the second one, and lost interest. I remember thinking at the time ...if I was a kid right now I'd LOVE these books. But I'm not a kid any more and they didn't really appeal. My husband, on the other hand, not only loved the books, he went out and bought himself an owl! A plastic one ...but we've still got it. He wasn't a huge fan of the movies, although he did watch them all. He preferred the books. I thought the LoTR movies were fantastic, although I had a few niggles about some things. But I thought Jackson filmed the un-filmable, and did it very well. However, I can't begin to say how much I enjoyed reading the books. They were part of my life for many many years, and I read them twice a year till very recently. Interestingly, not since the movies came out, though. (I'm about to rectify that soon, as I would like to read them again and see if they still have that old effect on me.) @Ashley Harrison made this point in post 39 on this thread: I think it's Ashley's concern that bothers me most. How long before most new authors will be angling for a movie deal as soon as they can get one? It has even been spoken about on this forum, from time to time. People who haven't even written their books yet are already envisioning a movie deal. I don't mean they see their story running as a movie in their heads as they write—which can help create visual details that bring a story to life—but they actually are intending to angle for a movie deal and want to construct their stories so that happens. I have nothing against movies/TV being made of books that have been around a good long while. Perhaps (as in the case of Pride and Prejudice) they can rekindle interest in reading an author who has gone out of fashion. My concern comes when the movie/TV franchise takes over from the books almost as soon as the books hit the shelves. That seems to be happening a lot faster these days. Twilight, Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Outlander, Wolf Hall, you name it. How long before George RR Martin's experience is going to be repeated? You know—where the movies get filmed faster than the author can write the books? The author will be well and truly shoved into the background then. They'll either need to churn out books as fast as they can, or they'll completely lose control of the story itself. While some people will read a book if they've seen a movie, I do think there will be many people out there who don't bother to read the books at all if the movies are available. I mean—when you think Gone With The Wind I reckon you are thinking 'movie' not book? Am I right? I've been horrified at the people who have seen the Disney Old Yeller movie, but never read the book—which differs from the movie in so many ways it's almost like they are two different stories. Or that the Little House on the Prairie mawkish sopfest they watched on TV replaces Mrs Wilder's series of wonderful, historically-accurate books. As writers—at least all of us who aren't primarily writing screenplays—we should be thinking a lot about this issue. It's hard to think of any popular book ...even Dr Seuss, for pity's sake ...that hasn't been made into a movie. Some have been 'faithful' to the books, some not so much. They all trade on the book's initial popularity, though. That's a mid-20th century phenomenon that has carried on into the early 21st, and I'm not sure it's headed in the right direction. For either books OR movies. I'd love to see movies/TV and books remain separate art forms, with only the occasional crossover. If movies and TV series just end up adapting books, that kills incentive for filmmakers to come up with something original. The rot can set in both ways.
@jannert Also..... I think its important to remember the age gap on some things and all. I understand your point of course but kids today aren't always going to read the old popular classics. Well not all the kids anyway, I've come to the conclusion that if someone likes to read a lot they will eventually find themselves to the old classics and such someday. But when I was a kid.....I mean I'm still very young but I NEVER read any classic kids books or classics for that matter, unless it was maybe school related. I just plowed through anything that seemed interesting at the school library. This was before my love of period pieces and other stuff caught on. I didn't even read Harry Potter and I was the right age for it nor Old Yeller. The books I read then (in my elementary school days) were like odd mass market paperbacks that could only be found at a school library. Though interestingly enough my cousin who I spoke of earlier....my only example. I saw Diary of a Wimpy Kid and A Series of Unfournate Events on his shelf but he mentioned he wasn't reading that and said it was something else. I forget the name of the book he said. But I'd never heard of it nor a movie of it. So I assume there are probably some form of semi-popular books in children's circles and adults I assume to that don't have a film adaptation yet....or perhaps it was just something random he grabbed off the shelf. I'll have to ask him
Yeah, I certainly read lots of 'non classic' stuff when I was a kid as well. In fact, I think shoving 'classics' at people when they're too young for it is a mistake. It can put people off these books for life. I'm more concerned that kids pick do up a reading habit, as opposed to just watching stuff on a screen all the time. I don't care what they read as long as they do read. In fact, I think it's important for kids to read what attracts them, and to realise that it doesn't matter what you like, there will be books out there for you. That's my philosophy, anyway!
I don't know if this analogy works at all, I think I may have heard it in another context, but the same applies. You don't build a house, by starting with the roof. That's what movie producers and to some extent TV producers do. They already have a preconceived notion before the release of the first film in a franchise, what the end game looks like. I think this undermines the whole process. You maybe a huge 'Star Wars' fan, sorry if I offend, but the knowledge they only make those films in sets of three is rather prosaic. Release the first film and see how it goes, gauge whether there is a real appetite for more of the same. I view it as uninspired and pedestrian, to know they have planned the next couple of movies already and it's in the pipeline, which takes it into 2019. No one can deny, that this is a money making exercise and not about original storytelling anymore.
Well I am a HUGE fan of the original Star Wars movie, and to a lesser extent the two that followed it. But I thought the prequels were awful, and I haven't seen the new one yet. The original Star Wars was an original film, though, not based on any book. I suppose the film industry is like so many others ...they create what they know, or think they know, will sell. A franchise makes selling easy. However, that sort of attitude is detrimental to any real creativity. I share your concerns.
Producers don't appear as though they realise, you've got to begin laying the foundations before you can start building upwards. Nothing will change until the box office, dictates they stop using the same old formula. We can only live in hope this will happen sooner, rather than later.
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to mention Hawthorne. Novels like The Fellowship of the Ring or The Christmas Carol or any of those very old-timey classics with lots of "old white dude" writing might sometimes get a little hard to read through (as a huge fan of Tolkien, even I can agree he wasn't a very good writer and often went on huge tirades of explaining nothing at fucking all, which was fine- even great- when he described the land, but the very beginning of Fellowship was so slow moving that I don't blame people for not getting through it) but Hawthorne was outdated before he even picked up a pen. Reading Hawthorne in high school is like being assigned to pick needles out of your fingertips, horribly unpleasant and needlessly mandatory.
Credit where credit's due; Hawthorne had a few decent stories like "The Minister's Black Veil." But "The Scarlet Letter" only sticks around because no one wants to replace it. Because it was written in the style of two centuries prior, high school teachers can assign it as an example of the 17th-century American style rather than making students read the actual books written in 17th-century America. (I had a teacher once who filled that niche with The Sovereignty and Goodness of God by Mary Rowlandson. Yeesh.)
Well, to name a few that I know: Divergent, Hunger Games, Harry Potter, LoTR, The Hobbit,(I simply found the last 2 to be rather dull) Twilight, 50 Shades of Gray, anything past the first Maze Runner book and Catcher in the Rye(for poor characterization to the point of legitimate anger).
