jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (7 posts)

Would you rather a 2 hour movie based on your favorite book or a entire televisi

  1. john shaggy nash profile image61
    john shaggy nashposted 3 years ago

    Would you rather a 2 hour movie based on your favorite book or a entire television series?

    I wondering what would be better. Of course a movie will leave out some details, but it'd be concise and to the point and an overall efficient way of telling the story. Whereas a television show could put in every single detail of the book, but I feel like it would just drag on. It might even go as far as to add in extra, unwanted, details. I think its a pretty hard choice.

  2. BeyondGS profile image85
    BeyondGSposted 3 years ago

    I think it depends. Some movies I really enjoyed and some I felt should've included more from the books.

    What irritates me is when they take out parts from the book and add things that were never in the story. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think as long as they keep to the book but don't screw it up the movie is just fine.

    A good example of a book adapted into a show that I liked, is "Sherlock" on the BBC. Although the story isn't based entirely on the books, it's broken down into 3 episode seasons with each one being around an hour an half. If they took that approach with more books that would be pretty cool to me.

  3. profile image0
    sheilamyersposted 3 years ago

    With those two choices, I'd rather it be made into a movie. It does seem when they make them into television shows, they start adding stuff and it moves away from the original story. Of course, they can still do that with movies, but they don't do it as much. That said, I actually like it better when they make books into mini-series - say a three or four night event. The two I really liked was "The Stand" (Stephen King) and "North and South" (John Jakes.

    1. dashingscorpio profile image88
      dashingscorpioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. A mini-series is a lot better than a continuous weekly TV series!

  4. vignesh118 profile image60
    vignesh118posted 3 years ago

    depends on the book i guess. If its got variety of twists and turns, And an epic story to tell then t.v series would be perfect. If its got shallow story line then 2 hour movie would make the cut.

  5. dashingscorpio profile image88
    dashingscorpioposted 3 years ago

    I'd rather watch a 2 hour movie than watch a long drawn out TV series.
    If a TV show does not get high ratings right away it will likely be canceled during or right at the end of the first season!
    Odds are if you were one of the faithful few watchers you would have become emotionally invested in a show without a resolution.
    On the other hand if the show is a raging hit then the network wants to hold onto to it for a minimum of 5 years which will guarantee reruns in syndication. Some shows like the original Law & Order was on for 20 years and it's sister show Law & Order SUV has been on for 15 years. These shows however have a different storyline for each episode.
    Attempting to tell (one) story over the course of 5, 10, 15, or 20 years is bound to lead a lot of people to fall by the wayside.
    In my opinion the best TV show to ever pull off the (one) story show was "The Fugitive" which aired on ABC from 1963 to 1967.
    The 1967 final episode of The Fugitive, attracted a 72% audience share when it was broadcast!
    However keep in mind most people only had 5-9 TV channels to watch back in those days. Most people only had one television and it was in the living room. You also couldn't DVR it or watch it "On Demand" at a later time and VCR/DVDs had not been invented.
    Today there are hundreds of cable TV stations in addition to ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX. People are also watching original TV shows produced for Netflix and Hulu.  It would be a real challenge to maintain a TV series based on one storyline/book these days.

  6. M. T. Dremer profile image95
    M. T. Dremerposted 3 years ago

    I think books as movies work best when they know there will be more movies after the first. This allows for a consistency of actors, writers and directors to build something that is worthy of the books they were based on. Harry Potter is a prime example, with The Hunger Games producing strong entries as well. When they are stand alone, or a sequel is uncertain, then they seem most likely to butcher the source material. Eragon is a good example of how NOT to make a movie adaptation.

    Right now I think television series are best at adapting huge series', like A Song of Ice and Fire and the Sword of Truth. Even though the latter's show (Legend of the Seeker) wasn't terribly faithful to the books, it was able to do more with the series than a movie could have. But, in answer to your question, since fantasy is my favorite genre, I would prefer a television series over a movie for most of my favorite books.

 
working