For The Godfather I read the book before watching the film.
For me, I found the book much more compelling than the film when it comes to telling the story. There is just something about visualizing each character for yourself according to their descriptions giving in the book and determine how they go about taking the actions that they do. While I did enjoy the movie, I just found the book to have more of a wow factor when it came to the events that took place throughout the story.
I can see your point, but watching the movie makes things so much easier to understand for me. Most people would be the same as me I believe. Even though you're right about being able to visualize in your own mind most people go to the movies to watch movies that were made by a book first because its easier for most people to understand. Not to mention when I read the godfather it took me many hours, where as when I watched it the film was 2 hours long.
I read the book first, but I knew there was a movie about the book because I visit imdb.com before and saw The Godfather on top 5 movies of all time but never watched it.
After reading and watching both I would say watching the film was pretty enjoyable. It helps visualize the story quite good. Sometimes I get lost in thought while reading and misunderstand something’s sometimes but during a movie its easy because its played out for you perfectly in the directors point of view.
I can see your point but I actually think that reading the book first helps you to understand the movie more as in what's going on, the characters etc. I genuinely feel that had I watched the movie first, I wouldn't have a full grasp of what was happening, because the movie does leave out minor details that when you look back at it are important in understanding the characters.The book gives you a description that the movie just didn't do and that goes for quite a few movies that are made based on books. (I My opinion at least.) While I did enjoy the visuals of the movie, and the director did do a good job, I missed the tone that I felt while reading the book.
I can see your point, but the book being read before the movie practically eliminates any confusion that would come form solely viewing the film. Lots of character background are reduced to several lines of dialogue, such as the film's way of showing the roles Clemenza and Brasi play in the family. The book is crucial to understanding anything beyond the main plot, and the film builds on what the book sets by showing how characters behaved.
I can see your point but I actually think that reading the book first helps you to understand the movie more as in what's going on, the characters etc. I genuinely feel that had I watched the movie first, I wouldn't have a full grasp of what was happening, because the movie does leave out minor details that when you look back at it are important in understanding the characters.The book gives you a description that the movie just didn't do and that goes for quite a few movies that are made based on books. (I My opinion at least.) While I did enjoy the visuals of the movie, and the director did do a good job, I missed the tone that I felt while reading the book.
I read the novel before watching the film. I had seen bits and pieces of the film further back in my life (Brasi's death was the only full scene I remembered seeing before the full film).
I feel that the book was more compelling in telling the story, yet the movie builds on it very well and helps to understand how things occurred, despite director alterations. The book sets the entire plot in stone, but most of the behavior is open to interpretation as to how the reader feels they'd behave. The film, on the other hand, explicitly shows how the characters behave. For instance, Michael appears to be a little more introverted in the book as he's underestimated and uses this to his advantage. Yet, in the film, his character behaves more aggressively and quickly seems to fit the mold of the role he eventually takes.
Yes! I agree with you about the way Michael is portrayed in the book compared to the movie. They do mention that they want to keep Michael out of things in the movie, but no one ever truly underestimates him as they did in the book. That was one of the main points about Michael, he exceeded everybody's expectations and that isn't mentioned at all in the movie. Also we don't get to properly see his good guy side and how he is strongly against his family business either.
I read the book first but I enjoyed the movie more.
The movie brought the story to life with more aspects then the book did. The settings and music in the film really helped me feel the story more in depth, as well as the tension and emotion between characters. The film also helped me realize how serious and extreme it all was. For example, when reading that a man's beloved horse's head had been severed for him to find in his bed, it didn't seem as nauseating and horrific as it did when seeing it in the film.
I can see your point but, for me the book allowed me to picture and visualize these scenes in my head which in a way made it a lot more interesting to me than just seeing it on the screen. Throughout the book i was able to sit back and see each scene in my own interpretation rather than having the movie just explain everything.
I can see your point but, the book gave a better understanding and background of the characters. This helps us read the character and see how they are feeling in each scene. After reading the book, I was able to understand the characters in the film when watching it again.
Although the movie was great too, I enjoyed the book more than the movie because I liked how the book would shock us with something we didn't see coming and then it would go on to explain the incident, like Sonny's death. I also found the story of Vito Corleone becoming the great Godfather, Don Corleone, very interesting and this was missing in the movie. I know they kept the movie as true to the book as they could within the time limit but that was the Don's origin story and I would have enjoyed seeing it. Aside from that, the movie was missing some of my favorite quotes form the book like, “You cannot say 'no' to the people you love, not often. That's the secret. And then when you do, it has to sound like a 'yes'. Or you have to make them say 'no.' You have to take time and trouble.” and “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” I also feel like the movie didn't make Hagen seem as great and interesting a character as he was in the book. He was very clever and perceptive in the book, but he seemed rather plain in the movie. This especially bothered me because he was my favorite character.
I read the book first then watched the movie, and for me the book was more descriptive in away, because i was able to read a few then sit back and actually visually see the scene as it played out in my head, in a sense it sorta made it more interesting to me. Usually this isn't the case for me because I'm not a big fan of reading books, but this book actually really interesting to read and be able to just sit back and see things fall together in my own interpretation. As in watching the movie everything is played out in front of you, you are given a certain way to view characters, everything is offered.
I can see your point but, for me the film made the overall understanding of the story much easier to follow. It did not provide too much detail on any aspect, or unnecessary story lines that would cause me to be confused, or need time to think about what I had just read, like the book did.
I read the novel before watching the film, although I had heard of the film before I began reading.
I think that the film was more compelling in telling the story. The book provided a lot of extra information that I felt made the overall understanding of the story much harder. In the film, I was able to see specifically the story and how it affected the characters and the overall theme. I also found it easier to understand the story in the film because the scenes progressed into each other, whereas in the book the scenes would jump back and forth making it harder to understand. In my opinion, the film was more compelling since it only showed the necessary information, disregarding the extra ‘fluff’
I watched the movie a long time ago before reading the book.
I feel like reading the book gave me more information about the characters in the story. Also, I was able to get a better understanding of Don Corleone in the book than in the movie. The book gave a clear view of Don Corleone and Michael and their significance in the story. I liked the movie due to its visual representation of the story. The book was more compelling in telling the story.
I read the book before watching the movie. I feel like the book was more compelling, as it went into details about the characters. This helped me get a better understanding of the characters and a background of what is going on. The movie was helpful in as visual aspect.
I watched the movie before I read the book. The movie is more fast paced, but glances over important details from the book.
I think the movie is more compelling but only because of the visual aspect that any movie has over a book. When reading the book you imagine the characters and the actions they take but are unable to see what they do. The movie also brings the shock value of seeing murders and dead bodies- things that are only words in the book.
For The Godfather I read the book before watching the film.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I found the book much more compelling than the film when it comes to telling the story. There is just something about visualizing each character for yourself according to their descriptions giving in the book and determine how they go about taking the actions that they do. While I did enjoy the movie, I just found the book to have more of a wow factor when it came to the events that took place throughout the story.
I can see your point, but watching the movie makes things so much easier to understand for me. Most people would be the same as me I believe. Even though you're right about being able to visualize in your own mind most people go to the movies to watch movies that were made by a book first because its easier for most people to understand. Not to mention when I read the godfather it took me many hours, where as when I watched it the film was 2 hours long.
DeleteI read the book first, but I knew there was a movie about the book because I visit imdb.com before and saw The Godfather on top 5 movies of all time but never watched it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and watching both I would say watching the film was pretty enjoyable. It helps visualize the story quite good. Sometimes I get lost in thought while reading and misunderstand something’s sometimes but during a movie its easy because its played out for you perfectly in the directors point of view.
DeleteI can see your point but I actually think that reading the book first helps you to understand the movie more as in what's going on, the characters etc. I genuinely feel that had I watched the movie first, I wouldn't have a full grasp of what was happening, because the movie does leave out minor details that when you look back at it are important in understanding the characters.The book gives you a description that the movie just didn't do and that goes for quite a few movies that are made based on books. (I My opinion at least.) While I did enjoy the visuals of the movie, and the director did do a good job, I missed the tone that I felt while reading the book.
I can see your point, but the book being read before the movie practically eliminates any confusion that would come form solely viewing the film. Lots of character background are reduced to several lines of dialogue, such as the film's way of showing the roles Clemenza and Brasi play in the family. The book is crucial to understanding anything beyond the main plot, and the film builds on what the book sets by showing how characters behaved.
DeleteI can see your point but I actually think that reading the book first helps you to understand the movie more as in what's going on, the characters etc. I genuinely feel that had I watched the movie first, I wouldn't have a full grasp of what was happening, because the movie does leave out minor details that when you look back at it are important in understanding the characters.The book gives you a description that the movie just didn't do and that goes for quite a few movies that are made based on books. (I My opinion at least.) While I did enjoy the visuals of the movie, and the director did do a good job, I missed the tone that I felt while reading the book.
ReplyDeleteI read the novel before watching the film. I had seen bits and pieces of the film further back in my life (Brasi's death was the only full scene I remembered seeing before the full film).
ReplyDeleteI feel that the book was more compelling in telling the story, yet the movie builds on it very well and helps to understand how things occurred, despite director alterations. The book sets the entire plot in stone, but most of the behavior is open to interpretation as to how the reader feels they'd behave. The film, on the other hand, explicitly shows how the characters behave. For instance, Michael appears to be a little more introverted in the book as he's underestimated and uses this to his advantage. Yet, in the film, his character behaves more aggressively and quickly seems to fit the mold of the role he eventually takes.
Yes! I agree with you about the way Michael is portrayed in the book compared to the movie. They do mention that they want to keep Michael out of things in the movie, but no one ever truly underestimates him as they did in the book. That was one of the main points about Michael, he exceeded everybody's expectations and that isn't mentioned at all in the movie. Also we don't get to properly see his good guy side and how he is strongly against his family business either.
DeleteYes, I see your point about the book but I believe the movie did a better job at portraying a compelling story.
DeleteI read the book first but I enjoyed the movie more.
ReplyDeleteThe movie brought the story to life with more aspects then the book did. The settings and music in the film really helped me feel the story more in depth, as well as the tension and emotion between characters. The film also helped me realize how serious and extreme it all was. For example, when reading that a man's beloved horse's head had been severed for him to find in his bed, it didn't seem as nauseating and horrific as it did when seeing it in the film.
I can see your point but, for me the book allowed me to picture and visualize these scenes in my head which in a way made it a lot more interesting to me than just seeing it on the screen. Throughout the book i was able to sit back and see each scene in my own interpretation rather than having the movie just explain everything.
DeleteI can see your point but, the book gave a better understanding and background of the characters. This helps us read the character and see how they are feeling in each scene. After reading the book, I was able to understand the characters in the film when watching it again.
DeleteI read the book before watching the movie.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the movie was great too, I enjoyed the book more than the movie because I liked how the book would shock us with something we didn't see coming and then it would go on to explain the incident, like Sonny's death. I also found the story of Vito Corleone becoming the great Godfather, Don Corleone, very interesting and this was missing in the movie. I know they kept the movie as true to the book as they could within the time limit but that was the Don's origin story and I would have enjoyed seeing it. Aside from that, the movie was missing some of my favorite quotes form the book like, “You cannot say 'no' to the people you love, not often. That's the secret. And then when you do, it has to sound like a 'yes'. Or you have to make them say 'no.' You have to take time and trouble.” and “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” I also feel like the movie didn't make Hagen seem as great and interesting a character as he was in the book. He was very clever and perceptive in the book, but he seemed rather plain in the movie. This especially bothered me because he was my favorite character.
I read the book first then watched the movie, and for me the book was more descriptive in away, because i was able to read a few then sit back and actually visually see the scene as it played out in my head, in a sense it sorta made it more interesting to me. Usually this isn't the case for me because I'm not a big fan of reading books, but this book actually really interesting to read and be able to just sit back and see things fall together in my own interpretation. As in watching the movie everything is played out in front of you, you are given a certain way to view characters, everything is offered.
ReplyDeleteI can see your point but, for me the film made the overall understanding of the story much easier to follow. It did not provide too much detail on any aspect, or unnecessary story lines that would cause me to be confused, or need time to think about what I had just read, like the book did.
DeleteI read the novel before watching the film, although I had heard of the film before I began reading.
ReplyDeleteI think that the film was more compelling in telling the story. The book provided a lot of extra information that I felt made the overall understanding of the story much harder. In the film, I was able to see specifically the story and how it affected the characters and the overall theme. I also found it easier to understand the story in the film because the scenes progressed into each other, whereas in the book the scenes would jump back and forth making it harder to understand. In my opinion, the film was more compelling since it only showed the necessary information, disregarding the extra ‘fluff’
I watched the movie a long time ago before reading the book.
ReplyDeleteI feel like reading the book gave me more information about the characters in the story. Also, I was able to get a better understanding of Don Corleone in the book than in the movie. The book gave a clear view of Don Corleone and Michael and their significance in the story. I liked the movie due to its visual representation of the story. The book was more compelling in telling the story.
I read the book before watching the movie. I feel like the book was more compelling, as it went into details about the characters. This helped me get a better understanding of the characters and a background of what is going on. The movie was helpful in as visual aspect.
ReplyDeleteI watched the movie before I read the book. The movie is more fast paced, but glances over important details from the book.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie is more compelling but only because of the visual aspect that any movie has over a book. When reading the book you imagine the characters and the actions they take but are unable to see what they do. The movie also brings the shock value of seeing murders and dead bodies- things that are only words in the book.