Books Vs Movie Adaptations

Meself

cynic 11-5-2018 10:34 AM
Indian TV adaptations are a joke. The stories get twisted to no end to cater for the masala seeking ...

I loved DKDM but the starry tantrums of the first Parvati was enough for the makers to butcher Mahadevi. But yes they played with timelines too much and end result was it turned into something that you just couldn't appreciate.




I am feeling so bad for both Amish Tripathi and Krishan Udayshankar. Their work is all set to be murdered brutally.

Meself

jhsurti 11-5-2018 11:39 AM
Another case in point: Saraswatichandra - a 4 volume novel in Gujarati written by Govardhanram Mad ...

I still can understand what was the need of adaptating Saraswatichandra by tweaking it's timeline. The book was appealing because it was set in a certain time period. It played with the societal norms of that era and hence it made sense. By bringing it to 21st century they killed the feel of it.




The other day my friends and I were discussing that there are so many books that are practically TV/movie ready. From screenplay to story, everything'' covered in them. But because the maker's penchant for OTT drama it's better they are never adapted on screen.

Meself

P.S. The only adaptation that is worth mentioning is Epic channel's Siyaasat based on Indu Sundersan's The Twentieth Wife. Now that's how you adapt a book into TV series.

booklover1980

I agree but there are a few well. Made movies too

cynic

Meself 11-5-2018 07:12 PM
P.S. The only adaptation that is worth mentioning is Epic channel's Siyaasat based on Indu Sundersan ...

Ditto. The Epic channel has some real gems. Too bad, most people are not even aware the channel exists.

The way I see it, Indian TV adaptations are seen more as a shortcut with everything already in place. There is no interest to stay true to the book, or even history for that matter.

Meself

cynic 12-5-2018 11:07 AM
Ditto. The Epic channel has some real gems. Too bad, most people are not even aware the channel ex ...

Let's not talk about Indian historicals. LOL

vys

Definitely book, because it has many more details and it gives me an opportunity to imagine according to my mind .

ashising

i love reading books

ani_d_s

Books are for the classes whereas movie adaptations are for the masses.
There are pros and cons to each side.
With respect to story telling and building imagination, books win the race here.
for e.g. when you read about Harry Potter, we imagine the character in a certain way, but if you have seen the movie, your imagination is restricted to Daniel Radcliffe.

The movies are an edited version of the book, however they have a global reach and scope and makes the literature famous, so much so that, after watching the movie/tv adaptation, you would want to go back and read the book.
The non-readers are also made aware of the books.

Let me illustrate a few brilliant TV/movie adaptations:

1)  B.R. Chopra's Mahabharat : This has set the benchmark so high that no recent adaptation is comparable to this. When we say Krishna, the ever smiling picture of Nitish Bharadwaj comes to mind.

2) Malgudi Days : Swami portrayed by Master Manju stole the show.

3) Chanakya

4) Game of Thrones : I actually went back and read all the books after watching season 1.
5) Lord of the Rings Movies

6) Harry Potter movies :

You would notice that the Indian adaptations are the ones that old ones, because I feel that the recent TV shows do not remain true to the source material, and add unnecessary plots to extend the series. They become your daily saas-bahu serials in the long run
A few examples of this are Jodha-Akbar, Porus, Ashoka, Rana Pratap, etc.

However, after watching the Sacred Games series, we can feel that there is still hope.

coolveenu19

Definitely Books are better than the movie adaptations.

You surely cannot bring out all details as envisaged by the author, in the movies. And due to time constraint you end up skipping many interesting parts, which were necessary to understand the story in full.