Jane Austen, writing for her contemporaries, doesn't bother with a lot of sensory description, so I enjoy the books more after the films have given me the look and feel of that world.
Same with Christie's books -- and Phryne Fisher! Those films are making her a real person, with feelings between the lines of rather bare dialog.
Otoh, my own visuals of Narnia were much nicer than the movie's, so I haven't watched the rest of the films.
Often of course a movie has to leave out a lot, either because the book was very long, or because some things in the book were not really practical, or perhaps too melodramatic. So the plot of the movie seems thin, inadequate. (I missed Rearden insulting Dagny in the shadow of the venetian blinds, but I can see why the movie didn't put it in. For Dagny it was a minor emotional moment, she just laughed. But it would have stolen the show from the more important but less cinematic parts.)
no subject
Same with Christie's books -- and Phryne Fisher! Those films are making her a real person, with feelings between the lines of rather bare dialog.
Otoh, my own visuals of Narnia were much nicer than the movie's, so I haven't watched the rest of the films.
Often of course a movie has to leave out a lot, either because the book was very long, or because some things in the book were not really practical, or perhaps too melodramatic. So the plot of the movie seems thin, inadequate. (I missed Rearden insulting Dagny in the shadow of the venetian blinds, but I can see why the movie didn't put it in. For Dagny it was a minor emotional moment, she just laughed. But it would have stolen the show from the more important but less cinematic parts.)