Which is better - Movie to book or book to movie

[Pacion]

Have you ever read a book which then came out as a movie and you thought :shock: I don't recognise anything from the book?

Or, you saw the movie, loved it so much you bought the book and thought :shock: the movie was much better?

Are there any which you felt did justice to each other?

Why do you think that was?

[Sagitta]

Book never can do justice to a movie. :)

[pygmalion]

I think that very good books, classic literature, etc, are very difficult to make into good screenplays/movies. If the book is complex and textured enough to be really good, it's difficult to recapture it on film. There are so many places where a screen adaptation can fall short -- the writing of the screenplay, the casting, the acting, the directing, the movie editing and production ... even costuming can destroy the effect of a good book. It's a miracle if a good (and I do mean good, not mediocre) book is made into a good movie. Just my two cents. I'm pretty opinionated about good books and movies. *shrug*

Now, fluff movies? Eh. I don't much care. :roll: :lol: I can see the movie first or read the book first. It's pretty much a wash.

[pygmalion]

Hehe. :oops: Looks like I went totally off on a tangent, here. LOTR movies were pretty equal to the book. A few liberties were taken, but all in all, I think at least movies one and three were extremely well done. Movie two -- the Two Towers -- really disappointed me because they made Gimli into a comic relief figure. Somehow, I didn't get that from the book. Not at all.

[Genesius Redux]

Agree with Jenn, not surprisingly, though it depends on the book.

Nothing is quite so tedious as Dickens. Okay, Tolstoy comes close. These books were made for film. The British made a 4-hour movie of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa (an unendurable 2000 pages long). Bravo for them!

LotR--Jenn, have you seen the director's cut videos, especially of the first film, which deals with Galadriel's gifts and Gimli's chivalrous request for a lock of her hair? I was most disappointed when they left that out of the theatre-length version, as it was absolutely essential to Gimli's character and his growing friendship with Legolas.

And I was absolutely distraught that they did not include the Scouring of the Shire, which to me was one of the best and most poignant part of the final volume.

[Sagitta]

Book never can do justice to a movie. :)

The above shows how tired I was/am!! :oops:

This is what I think: A movie can never do justice to a good book!! never. I make the point of never seeing a movie if I have read a good book. :)

[squirrel]

It is difficult to make movies after good books... the end result usually sucks by comparison...
Still, as much as I am in favour of good books, I think movies (and television...) are much more powerful, 'cause instead of reading, you SEE things... and it is much easier to be impressed by what the eyes see than by what you can read... the expressive force of images is beyond words... and it is the best way of manipulation, in my opinion...

[Danish Guy]

Have you ever read a book which then came out as a movie and you thought :shock: I don't recognise anything from the book?


The Running Man by Steven King. :shock:
Only the title and the tv show idea is in common. :roll:

[Sabor]

in my humblebumble opinion.. the book has never failed to out-do the movie.. wether i read it b4 or after the movie.

[Pacion]

For those who said that the book was better than the movie, does the same apply to Harry Potter :D

[Sagitta]

Didn't read Harry Potter and haven't seen the movie. :)

[Angelo]

In general, the books appear to be superior to the movies they are adapted from. One exception, in my opinion, that comes to mind in the most recent film version of Last of the Mohicans, which I felt was superior to the book.

[pygmalion]

For those who said that the book was better than the movie, does the same apply to Harry Potter :D

Definitely for movies one and two. Especially movie one, Sorcerer's Stone, tried too hard to duplicate the book, rather than interpreting it as a screenplay, IMHO.

[Genesius Redux]

For those who said that the book was better than the movie, does the same apply to Harry Potter :D

Definitely for movies one and two. Especially movie one, Sorcerer's Stone, tried too hard to duplicate the book, rather than interpreting it as a screenplay, IMHO.

"Azkaban" by contrast suffers by not including some important elements that work dramatically.

[tj]

In general, I like the book more than the movie. I also agree with what's been said about all 3 of the Harry Potter books.

A couple of exceptions:
I liked Jurassic Park the movie more than the book. I guess what bugged me is that Crichton (sp?) tries to be all scientific and is just outright wrong with a couple of his so-called facts. Plus his characters were more annoying than the movie.

Fight Club - I like how it was done in the movie more than the book. The philosophical bent seemed to be lacking in the book.

[dragon3085]

Books are always better. My Imagination has a much bigger budget then the studios.

[Underfoot]

It depends:

I would typically say that books are better than movies (and usually the best movies have at least been adapted from a book).

When it goes the other direction though (movie -> book), look out. This happens when a bad author wants to cash in on the success of a movie. Leads to some really scary, really poorly written, slip shod books.

JMHO,
~ Underfoot 8)

_____________
Check out my online book forum! :
www.underfootbookforum.com (http://www.underfootbookforum.com/books/)

[squirrel]

welcome to the forums, Underfoot!

[pygmalion]

When it goes the other direction though (movie -> book), look out. This happens when a bad author wants to cash in on the success of a movie. Leads to some really scary, really poorly written, slip shod books.



Yup. Amen to that!

[Genesius Redux]

I liked Jurassic Park the movie more than the book. I guess what bugged me is that Crichton (sp?) tries to be all scientific and is just outright wrong with a couple of his so-called facts.

tj--It's about cloning dinosaurs, man. How factual do you want it to be? :lol:

[Sarah]

Generally, there is too much story in a novel to make a good movie. What you want to start with is a short story or novella - Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, fr'instance.

Cheers
Sarah

[cocodrilo]

I agree with Sagitta(when he's NOT tired!), the movie can almost never live up to the greatness of a well-writen piece of literature. For example, I am a big John Irving fan and the only movie that impressed me was "The World According to Garp". But why shouldn't it? It had a cast of fabulous actors- among whom was Robin Williams! (The Hotel New Hampshire? YAWN! Cider House Rules? Get me outta here, quick!) One book which I thought was as equally dull as the movie was "The English Patient"(sorry, I know I'm gonna get railed on for this, but it was just too slow-moving for my liking!)

[cl5814]

I agree with Sagitta(when he's NOT tired!), the movie can almost never live up to the greatness of a well-writen piece of literature. For example, I am a big John Irving fan and the only movie that impressed me was "The World According to Garp". But why shouldn't it? It had a cast of fabulous actors- among whom was Robin Williams! (The Hotel New Hampshire? YAWN! Cider House Rules? Get me outta here, quick!) One book which I thought was as equally dull as the movie was "The English Patient"(sorry, I know I'm gonna get railed on for this, but it was just too slow-moving for my liking!)

Ok, so i will be the first to give you some grief on English Patient and Cider House. I thought both were great movies. I agree that English Patient moved a bit slow during the movie, still a great one...

[tj]

I liked Jurassic Park the movie more than the book. I guess what bugged me is that Crichton (sp?) tries to be all scientific and is just outright wrong with a couple of his so-called facts.

tj--It's about cloning dinosaurs, man. How factual do you want it to be? :lol:

Lol! Ok - it's the dinosaurs running around in a V formation like birds that really bugged me. Drafting is all about long distance and saving energy (like a bike rider), and herding animals don't run around in V's.

That and (I forget the specifics) about some sort of Unix reference that was all wrong.

I like it when an author puts in little factual things, and Chrichton has a knack for getting his little factual things wrong.

[cocodrilo]

I liked Jurassic Park the movie more than the book. I guess what bugged me is that Crichton (sp?) tries to be all scientific and is just outright wrong with a couple of his so-called facts.

tj--It's about cloning dinosaurs, man. How factual do you want it to be? :lol:

Lol! Ok - it's the dinosaurs running around in a V formation like birds that really bugged me. Drafting is all about long distance and saving energy (like a bike rider), and herding animals don't run around in V's.

That and (I forget the specifics) about some sort of Unix reference that was all wrong.

I like it when an author puts in little factual things, and Chrichton has a knack for getting his little factual things wrong.

Interesting observation, tj! I didn't actually notice the "V formation" as I was captivated more by gnashing teeth and what have you. Are you into archaeology?

[Pacion]

Are you into archaeology?

:lol: He was just born knowing that stuff :lol:

So, what about classics like - Gone with the Wind, Dr Zhaviago, Anna Karenina. I am not saying that I read all of them. I do remember reading Gone with the Wind after seeing the whole movie and I think I started Dr Zhaviago but am not sure if I ever finished it :oops:

What about films that have been made into a television series or vice versa? Do they work for you?

Of the top of my head, I loved Fame the television series. Not sure if I have seen the movie :? but doubt I would like it much. Why? Cramming 10 Sundays of Fame (TV) into two hours (Film) :shock: :nope: Wouldn't work for me :lol:

[mamboqueen]

I'll be a sheep and follow along with what everyone says. Books let your imagination take over and when it gets translated to screen, it's just never quite what you envisioned. Rarely anyway.

I will say that I loved Anna Karenina the book, and the movie (and the PBS miniseries). It's one of my favorites, but a bear to get through. Same thing with Dr. Zhivago.

One contemporary book that I thought came close was Presumed Innocent. I love legal thrillers, and by the time it got into the theater, I forgot "who dunnit."

One that I was really disappointed in was Mystic River. I loved the book, but I didn't think (and I'm probably in the minority) that Sean Penn remotely deserved an oscar (although I thought Tim Robbins did). And then when I saw Ben Kinglsey in House of Sand and Fog, I think Sean Penn got his "paid the dues" oscar. Kinglsey was great.

Anyway, I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but I did see the movies. I liked Azkaban, but since I didn't read the book, can't make the comparison.

What I'll be interested in seeing is The DaVinci Code. I liked the book a lot, but if they cast Tom Cruise in the lead role, I will be very disappointed!

[Pacion]

You don't like Tom Cruise then I take it :roll: :lol:

[Genesius Redux]

I liked Jurassic Park the movie more than the book. I guess what bugged me is that Crichton (sp?) tries to be all scientific and is just outright wrong with a couple of his so-called facts.

tj--It's about cloning dinosaurs, man. How factual do you want it to be? :lol:

Lol! Ok - it's the dinosaurs running around in a V formation like birds that really bugged me. Drafting is all about long distance and saving energy (like a bike rider), and herding animals don't run around in V's.

That and (I forget the specifics) about some sort of Unix reference that was all wrong.

I like it when an author puts in little factual things, and Chrichton has a knack for getting his little factual things wrong.

Interesting observation, tj! I didn't actually notice the "V formation" as I was captivated more by gnashing teeth and what have you. Are you into archaeology?

Well what I noticed in the first one is when they're hiding behind the log as the dinos stampede, every time one of them jumps on the log, the log vibrates. That's the kinda detail I like! :D

[mamboqueen]

You don't like Tom Cruise then I take it

My problem with Tom Cruise is that when he's "acting", I only see Tom Cruise and not the characther he's supposed to be portraying. For me to appreciate an acting performance, I kinda have to "lose" the actor in the character, if you know what I mean. I think Madonna is an awful actress, but when she played Evita, she actually had me. [/code]

[Genesius Redux]

You don't like Tom Cruise then I take it

My problem with Tom Cruise is that when he's "acting", I only see Tom Cruise and not the characther he's supposed to be portraying. For me to appreciate an acting performance, I kinda have to "lose" the actor in the character, if you know what I mean. I think Madonna is an awful actress, but when she played Evita, she actually had me. [/code]

Re Tom Cruise--in Dances With Samurai, we're to believe that this American soldier shows up in Japan, heroic and tough enough to fight off four or five samurai while he's bleeding on the ground, and after a single winter, gets good enough to be the head samurai's right hand man, and hold his own with these fully-trained samurai warriors who have been doing it their entire lives. Puh-leaze!

Madonna as Evita, I don't know. "Don't sing for me, please Madonna! I was hoping there'd beeeeeee some dubbing! Just like with Audrey! In My Fair Lady! But still they let you! (I was disgusted!)"

You're absolutely right about Ben Kingsley. But I've not watched the Oscars since they gave it to Tom Hanks in Philadelphia over Sir Tony in Remains of the Day. Travesty!

As for Anna Karenina--that's the long one where she's miserable the whole time and then gets hit by the train? I prefer The Little Mermaid. :wink:

[cocodrilo]

I'm not a huge Tom Cruise fan, but he did well in "Vanilla Sky". Loved that odd movie, just saw it again on cable recently! Like d "The Fight Club" as well, which had a similar twist of fate in it!

[mamboqueen]

LMAO, GR! I'm sure Tolstoy would be rolling in his grave over your preference! Yes, she threw herself under a train, but it was a broken heart and the utter torment she suffered from the possibility of losing her son....sniff, sniff....

Oh, and in case anyone didn't sing it along with your rendition of "Don't Cry for Me", it was quite enjoyable! She actually admitted to the singing in that movie being the most difficult training she ever had (as if!). I don't know, I suppose the fact that she had a pretty good supporting cast helped her along.

Tom Hanks was good in Phliadelphia, but it was probably the real "PC" thing to do at the time. There's always someone who gets gypped. I mean, Marisa Tomei getting best actress??? Puleez!

Errr....I think we need a movie thread...*LOL* And anyone watch Nip Tuck? We might need a thread on that, too. I just LOVE that show!

[squirrel]

:)

OK, my opinion: the movies made after the great classics suck! Most of the time the book is mutilated... :(. The Russian version of War and Peace was not so bad...not that I liked the book (Tolstoi is soooooooooooooo boring, especially after reading Dostoievski)...

I liked Gone with the wind... both the movie and the book... :)

I don't really like TV series... :) especially the British ones... Clarissa and Pride and Prejudice sucked! Pride and Prejudice is a good book though (while Clarissa and anything by Samuel Richardson suck!)...

Let's say my taste in books is sort of weird... :)

[tj]

I liked Jurassic Park the movie more than the book. I guess what bugged me is that Crichton (sp?) tries to be all scientific and is just outright wrong with a couple of his so-called facts.

tj--It's about cloning dinosaurs, man. How factual do you want it to be? :lol:

Lol! Ok - it's the dinosaurs running around in a V formation like birds that really bugged me. Drafting is all about long distance and saving energy (like a bike rider), and herding animals don't run around in V's.

That and (I forget the specifics) about some sort of Unix reference that was all wrong.

I like it when an author puts in little factual things, and Chrichton has a knack for getting his little factual things wrong.

Interesting observation, tj! I didn't actually notice the "V formation" as I was captivated more by gnashing teeth and what have you. Are you into archaeology?

Yes, I am, and actually I was referring to what he wrote in the book rather than the film.

[cocodrilo]

Good, then, tj! Details that you read somehow seem to stick in your mind more than a couple visual flashes on the screen. Your mind creates more articulate images of what the writer primes you with, with his words. For me, this creates a longer-lasting impression than a similar visual of it.
is archaeology your profession? I am interested!

[tj]

Good, then, tj! Details that you read somehow seem to stick in your mind more than a couple visual flashes on the screen. Your mind creates more articulate images of what the writer primes you with, with his words. For me, this creates a longer-lasting impression than a similar visual of it.

Good point. Plus all of the subtle things and thoughts are much easier to put into words rather than on-screen, so a lot more intrigue and angles can be put into a book. The Dune series by Frank Herbert is a good example of this - the movie version with Sting was horrible. The made-for-TV series was better, but the books are way better.

Often it seems easier to suspend my disbelief with a book more than a movie, too.


is archaeology your profession? I am interested!
Nope, just an interest of mine.

[Pacion]

I saw Breakfast at Tiffany's today. Hmmmm. Love Audrey Hepburn. Some of the gags/jokes were priceless (to me) and George Peppard, hmmm, he could give me cracker jack rings anytime :lol:

I read the book and from recollection, Holly Golightly (AH) and Paul 'Fred' Varjak (GP) didn't get together but in the movie, it 'ended happily ever after' hmmmm. I enjoyed the movie more than the book :?

I found on the internet, a discussion board where someone asked why the title "Breakfast at Tiffany's"? Someone answered (and I love it :lol: ):

According to the Truman Capote biography, the phrase 'breakfast at Tiffany's' dates from some time during WW2. A sailor went to New York and had a lovely night out with a chap. In the morning, the chap said, 'Where do you want to go for breakfast? I'll take you anywhere you want.' And because the sailor didn't know New York at all, the only place he knew was Tiffany's. So he said 'Let's have breakfast at Tiffany's'. Apparently, it was a story that went around the New York gay scene at the time, so Capote picked up on it.

Apparently, if you go to Tiffanys, you can see couples standing outside the windows eating pastries, having their own 'breakfast at Tiffanys.' How sweet.

I also liked Audrey Hepburn's rendition of 'Moon River'. She sounded so sad :cry:

[cocodrilo]

I went into Tiffany's in London the other day. I didn't eat any pastries outside, nor did I buy anything at the store... :(

"Breakfast at Tiffany's" IS a great movie! I've seen it a dozen times. Audrey Hepbuen sure certainly had class! :D

[pygmalion]

Yup. I'd heard that the Holly Golightly character was actually a man, but censorship at the time didn't allow Truman Capote to say so openly. :?

I found the movie's fairy tale ending a bit unrealistic. I never read the book, though. Maybe I should.


As for books and movies that are equally excellent, try To Sir with Love. It's non-fiction, in the 400's somewhere -- education, I think. E.R. Braithwaite wrote a real page turner. And the movie is one of my absolute favorites. Sidney Poitier was perfect for the role.

[Sagitta]

You see I never knew about the book. So, I've seen "To Sir, With Love" the movie. I agree that Sidney Poitier is a great actor. I really enjoyed this movie. Now, this was before my dancing days, and now it is even more enjoyable for the short dancing sequence in it. :)

[mhgroove]

I generally agree with most everyone on this topic about a great book being better than the movie.

However, one of my favorite books has turned out to be an excellent movie. So good in fact, I just bought a copy of the movie from Amazon.com last week.

The movie is Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands. It was adapted from the novel by the late Brazilian novelist Jorge Amado. The movie was very faithful to the book and having Sonia Braga as the main character of Dona Flor was an excellent choice.

Quick synopsis for anyone who wants to see it: Dona Flor runs a cooking school and is married to a loser for a husband. However, he's very passionate and he makes her come alive.

Well, he suddenly dies dancing at Carnival in Bahia and the movie chronicles their life together. But, Dona Flor decides to re-marry and her second husband is wealthy and successful. There's one problem..the marriage is passionless. Dona Flor begins dreaming about her first husband and he comes back into her life as a ghost. (That might be a little far fetched for some..but it works in this movie.)

The movie really shows the entire nice guy-vs-bad guy drama in full light. I was impressed!

So there are some movies that can enhance a novel!!!

[cocodrilo]

That's a fairly recent movie, isn't it? Sounds good to me!

[pygmalion]

That sounds like a great movie! I missed it when it came to Orlando because it played only briefly at one of the art houses in town. I wonder if it's available on DVD.

[mhgroove]

Pygmalion it is available on DVD (I still have a VHS)! You should be able to rent it from Hollywood Video. I believe Hollywood Video is in Orlando.

Cocodrilo, actually the movie came out in the late 70's and the novel was published in the late 50's. Jorge Amado made his name in America off that novel. It was a Broadway play at one time. I did hear there was an American version of the movie that came out in the last few years...but I haven't seen it.

Please read the novel first and then watch the movie and you will see how close & faithful they are to each other.

Happy 4th of July!!!!

[pygmalion]

The nineties-era American remake is the one that played here recently. I guess I'll have to google and see if I can find reviews and/or comparisons of the two movies. Hmm. Thanks for the info, mhgroove. 8)

[Pacion]

I read a book, a couple of years ago (?) that talked about this same thing of books becoming movies, movies becoming books. One of the things that the author said, which stuck with me is that somethings work well in text and just won't 'translate' into film and vice versa. Something to do with credibility and how the mind works or the what the mind can take.

One of the examples he gave was Stephen King's book, Misery. In Misery, the lady chops of the writer's foot (who she has taken hostage as she is a deranged fan). At the time of the making of the movie, they felt that the audience would not be able to deal with such blatant violence/imagery and therefore changed it to her crushing his ankle instead.

From recollection, both book and movie are said to be good. Yet, there is a difference.

Since reading this book though, I have found that now, I tend to read a book/watch a movie as two separate/independent things rather than one being of the other.