Movie vs Book

[Echo]

It's quite typical for a movie to be based on a piece of literature. However, these movies tend to lack something if you've read the book before. People tend to complain that the book was a lot better than the movie, which is really the case with most movies based on books. Of course, it's not that easy to capture visually everything that a book includes. After all, the movie is only based on what the makers of the movie imagine the events and characters in the book to be like - leaving only a little interpretation for the watcher of the movie unlike in books.

Sometimes (quite rarely) the movie is actually better than the book was. Naturally some people always enjoy movies over literature simply because they don't like to read anything except sub-titles. But reading the book, in my opinion, improves the movie because you know the concept already and therefore can focus on other things in the movie, rather than just the plot.

So, what literature-based movies do you enjoy or dislike? Recommend some. Do you like to read before watching or the other way around? What makes a movie better than the original book?

 

[gorm]

for reference: http://www.mcpl.lib.mo.us/readers/movies/book.cfm?browse=0-9

The Lord Of The Rings series did it right, pretty much the only way a movie could; with a massive budget/being super long

Sin City did a good job emulating the style of the comic book but ended up pretty trashy just due to being a bit "overdone". I enjoyed it but it lacked the abrasive aspect comic books.

American Psycho was an awesome movie but not as "unsettling" as the book. They did a good job of making it into a great movie though.

Farenheit 451 was pretty terrible tbh. They didn't have the budget back then i guess. I didn't enjoy it.

 

[Sklez]

When movies are announced for books I have read I get really apprehensive. After I have seen a movie I find it hard to ever imagine the book the same way again. The faces and personalities of the characters become too entrenched in my mind and I can't seem to see their faces as anything other than the actors that play them.

A prime example is the Harry Potter series. I had great ideas of what Harry, Ron and Hermione should look at but now when reading about Hermione's escapades, all I see is Emma Watson's face, and likewise with the other two.

Fortunately the Harry Potter movies are pretty good but when the movie is poor, like Eragon, it can really destroy your view of a story. I am worried that if they make a movie or movies on the Wheel of Time series, they will ruin the characters and condense the elaborate story into something much more uninspiring.

With movies that aren't based on fantasy, I enjoyed Empire of the Sun more as a movie than book. On the other hand I think Kite Runner was more inspiring and emotional as a book, even though the movie was ok itself.

I guess if I've enjoyed a book its going to be very hard for a movie to live up to that.

 

[Firestorm]

Each medium can do something another medium cannot. As a result, we keep getting crappy adaptations that just ruin the source material. I'd say novels can probably do everything a film can if you are into reading and have the imagination for it, but the opposite is not true. The biggest issue with film is obviously time. You cannot fit in a 400 page book into a two or three hour movie. That's why I prefer mini-series and tv series to movies most of the time. One of my favourite ongoing shows is One Piece which is over 300+ episodes and an adaptation of a comic. So I wouldn't say it can't work, it's just movies cannot do what a book can in the time a movie requires. The pacing just becomes awful. If you didn't read the book, Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix would be impossible to follow. Although Lord of the Rings did it pretty well I'd say. I never read the books though.

As for the other popular adaptation stream, video games to movies, emulating an interactive 10 - 40 hour experience on the big screen has not been done right yet for a reason. Reason being that film is not an interactive medium.

 

[DM]

The Harry Potter movies have gotten worse in succession, as far as I'm concerned. The books got more complex as the series went on, and the movies have been leaving out details in increasing numbers, most notably Hermione's fight against elf slavery.

I was young when Jurassic Park came out and saw it in the theater. It was the highest-grossing movie of all time until Titanic, and for good reason; the special effects were groundbreaking, the cast was fantastic, and let's face it... it's fucking DINOSAURS. A few years later I read the book, and I kinda think it's a bit better. There's a lot more action (raptor nest/aviary!), different characters survive/die, and it's incredibly well-written. Saying that, The Lost World book was way better than the movie. Of course, I don't know how much you can compare the two, since the movie sequel had almost NOTHING to do with the book sequel.

My biggest experience in this area is Steven King adaptations. I'll list the ones I can remember:

Needful Things: the book was a lot better than the movie, there was so much more going on that they couldn't fit into a film
The Stand: considering I think it's the greatest novel ever, it's a MILLION times better than the (made-for-TV, BLAH) movie. I will say that the guy played Randall Flagg perfectly (and Tom Cullen, laws yes!), but I think it was just too campy because they had to dial back the horror of the story
The Langoliers: I'd say they're pretty close to being even, but the short story gets the slight edge because you get a better look inside Toomey's mind... plus that made-for-TV ending was so HOKEY
The Green Mile: this is hard, because this movie is in my top 5 of all time, but I think the book is slightly better because it spends more time in the present with old Paul and Ellie, as well as the epilogue about his wife's death
The Shining: the Kubrick version definitely had its appeal, the man was a master at creating atmosphere... but it didn't capture Jack's slow descent into madness like the book did, nor did it focus on Danny quite enough. Plus the way he killed Hallorann was fucking retarded, and no topiary animals!

It's strange, now that I've gone through all these it makes me wonder: did I read the book or see the movie first? I wonder how much effect that has on the outcome.

 

[Glen]

When movies are announced for books I have read I get really apprehensive.

this.

they're very rarely as good, but at the same time, and i hope you'll forgive my generalizations here, most of the things that you liked better about the book are the very same things the average dim-witted movie-goer wouldn't be interested in.

maybe i'm wrong but i've always looked at movies as way more of a money-grabbing venture than a book; im well aware movies are art, of course. hell, some movies have such a phenominal amount of artistic merit that a book just couldn't do it the same way (funny games, for example). i just feel that since movies are much more accessible than books are to the average person (and though it pains me to admit it, the average person is stupid and lazy), mainstream movies get compromised to appeal to them, not to you, because let's face it: you're already going to see it if you liked the book.

i find movies out of comic books to be frustrating, especially really _good_ comic books. i'm pretty nervous about the watchmen film coming out simply because it's probably the best piece of literature i've ever read. but issue is that in changing the medium you change EVERYTHING. comic books are meant to be lingered over, so you can watch things evolve at your own pace, flip back to catch something you missed if necessary, and find little intricacies that were left by the author just to impress you. with movies you can't, you're kinda jetting through them at a given pace and a lot of the things that made watchmen so brilliant (symmetry, recurring images) will either be left out or nigh-undetectable.

but yeah, as firestorm said, different mediums do different things. i just think that mainstream movies are intended for a certain audience, and that is why they are often 'worse' than their literary counterpart.

 

[Mr. Hadwick]

I'm often dissapointed by books turned into movies, but I think Fight Club did it amazingly.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I think a lot of it is to do with what you consider better. Books have the advantage of being able to spend a lot of time on whatever. It is also much easier to explain a lot of things in a book, it's easy to show what a person is thinking in text, but extremely difficult in a movie.

Of course a book cant compete in terms of spectacle. I'd say movies have advantages in terms of generating excitement, though in terms of overall emotional power I'd have to say they are pretty much equal..

The other thing I'd say, is when you are taking something that was created to be a book, and was successful, you are really going to have your work cut out for you matching it as a movie. I mean, you are going to find it extremely hard to convey everything that was in the book. Plus you have a second problem that if you are too faithful to the book then what was the point of making it into a movie, but if you arent faithful enough, then people will whine at you for changing from the original. This wouldnt be a problem if you were adapting crappy books, but why would you bother?

Ultimately books are supposed to be books, and the good ones are good because they succeed at being books. I mean, I imagine if anyone ever tried to turn taxi driver into a novel, people would hate that too..

Have a nice day.

 

[the Lexx]

Farenheit 451 was pretty terrible tbh. They didn't have the budget back then i guess. I didn't enjoy it.

Based on the themes of the book I'm kind of surprised the author let it be made into a movie in the first place... that said, they're currently re-filming a new version of it.

Also agreeing with what Glen said, most movies based off of books aren't really designed to be good anyway, as long as kids and their parents see it (most of these movies are aimed to that audience) they've accomplished their goal.

 

[Echo]

The Shining: the Kubrick version definitely had its appeal, the man was a master at creating atmosphere... but it didn't capture Jack's slow descent into madness like the book did, nor did it focus on Danny quite enough. Plus the way he killed Hallorann was fucking retarded, and no topiary animals!

In my opinion the movie was a slight disappointment. Well, it is one of the best movies I've seen due to the fact that Jack Nicholson is at his best in the role of a mad man. Bu then again, the book was easily a lot better and the movie didn't capture most of the small details that you need to understand the events in the story.

It's strange, now that I've gone through all these it makes me wonder: did I read the book or see the movie first? I wonder how much effect that has on the outcome.

I have habit of reading before watching. It makes it easier to adapt to the movie but somehow reading before watching always makes the movie worse than the book. Lord Of The Rings is an exception though - the book was borderline painful to read for the first time but the movies were sheer euphoria when watching for the first time.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I can never read books I have already seen the movie of. Without the desire to know what happens they sorta become choreish.

Have a nice day.

 

[gorm]

the shining had its appeal by being it's own performance and not *mimmicking* the book like alot of movies today do (esp for comic books). the entire filmography of the shining was pretty much written around the (incredible) score, and the shooting/mise-en-scene really makes the movie stand out on it's own.. im more interested int hose kinds of movies (that take a story and devellop it eg the new batman) than *faithful* copies of books (which can still be extremely awesome, eg lotr)

 

[joshua]

Films often annoying me if I read the book first, but I don't mind them if I read the book afterwards. Most book adaptations I've seen are not too bad. Except for The Golden Compass =/

 

[DM]

In my opinion the movie was a slight disappointment. Well, it is one of the best movies I've seen due to the fact that Jack Nicholson is at his best in the role of a mad man. Bu then again, the book was easily a lot better and the movie didn't capture most of the small details that you need to understand the events in the story.

Yeah, I completely forgot about Shelley Duvall. She almost made that movie unwatchable.

 

[Luduan]

Perhaps I am too much of a purist, but I really disliked The Lord of the Rings adaptions. This is mainly due to the unnecessary and uncannical (sometimes nonsensical, like Faramir and Frodo) changes that were made and the pathetic portrayals of certain characters (the hobbits, Legolas, Gimli, Faramir). That being said, Tolkien's work is obviously too rich, detailed, and dense to satisfactorily adapt to the silver screen, but I nonetheless feel the movies could (should) have been better. And the Harry Potter movies have gotten progressively worse with each installment. The first two were decent, the third terrible, the fourth jumpy but watchable, and the fifth poor (unsurprising, considering how terrible the book was). I have little hope for improvement in the next three.

 

[Uskuri]

In recent memory, I want to highlight Prince Caspian (as in The Chronicles of Narnia) as an example of a movie that took a lackluster book and turned it into something enjoyable. While some of the changes it took with the plot may seem to be a bit too liberal, the plot to the actual book was just boring and the film makers made it more exciting and gave the characters some much needed depth.

That being said, some parts from the book were just too terrible to translate well into the movie. The opening sequence with the train and the magical return to Narnia? Not really great storytelling, right there.

In general, I am of the opinion that movies rarely capture what made the book so great, so movies like Prince Caspian are the exception rather than the rule to such conversions in terms of quality.

 

[PazzaK]

and the fifth poor (unsurprising, considering how terrible the book was).

Going to have to disagree there. whilst the movie was indeed pure shite, the book is easily the best of the series. There isnt that gay feeling of the first ones, doesnt have the love prevails shit, you learn more about the characters, i just think that overall it read a lot nicer.

As for the actual thread, movies rarely live up to the book/ comic. Especially the spiderman trilogy. They seriously murdered the character of venom, which was frustrating because he is pretty much the fave character of the marvel universe for alot of people.
Also in movies the characters are never quite the same, the subtlety of the way you get an image for a character by all of the small remarks, comments, actions, i think that alot of this is lost. Of course movies dont have the same amount of time, but this is why movies hardly ever live up to expectations.

 

[MNL]

Farenheit 451 was pretty terrible tbh. They didn't have the budget back then i guess. I didn't enjoy it.

I agree, the book was fantastic while the movie was not so fantastic...

 

[Berserker]

I saw Farenheit 451 in English last year. I thought the book was pretty good, but everyone started laughing at the movie and how they reused the firetruck scene every time. God, that movie was terrible but hilarious.