The book is better than the movie...

[b.hopeful]

That seems like a common expression...for me, the book always seems better than the movie. BUT....can you think of a movie that was better than the book? or almost as good?

 

[Andy S. Wright]

That seems like a common expression...for me, the book always seems better than the movie. BUT....can you think of a movie that was better than the book? or almost as good?

I would say the Bourne series of movies are very good movies; I own all of them and love them.

However, aside from character names and the assassin with amnesia plotline, the movies and the books have absolutely nothing in common with each other. I love the books too but as they are written they are unfilmable so I understand the departure from the book plot for the movies.

The Lord of the Rings were also movies that I enjoyed more than the books (I know, sacrilege). Books are great, if not overly long and laborious in spots. Thought the movies were a genius at drawing the essence of the storyline and characters without over-burdening the viewer with Tolkien's less exciting backstory.

That said, the Return of the King could do with about 4 less "endings". Never thought that one was going to end.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Films that are turned into novels afterwards most often produce disastrous literary results.

Film adaptations, on the other hand, are a different business altogether: as these two media are so profoundly different, they rarely survive the transition from one form into the other. If you were to incorporate all the depth and detail of a novel into a film - it would be a horrible movie. If, on the other hand, you cut too much, you are left with a pitiful skeleton that doesn't have any of the stuff that made the novel so grand to begin with.

I can think of a few cases where the films were actually better than the novels that inspired them, but that was either due to
a) the film being just loosely inspired by, say, a short story that was then VERY fleshed out by the script writer, or
b) the book being so incredibly bad that the film could actually improve it a little bit.

An example of the first would be "True Recall", based on a short story by Philip K. Dick that bore but little resemblance to the flick.
An example of the second would be "Hannibal" - which, admittedly, was a horrid movie, but trust me: the book was even worse than that.

 

[Wicked Willow]

And I'd agree that "The Fellowship of the Ring" actually surpasses Tolkien's novel as far as the pacing and the plot are concerned. Honestly, it takes Tolkien more than a hundred pages before the hobbits even cross the BRANDYWINE - and before that, you are treated to epic-length lectures on the Shire's postal service, the hobbits' colleting habits and so forth.

I didn't like "The Two Towers" quite as much, however. The drawn-out battle scene was curiously underwhelming, especially since it felt like it went on for HOURS. (Interestingly enough, the same cannot be said about the battle of Pelennor Fields in "Return of the King" - that one was actually exciting.)

 

[Thunder Peel]

I would say the Bourne series of movies are very good movies; I own all of them and love them.

However, aside from character names and the assassin with amnesia plotline, the movies and the books have absolutely nothing in common with each other. I love the books too but as they are written they are unfilmable so I understand the departure from the book plot for the movies.

The Lord of the Rings were also movies that I enjoyed more than the books (I know, sacrilege). Books are great, if not overly long and laborious in spots. Thought the movies were a genius at drawing the essence of the storyline and characters without over-burdening the viewer with Tolkien's less exciting backstory.

That said, the Return of the King could do with about 4 less "endings". Never thought that one was going to end.

Oh man, you echoed my thoughts almost perfectly. The Bourne films are awesome and really have nothing in common with the books. Whereas each novel got weaker it seemed that each film got better. The Bourne Ultimatum was an amazing film spurned from a somewhat dull book.

I also like The Lord of the Rings films as much as the books and I'd even go so far to say that they're the best book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. There are obvious differences but overall Jackson really did justice to Tolkien's world, which is no small feat.

I also like the fact that many of the James Bond films are different from their literary counterparts. You Only Live Twice is my favorite and the film is VASTLY different, yet both are good on their own terms. They're different worlds but the books are certainly worth checking out if you like the films.

 

[Andy S. Wright]

Oh man, you echoed my thoughts almost perfectly. The Bourne films are awesome and really have nothing in common with the books. Whereas each novel got weaker it seemed that each film got better. The Bourne Ultimatum was an amazing film spurned from a somewhat dull book.

I also like The Lord of the Rings films as much as the books and I'd even go so far to say that they're the best book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. There are obvious differences but overall Jackson really did justice to Tolkien's world, which is no small feat.

I also like the fact that many of the James Bond films are different from their literary counterparts. You Only Live Twice is my favorite and the film is VASTLY different, yet both are good on their own terms. They're different worlds but the books are certainly worth checking out if you like the films.

The only Bond book I've read was Casino Royale. I enjoyed the book but the first film that carried that name was a major disappointment imo. The recent remake (reboot?) film was excellent and stayed truer to what I remember from the book (it's been years since I read it) than the first attempt at filming it did. I'll have to give some of Mr. Flemming's other works a try.

 

[Andy S. Wright]

Films that are turned into novels afterwards most often produce disastrous literary results.

Film adaptations, on the other hand, are a different business altogether: as these two media are so profoundly different, they rarely survive the transition from one form into the other. If you were to incorporate all the depth and detail of a novel into a film - it would be a horrible movie. If, on the other hand, you cut too much, you are left with a pitiful skeleton that doesn't have any of the stuff that made the novel so grand to begin with.

I can think of a few cases where the films were actually better than the novels that inspired them, but that was either due to
a) the film being just loosely inspired by, say, a short story that was then VERY fleshed out by the script writer, or
b) the book being so incredibly bad that the film could actually improve it a little bit.

An example of the first would be "True Recall", based on a short story by Philip K. Dick that bore but little resemblance to the flick.
An example of the second would be "Hannibal" - which, admittedly, was a horrid movie, but trust me: the book was even worse than that.

Agree 100% with your "Hannibal" take. When I finished that book my overwhelming thought was "he should have quit while he was ahead" (Clarise and Hannibal...really?).

Never read "True Recall"; I'll have to give it a go.

Another example of a short story fleshed out into a brutal feature film was "I Robot". I nearly walked out of the theater about halfway through that disaster of an adaptation.

 

[Wicked Willow]

The only Bond book I've read was Casino Royale. I enjoyed the book but the first film that carried that name was a major disappointment imo. The recent remake (reboot?) film was excellent and stayed truer to what I remember from the book (it's been years since I read it) than the first attempt at filming it did. I'll have to give some of Mr. Flemming's other works a try.

The first "film adaptation" of Casino Royale was in fact a parody of the Bond franchise, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that it didn't quite measure up to the novel.

 

[writergirl4god]

I'm usually disappointed in movies made from novels, but I did think that the movie version of 'The Secret Life of Bees' was as good as the book. And I preferred the movie 'The Notebook' over the novel.

 

[keith99]

Films that are turned into novels afterwards most often produce disastrous literary results.

Film adaptations, on the other hand, are a different business altogether: as these two media are so profoundly different, they rarely survive the transition from one form into the other. If you were to incorporate all the depth and detail of a novel into a film - it would be a horrible movie. If, on the other hand, you cut too much, you are left with a pitiful skeleton that doesn't have any of the stuff that made the novel so grand to begin with.

I can think of a few cases where the films were actually better than the novels that inspired them, but that was either due to
a) the film being just loosely inspired by, say, a short story[/b\ that was then VERY fleshed out by the script writer, or
b) the book being so incredibly bad that the film could actually improve it a little bit.

An example of the first would be "True Recall", based on a short story by Philip K. Dick that bore but little resemblance to the flick.
An example of the second would be "Hannibal" - which, admittedly, was a horrid movie, but trust me: the book was even worse than that.

Bolding mine.

I think you hit on the huge point. Any decent Novel is far to long for a film. If it can be made to fit at all it is by stripping out all character development and making it a story driven film.

Heinlein wrote a very short story "The Long Watch" which with a bit of a rewrite (to make it fit a possible future of today) would make a pretty good action film and if done well could keep all of the original SHORT STORY.

Heinlein wrote also wrote "Time Enough for Love' which is the reduction to absurdity of a 'Novel' being able to hold so much more than a film ever could. There are at least 3 stories within the story that have enough material for a full length film.

 

[bibletags]

That seems like a common expression...for me, the book always seems better than the movie. BUT....can you think of a movie that was better than the book? or almost as good?

I thought they did a good job with "The Firm" by John Grisham. The movie did a good twist or two that wasn't in the book.

 

[keith99]

I've only scanned teh book, but the earlier version for the film 'The Four Feathers' seems to at the least match and perhaps surpass the book. Not so for the more recent remake.

Which reminds me of one way in which (most) films take a major hit relative to the books. So many films are forced into the same production box, the same things that are known to go over well with the unwashed masses, and they lose in the process.

 

[Speculative]

Dances with Woves. I liked the movie but hated the book.

 

[stonetoflesh]

I really enjoyed the film version of Stephen King's The Dead Zone (1983) starring Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen. While the movie didn't quite match the novel (the ending in particular), I thought that overall it was a very good movie adaptation.

 

[bsd31]

The movie "Silence of the Lambs" was better than Thomas Harris's novel and that wasn't an easy feat.

 

[soblessed53]

Michael Landon Jr. has managed to do that 3 times with his films!

Saving Sarah Cain is much better than the Horrid book "The Redemption Of Sarah Cain" by Beverly Lewis,and his film "The Last Sin Eater is better than the Francine Rivers book,plus even though I love the Christian historical romance books of Janet Oke his film Love Comes Softly was better than the Janet Oke book of the same title because in the film Clark's daughter is a young child but not an infant as in the book,and there was wonderful sometimes hilarious,sometimes heartwarming interaction between her and her new stepmother (via marriage of convenience) Marty,that did not exist in the book.



How on earth did I get this backwards? I was thinking "The Movie Is Better Than The Book", OOOPS!

 

[Bay]

Brokeback Mountain.
LOTR ,the films were so magnificent.

 

[Faith&Love]

Ps i love you....i like the movie better than the book!
LOTR...i like the books better!
Harry Potter...again books are better....
Twilight...Movie is better

 

[brewmama]

Princess Bride and Love Story

 

[IzzyPop]

The Godfather. Puzo's book was dull and the prose was dense. The movie was amazing.

LOTR. I'm a huge fantasy fan, but after the first read I've only been able to make it about a quarter of the way into Return of the King before Tolkien's style makes me want to gouge my eyes out.