Books vs. the Movie

[scorsetinogilliam]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I was a bigger fan of Fight Club the movie rather than the book. .

Fight Club as a novel was much better than the movie. Although I enjoyed the movie, the novel had so much more depth and staying power. Even Fincher said that he doesn't know if he'll ever do another Palahniuk book adaption because it is so hard to dumb them down so that American audiences will understand them...i think that says it all.

[paperkut]

Book is always better than movie. In the movie, they take so much stuff out, that they are missing so much that would explain the plot in the movies so much better. But I understand that if they put everything in from the book that the movies would be over 4 hours long. Take the Harry Potter series, the books were a million times better than the movies because the books had so much more information that told the story better.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by beardmoen

I think the book Dune is so much better than the movie Dune (1984). But that book is immense, there is so much that isn't even in the movie or is changed because it is a movie.

Not sure if you saw them, give a try to the 2 mini series that were made about 7 years back, they are different and there is more details to them.

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

My favorite book of all time is "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky (anything you ever want to know about life, beyond practical experience, is in this book). I am so glad that a major film version of it has never been made.

Two of my other favorite books ever are Alex Garland's "The Beach" and Jose Saramago's "Blindness." The former had the reigning Oscar winner, Danny Boyle at its helm, along with DiCaprio as its star. It is such a terrible adaptation of the book that it baffles me. Same goes for "Blindness," directed by the great Fernando Meirelles (City of God, Constant Gardener). I really do not understand how two incredible directors could so thoroughly ruin a great source. Is it because the books were that unfilmable? I do not think so. I think it is because of Hollywood populist dogma and the desire to adapt books for a more general audience. In the two above cases, so doing has resulted in major disappointments.

I feel the same way. I can't believe Alex Garland messed up an adaptation of his own book and then turns around and writes 28 Days Later. Go figure. I had already dismissed 28 Days Later because of Boyle's and Garland's work on The Beach. I'm glad I let my love of zombie movies over power the bad taste in my mouth that was The Beach.

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by scorsetinogilliam

Fight Club as a novel was much better than the movie. Although I enjoyed the movie, the novel had so much more depth and staying power. Even Fincher said that he doesn't know if he'll ever do another Palahniuk book adaption because it is so hard to dumb them down so that American audiences will understand them...i think that says it all.

I don't feel it was MUCH better than the book, but I do prefer the book over the movie, even though Fight Club is my personal favorite movie.

It's funny that Fincher said that because Palahniuk said he felt that Fincher did a better job with the idea than he did himself.

I feel the things that Jim Uhls and Fincher changed were for the better. For example, the way the Narrator and Tyler meet in the movie is far better then their first meeting in the book.

It bums me out that Fincher doesn't want to adapt one of Palahniuk's books again. I thought that Fincher owned the rights to Lullaby? I remember reading that he purchased the rights before the book was released and I feel he would do a great job with that book. I feel it's one of Palahniuk's easier books to read.

[milner828]

What about the graphic novel of The Crow..turned out to be a decent movie as well.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by BrandonT

Sure they can, if you have a vivid imagination.

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but one of the best film adaptations of a book I've ever seen is No Country For Old Men. The casting was absolutely perfect, and in the rare cases that the film's story points strayed from the book, I daresay the changes were for the better. They added more suspense and intensity than would have been present had they just translated the book exactly to the screen. Not saying the film was better necessarily, just that it was a very very good adaptation.

Yeah, i think the movie is better as well, even though i wish the Coens would've stuck more to the book during the hotel scene where Bell and Chigurh return to the scene of Moss's murder.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Yeah, i think the movie is better as well, even though i wish the Coens would've stuck more to the book during the hotel scene where Bell and Chigurh return to the scene of Moss's murder.

Yeah that was one spot where the book was more suspenseful. But in the scene where Chigurh finds Moss in the hotel using the transponder in the suitcase - made a lot more sense in the movie than in the book. In the book Moss gets the drop on Chigurh easily and then just lets him go. It's a lot scarier in the movie the way Chigurh is just relentless blasting away and Moss barely escapes.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by goochspot

I feel the same way. I can't believe Alex Garland messed up an adaptation of his own book and then turns around and writes 28 Days Later. Go figure. I had already dismissed 28 Days Later because of Boyle's and Garland's work on The Beach. I'm glad I let my love of zombie movies over power the bad taste in my mouth that was The Beach.

Correction Gooch: Alex Garland did not write the screenplay of The Beach.

[goochspot]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Correction Gooch: Alex Garland did not write the screenplay of The Beach.

You are right! For some reason I thought he had done the script as well. Oh well, one can't be right all the time.

[Septimus Prime]

To be honest, if there's a movie based on a book where I already read the book, I'm always inclined to skip it, since I know the film version will not coincide with my imagination. Along Came a Spider completely destroyed by image of Alex Cross because they casted Morgan Freeman and made him mispronounce the villain's name.

[franklinpross]

"As much as I loved Ian McEwan's novel "Atonement," I thought the film was superior. This is directly do to the wonderful cinematography and directing. Joe Wright's Oscar snub is one of the most significant snubs in recent Oscar history, in any category, in my opinion. His tracking shot on the beach of Dunkirk alone should have gotten him nominated." jhiggy 23



Odd. I saw this the other day on a bus going to a casino. I was struck by the cinematography AND the georgeous music ( even though it was on a teeeny teeeny speaker)...I was aware of the story line beforehand but . .I was totally riveted by the IMAGES. By the cutting.By the soundtrack. A book requires a great deal of the reader. (That's good I suppose). But a well made film based on very good
material and supported by the visual emotionality of the actors doing what they do best and of course underscored by symphonic music can NO WAY
match what a book alone can deliver. Basically, it takes ONE person to write
a great book. But a film- takes hundreds of talented people to make the words on the page come alive and soar.

[deckardp]

Thanks for all of the responses. Some great movies listed that were originally books. A lot of them seem to be successful adaptations that make the stories more accessible to a wider audience. LOTR and Harry Potter being examples of this. I also notice that having read the book and knowing what is going to happen when seeing the movie, it doesn't have the same emotional impact. I know it's coming so I am expecting it the entire time. Not the problem with how the movie is made, just my own personal problem with knowing the outcome of the story. Keep them coming, because it's nice to know that I am not the only one who feels that most of the time the book is better than the movie.

[Weirded Wonder]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Not sure if you saw them, give a try to the 2 mini series that were made about 7 years back, they are different and there is more details to them.

I watched those, they weren't bad at all. I'm hoping those come to Blu. I'm hoping they come out with the Dune Steel that they released on DVD sometime with the theatrical and the Smythie TV version. Believe it or not, I still have my copy on VHS of the extended version of the 1984 Dune.

[Sagacious Koreo]

Since Contact came out on bluray recently I'll say that the book was way better than the movie. I liked how in the book it was a group of people going through the wormhole as opposed to one, and each person saw something different. Excellent movie either way, but I kind of wished they would've done it a little more like the book.

[wallendo]

With "The DaVinci Code" I enjoy the movie more than the book. The book got off to a great start and then stalled mid-way through and never recovered. The movie had a somewhat anti-climatic ending also, but the movie was better paced.

Essentially when the book reveals the nature of the Holy Grail halfway through the mystery ends. The movie downplays the mystery somewhat but turns up the adventure and is a more enjoyable experience. (None of Dan Brown's novels are worth a second read).

[jhiggy23]

[QUOTE=franklinpross;2426469]"As much as I loved Ian McEwan's novel "Atonement," I thought the film was superior. This is directly do to the wonderful cinematography and directing. Joe Wright's Oscar snub is one of the most significant snubs in recent Oscar history, in any category, in my opinion. His tracking shot on the beach of Dunkirk alone should have gotten him nominated." jhiggy 23



Odd. I saw this the other day on a bus going to a casino. I was struck by the cinematography AND the georgous music ( even though it was on a teeeny teeeny speaker)...I was aware of the story line beforehand but . .I was totally riveted by the IMAGES. By the cutting.By the soundtrack. A book requires a great deal of the reader. (That's good I suppose). But a well made film based on very good
material and supported by the visual emotionality of the actors doing what they do best and of course underscored by symphonic music can NO WAY
match what a book alone can deliver. Basically, it takes ONE person to write
a great book. But a film- takes hundreds of talented people to make the words on the page come alive and soar.[/QUOTE]



I completely agree with this statement (as well as the other parts). I was an English major so I have a huge appreciation for literature. Books and movies are the two things I am most passionate about. I think that writing a book is an incredible achievement and writing a classic is much harder than creating a great movie.

HOWEVER, I think that film is the ultimate art form. It encompasses virtually every type of art: writing, photography, acting, music, clothing design, lighting, etc. So, in essence, it is a medium that is made up of all these other art forms--a conglomeration of sorts.

[Fighter]

Grapes of Wrath.....the book was superior to the film.

[Fighter]

Clockwork Orange....book was much better.

[blu-fett]

Originally Posted by deckardp

I'm sure Czar is working on one as we speak.

Hope not. I don't think I can handle any more "Got Em!!s" Just don't "Get It!!" I guess.