Books vs. the Movie

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i'd love to see a poll: which is better: watch the movie first or read teh book first?

I think that the major part of the time if you saw the movie first it might be more difficult to like the book for most people, I could be wrong of course. The movie give's you the image of the story as per what the director wanted to show, the style, the look...everything. In the book this is done differently since in many cases the actual writer will not be the one doing the screenplay, so the book as a much different feel to you after seeing the movie.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by milner828

What about non-fiction books?

Black Hawk Down

We were Soldiers

Just to name a few...I certainly understand this thread is leaning towards fiction but some non-fiction books are done very well...

Fantastic film, better than the book, maybe, definitely easier to get through than the book.

Starship Troopers. Not sure if this counts as the book is completely different from the film so it becomes a different thing altogether. Both are great though.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think that the major part of the time if you saw the movie first it might be more difficult to like the book for most people, I could be wrong of course. The movie give's you the image of the story as per what the director wanted to show, the style, the look...everything. In the book this is done differently since in many cases the actual writer will not be the one doing the screenplay, so the book as a much different feel to you after seeing the movie.

interesting take, makes sense, thanks! i've got a couple of books i was going to read and was debating whether to read them first before the movie or not...

[john_1958]

perfer the movies over books as books a person can never really grasp what a scene actually looks like example costumes, scenery

[deckardp]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think that the major part of the time if you saw the movie first it might be more difficult to like the book for most people, I could be wrong of course. The movie give's you the image of the story as per what the director wanted to show, the style, the look...everything. In the book this is done differently since in many cases the actual writer will not be the one doing the screenplay, so the book as a much different feel to you after seeing the movie.

Well then I guess my problem when it comes to that is that I don't like the director's vision.

[andyman1970]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

I personally like the movie adaptation of "the Shining" better than the book, but i agree most other King adaptations are painfully bad. It seems almost half the movies coming out are based on short stories, comics, or graphic novels so it's getting hard to keep up with both sides.

I agree. Stanley Kubrick did a great job on this adaptation.

Originally Posted by deckardp

I like most of Stanley Kubrick's movies, but the first time I had seen the Shining I had hated it. At the time, having read the book first, had thought that it was just not the same at all.

It has very little to do with the book other then the basic plot and character names. There were a lot of things in the book that Kubrick felt would not translate well onto film; and guess what? He was right as proven in the made for TV remake that stayed more faithful to the book. Something about that just took away from the creepiness that Kubrick and Jack Nicholson gave us.

[Fighter]

I liked Kubrick's 'The Shining' over King's book.

[Dotpattern]

Jurassic Park was waaaaay better than the book!

The book was just running from one type of dinosaur after another and it was like, "Okay! I get it already! There are a lot of dinosaurs on the island!"

[Fighter]

Totally agree about Jurassic Park.

[Dotpattern]

I also liked First Blood better than the book.

I didn't like Rambo as a stereotypical psychopathic Vietnam Vet. But maybe that's because I saw the movie first and preferred him as someone being inappropriately pushed to the edge.

[1blufan]

I think The Lost World book was better, the movie was alright.

I also agree about Jurassic Park, movie was better.

[deckardp]

Originally Posted by 1blufan

I think The Lost World book was better, the movie was alright.

I also agree about Jurassic Park, movie was better.

The book Jurassic Park, if I remember correctly, had a lot more technical explanation than pure action.

[Septimus Prime]

I suspect Where the Wild Things Are will be better than its 20-page book counterpart. Coraline is probably better than its book, too.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Septimus Prime

I suspect Where the Wild Things Are will be better than its 20-page book counterpart.

How about "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"? Ha!

[1blufan]

Originally Posted by Septimus Prime

I suspect Where the Wild Things Are will be better than its 20-page book counterpart. Coraline is probably better than its book, too.

I Loved Coraline the book. Neil Gaiman is a sensational writer and felt the movie wasn't as scary/creepy as the book. Although the movie was good I have to give it to the book on this one.

Where the Wild Things Are has a few great things going for it. Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers helping out with the screenplay.

Jurassic Park was more technical and had less action in the book, you are correct.

Sticking with the younger reader adaptations of recent I did enjoy Spiderwick Chronicles, and felt they did a good job at combining all 5 of the chapter books into one movie.

Tale of Desperaux based off of Kate Dicamillo's Newbery winner was also good, but still not as good as the book.

The City of Ember movie had great sets, a great cast, but they botched the story just enough that the book is better in my opinion.

[deckardp]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

How about "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"? Ha!

Are you talking the one with Jim Carey? That was not as good at all.

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by vega2K

I thought both Blade Runner and Minority Report were better than the short stories they were based on. But then again, I don't think short stories really qualify as books. But then again, I think comparing a short story to a movie is more fair than comparing a book to a movie.

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is a novel, not a short story.

With the possible exception of "A Scanner Darkly", most Philip K. Dick movies are really just inspired by his stories and novels. Most of what he wrote would be very difficult to convert to a film.

Personally, I enjoy "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" more than "Blade Runner", but, they have very different themes and each has its own merits.

On the other hand, the "Minority Report" movie is much better than the short story which kind of fizzles out at the end.

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by john_1958

perfer the movies over books as books a person can never really grasp what a scene actually looks like example costumes, scenery

But how do you know the director got it right. That is one of the nice things about books ... the reader can create his own image of what it looks like.

On the other hand, the movies' Hermione Grainger is better than the "mousy" character envisioned in JK Rowling's books.

[masoud90]

One thing people need to realize is that the screenplay has to show character's emotions through either action or dialogue...and fit a whole book in 90 pages (1 minute approx for every page). And somethings do not carry over well from the book to the movie. I never complain about books being changed when made into movies.

[uziel5000]

How about Jaws? Is the film better than the book? I haven't read the book so I don't know but given that the film is so highly regarded I wonder how the book fares against it.