Movies versus Books

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by GlennD

I decided a while back that I'm rarely if ever disappointed if I watch a movie and then read the book. The book just builds on the story and I enjoy both experiences. But going in the opposite direction is rarely satisfying.

This is generally true for me, too. Conversely, if I really loved a book, I've learned to pass on the movie. I'm always disappointed. I had decided to watch all the Harry Potter movies before I read any of the books. That way I'd still enjoy them all as what they were, rather than hate them for what they weren't.

Originally Posted by sealbeater

A movie that was based on a book that was much much much better than the book is "What Dreams May Come?" I was actually disappointed when I finished the book after seeing the movie.

Eeeeeeee. I remember leaving the theater after seeing that movie and thinking "what the heck just happened?!" It made no sense to me.

There were a couple of movies that I actually preferred over the books, and I'd say in both cases because I thought the movies made the characters more sympathetic than the books.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Eeeeeeee. I remember leaving the theater after seeing that movie and thinking "what the heck just happened?!" It made no sense to me.

There were a couple of movies that I actually preferred over the books, and I'd say in both cases because I thought the movies made the characters more sympathetic than the books.

Maybe it depends on if you see the movie first or the book?

I would say that would have to be few in number tho. For me, that's the only one that really springs to mind. Most times, if I know a movie is coming out and I haven't read the book, I'll hoid on the book until I see the movie. Book first is usually a disappointment when the movie comes out. Maybe if I had read What Dreams May Come first, I would feel differently about the movie.


Another example, not movie related would be the Dexter TV series. That show blew the books out of the water, I told people if I were the author, I would be mad that they wrote a better story than me.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Another example, not movie related would be the Dexter TV series. That show blew the books out of the water, I told people if I were the author, I would be mad that they wrote a better story than me.

I agree.

Another TV show that is doing very well, but with far better quality source material, is The Handmaid's Tale. I am an enormous fan of the book, and the series has been very faithful to it while also extending and updating the story.

I'm a touch surprised that development hasn't begun on a Harry Potter TV series. (Is Rowling against it?) It would obviously be wildly popular if decently done, and it could avoid the huge omissions that marred the later movies.

[patrickt]

"Being There" starring Peter Sellers is quite different from the book by Jerzy Korzinski. It had to be or it would have been either a very short or very slow movie. I enjoyed the movie as much as the book but Peter Sellers was fantastic.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by patrickt

"Being There" starring Peter Sellers is quite different from the book by Jerzy Korzinski. It had to be or it would have been either a very short or very slow movie. I enjoyed the movie as much as the book but Peter Sellers was fantastic.

It is an interesting movie. He played it so straight compared to his other work.

[pwalker8]

One movie/book combination that I really love is Gettysburg/Killer Angels (potential tie in to the reading selections on the main page this month). The book won a Pulitzer Prize and the movie set records for DVD sales and on it's TV premier. I saw the movie originally in a theater in Atlanta, Ga. with a packed audience. Any 4 hour movie (it was originally going to be a TV mini-series) that can keep an audience focused is pretty good. There are a few movies, such as Gettysburg, Apollo 13 and The Searchers, that I have watched many times over the years and never failed to be moved by them.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I was a big fan of Lynch's Dune. Didn't follow the book too closely after Arrakis but I loved the costumes and set design.

I knew there had to be two of us out there!

[JustinThought]

I don't watch many movies, and I'm always hesitant to watch a movie derived from a book I have or am expecting to read. I hearken back to the days when I was still reading Stephen King (before he became such a rabid purveyor of propaganda) and would watch a movie based on one of his books, coming away from the experience with a flat, tasteless feeling in my soul.

That being said, I have to say that I really enjoyed the movie Odd Thomas, based on Dean Koontz's book by the same name, even though it was necessary to condense the plot significantly in order to prevent it from becoming a maxi-mini-series. At least it allowed me to put a face on Odd, Stormy, and those nasty things whose names I can't remember offhand. (Or maybe I do remember, just don't want to name them in case they decide to turn their attention in my direction.)

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JustinThought

I don't watch many movies, and I'm always hesitant to watch a movie derived from a book I have or am expecting to read. I hearken back to the days when I was still reading Stephen King (before he became such a rabid purveyor of propaganda) and would watch a movie based on one of his books, coming away from the experience with a flat, tasteless feeling in my soul.

Book adaptations don't have to be flat and tasteless. It depends on the skill of the director making the movie. Bad directors make bad movies. Lots of the '80's King adaptations were churned out by bad or mediocre directors.

But there are plenty of good ones. Brian DePalma's Carrie, Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, John Carpenter's Christine (I wish Carpenter had done an adaptation of Firestarter), David Cronenberg's The Dead Zone, Meathead's Stand By Me and Misery, Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemtion, The Green Mile and The Mist.

That being said, I have to say that I really enjoyed the movie Odd Thomas, based on Dean Koontz's book by the same name, even though it was necessary to condense the plot significantly in order to prevent it from becoming a maxi-mini-series. At least it allowed me to put a face on Odd, Stormy, and those nasty things whose names I can't remember offhand. (Or maybe I do remember, just don't want to name them in case they decide to turn their attention in my direction.)

I really don't like Dean Koontz as a writer. His authorial voice just grates on my nerves. But I have seen some really enjoyable adaptations of his stuff. Phantoms, the TV miniseries of Intensity and as you mentioned Odd Thomas. I guess I like his tales without his voice.

I don't understand what happened with Odd thomas. It was a big budget movie with a good cast and director, but I don't even remember it being released to theaters.

[Pulpmeister]

Among other very good movie adaptions are:

John Huston's "The Maltese Falcon". The book was short, but even so, to keep the movie within required length one character (Gutman's daughter) and the book scenes involving her were cut. And Huston used the dialogue from the book virtually unchanged.

"Shane". I saw the Alan Ladd movie a million years ago, and only recently read the book. The book was familiar immediately, which suggests a fairly close adaptation.

The problem with making a movie of a novel is that a big novel, if filmed faithfully scene by scene, would make an interminable series of movies. Far too much material. So the movie has to try to find the essentials, and scrap much of the book.

When they made "A Town like Alice" in the 60s, they used only the first half, the prison camp half, and omitted all the rest.

Another good adaptation was Hitchcock's film of du Maurier's "Rebecca." Wonderfully sinister.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Among other very good movie adaptions are:

John Huston's "The Maltese Falcon". The book was short, but even so, to keep the movie within required length one character (Gutman's daughter) and the book scenes involving her were cut. And Huston used the dialogue from the book virtually unchanged.

"Shane". I saw the Alan Ladd movie a million years ago, and only recently read the book. The book was familiar immediately, which suggests a fairly close adaptation.

The problem with making a movie of a novel is that a big novel, if filmed faithfully scene by scene, would make an interminable series of movies. Far too much material. So the movie has to try to find the essentials, and scrap much of the book.

When they made "A Town like Alice" in the 60s, they used only the first half, the prison camp half, and omitted all the rest.

Another good adaptation was Hitchcock's film of du Maurier's "Rebecca." Wonderfully sinister.

I think it also helped in the movies above (i.e. Shane, Maltese Falcon, Rebecca) that they chose the right actors to play the parts. For example, I remember hearing that when they were starting to try to make The "Adventures of Robin Hood" that their first choice for Robin was James Cagney. He got into a dispute over something and walked off the project. A few yrs go by and Errol Flynn is tapped to play Robin. So it's not just having a good director, or a good scriptwriter, but choosing the right people to play the parts as well.

[haertig]

I don't normally both read the book and watch the movie. I tend to do one or the other. No particular reason, that's just what I do.

A few that I have done both:

• Jurassic Park: Movie was great, book was greater
• The Lost World: I remember watching the movie and thinking it wasn't as good as the book, but I cannot remember much about the book. Hmmm...
• The Princess Bride: Both book and movie were great, but the movie more so
• The Clan of the Cave Bear: The book was long and tedious but decent, the movie was garbage
• A Walk in the Woods: The book was great, the movie merely satisfactory
• The Hunger Games: The book was very good, the movie a significant step down
• Catching Fire: The book OK, the movie terrible
• Mockingjay: Both the book and the movie stunk
• Congo: Book and movie were OK
• Sphere: The book beat the movie handily
• The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: The book was good, the movie terrible
• The Martian: The movie was very good, the book excellent
• Pet Semetary: The book really sucked you in, the movie just sucked

I'm sure I must have done a few more pairs of book/movie, but my mind has gone blank at this point. In general, books beat movies most of the time. And you get a lot more bang for your buck in a book. They're cheaper than movies (usually), they last a lot longer (for me at least), and you can read them anywhere.

p.s. - One book that I really loved but would be afraid to see as a movie (I think they'd ruin the vivid imagery the book painted in my brain) is "Wool" (the omnibus), by Hugh Howey. If that one ever comes out as a film I would really want to see it, but would probably restrain myself from doing so, just because I don't think they could come up with anything to match what my brain conjured up!

[The Old Man]

Has any author had more books, short stories or plays put on film than Agatha Christie? Perhaps Shakespeare? I have only read Witness for the Prosecution, but the '57 Laughton-Dietrich film is better. I liked To Kill a Mockingbird on film better than the book. Gone With the Wind did as good a job as possible with Mitchell's lengthy book. Then there's AC Doyle and HG Wells who have had a few stories put to film. Don't forget Dickens.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by The Old Man

Has any author had more books, short stories or plays put on film than Agatha Christie? Perhaps Shakespeare? I have only read Witness for the Prosecution, but the '57 Laughton-Dietrich film is better. I liked To Kill a Mockingbird on film better than the book. Gone With the Wind did as good a job as possible with Mitchell's lengthy book. Then there's AC Doyle and HG Wells who have had a few stories put to film. Don't forget Dickens.

Not sure anyone has. All her Hercule Poirot stories and books have been made into movies/episodes but I'm not sure if all her Ms. Marple stories have been or not. It took David Suchet 25 yrs to make every single Poirot mystery though.

[wildhoney66]

for me if i see a certain film it makes me want to read the book at times. or if i read the book i do want to see the film and depending on who makes it there have been times that i have dissapointed sorry for my bad spelling lol. here's a couple of examples i thought the film was better, the godfather i love the film to death and i saw it before i read the novel. and i went in with really high expectations but while i thought it was a good book

the film was actually better. i'm a big Stephen King fan and he's my favorite author in fact i'm reading Sleeping Beauties at the moment. and it's pretty good so far too.
anyways, my last book i read was Pet Sematary i'm 39 and will be 40 in September and i grew up on the film.

i love the film so i had high hopes for the book being even better. but for me i dunno if it's cause i'm used to the film scaring the crap out of me as a kid. but i thought the film was actually better.

the book i dunno why but to me it really wasn't that scary of a novel. there was one part that i got a little tense on and that's when Jud is on his way of getting Killed and that's it. than with IT for me i love the TV movie but i also did love the remake too. for me the tv movie is to a degree more faithful to the book in some things. they could only show

things to a certain extent in (1989) when that was filmed. and the same goes for the remake the ending i hated cause it wasn't even the book at all. it was them doing their own thing.

as for authors with a lot of books. Ed Mcbain, Piers Anthony, Dean Koontz to name a couple have a ton. but i dunno if they are have more than Agatha Christie