Book vs Movie....opinions

[Nikepallas]

Okay I know I am talking about 2 different types of art completely and like Roger Ebert says it can be comparing apples to oranges at times.

You can do things with the written word that you can not do in a movie and vice versa BUT saying all that sometimes the movie can totally do a disservice to the book and Vice Versa so I was thinking that in this thread people can give their opinions on this very topic.


I read Girl with a Pearl earring and saw the movie and I feel the book was much better. The movie didn't go into any of the "heart and soul" that made the book so special.



Harry Potter-- I think so far the movies have brought to life the books (now with the bigger books--and movie three showed how not everything will be able to be put into the book...) In general I think they complament each other nicely.

Bridget Jones Diary-- The movie was good but I would rather have the book any day.

anyone else want to bite?

[goddess40]

1. I've never seen a movie that was better than the book

but I've seen movies that have enhanced the enjoyment of a story. I always read the book first, I adore the Potter books and I really enjoyed the movies but they weren't long enough.
I adored the Dark Materials series and I'm hoping the movie is equal to the Potter adaptations.

[Pepperbelly]

4. Two words ...

Forrest Gump.

[Squeech]

9. I have one

It's called "Who Am I This Time." It's actually a mere hour long, which leads me to believe it was a made for TV movie, never in theatrical release. But it's got a lot of talent involved: directed by Robert Altman, starring Christopher Walken and Susan Sarandon. (The only reason I know this movie exists is, I found it on the rack at my neighborhood video shop.) It's based on a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, about this prodigiously talented actor who in his real life is a complete nebbish, and the woman who decides she wants to bring him out of his shell.

And of course part of the reason the movie is better is that the short story form doesn't have room to get real deep into character and scenery, which aren't Vonnegut's long suit anyway, giving the filmmaker lots of leeway. And of course actors at this level contribute too-- there's a wonderful scene where Sarandon and Walken have their first reading of "Streetcar Named Desire" and Walken radiates so much charisma as Stanley that Sarandon visibly melts on camera-- I don't think I've ever seen a hotter moment on film.

[YankeyMCC]

33. Enemy Mine

There are a lot of book/movie that I could comment on in general I agree that the books are better, but sometimes the movie even when very different from the book is about equal in quality.

But one book turned movie that really comes to mind when someone asks this question is "Enemy Mine".

I saw the movie first when it came out in 1985 and liked it very much. I never knew it was based on a book until about 2 years ago. It is actually based on a single book in a trilogy by Barry Longyear called "Enemy Papers".

As much as I liked the movie the trilogy of books just knocked me over. And the movie it turns out deviates very much from the book of the same title and leaves pretty much no opening for sequals/prequals which is a shame becuase this could've been an outstanding franchise for some movie maker both in quality and profit.

I still like the movie but it is different and the trilogy is on a completely different level.


(oops I just realized I entered this post as a reply to another reply instead of the opening post)

[lazarus]

10. Fight Club

I love the book, but the film is even better. The things they can do with the visuals, etc., are an improvement.

I'm still torn on the two endings, though.

[jobycom]

14. Godfather was

Average book, exceptional film.

[DIKB]

2. For me

books have always touched me so much more than the films. It's your own imagination and mental imagery, you imbue yourself into a book more so than a movie. A good book will beat a good movie any day.

[tjdee]

3. I took a class on this in college--English Patient was the only one

where the film equalled the book, I think.

The English Patient was a terrific book, and a terrific movie. However, the book was about nationality and feelings of loyalty during times of war, and the movie was basically about love. So it was good.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. Years ago, when I read "Jaws", I was unimpressed by the "potboiler"

writing...however, the movie was great...only time ever I can remember the movie being better than the book. MKJ

[Unstuck In Time]

6. I agree that 'Jaws' was far superior as a movie.

'Little Big Man' and 'West Side Story' might go into that category as well.

[derbstyron]

7. A Place in the Sun

A great movie that took a whack at my all-time favorite novel, "An American Tragedy" The book was simply too big and massive so they kind of cut out a simple portion of it to make it fit.
They serve as great companion pieces to each other (as I think only all truly great book/movie combos do).

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. The Godfather book and the first two Godfather movies are like that

Great observation. Either one is a masterpiece on its own, and they complement each other beautifully. MKJ

[Cybergata]

11. Little Big Man and The Milagro Beanfield War

I loved both the books, and was very depressed the first time I saw each movie. Then years passed, and I watched the movies again, and loved both movies.

I think the movie a Boy & His Dog was better than the short story.

:hippie:

[bigwillq]

12. I usually like movies better

But I like to read books and then visualize it being turned into a movie and think about what I would do if I made the movie, who would I cast, etc...

[kcr]

13. For some reason, Tom Clancy

novels are all betteron screen. I suspect that Clancy's habit of burying his books in technical detail drags them down, wheras on screen, most of that is shown rather than taking up word count.

[jobycom]

15. There are some where the book and movie are different, but both good

To Kill A Mockingbird comes to mind.

The Name of the Rose, also.

[Killarney]

16. Jaws & Jurassic Park were both spectacular

films... as good as the books if not better.

[Dukakis88]

17. Rosemary's Baby -- movie better than book

The author of the "Rosemary's Baby" book wrote a sequel a few years ago that was absolutely atrocious.

[Dukakis88]

18. Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America" -- better than book

It was based on an autobiography of a Jewish gangster in New York. Leone turned it into an epic that comments on film's social role as an opiate to the pain and disappointment of life.

[Dukakis88]

19. Orson Welles's "Touch of Evil" -- great movie based on a crappy pulp novel

[yardwork]

20. Dr. Zhivago. The book drags a bit but the movie is gorgeous. /eom

[Khephra]

21. There's some good ones out there

Crash
Dead Zone
Christine
Naked Lunch (although its went totally away from the book)
Fight Club

[Gardeaux08]

22. Big Fish

I liked the book but the movie was just fantastic. The whole Spectre thing was brilliant.

[Gardeaux08]

23. And then there was Prince Of Tides.

I say don't even see the film until you read the book. Truly one of my favorites.

[DrZeeLit]

29. My favorite book! Film... mmmmmm... doesn't exactly suck, but...

...so much is lost.

Read the book.
Can't go wrong.

[argyl]

24. I preferred the movie "L.A. Confidential" to the book.

[jackelope72]

25. I'm with ya on that one.

I loved the movie, but the book was...I don't know. I felt like I had to go take a shower every time I put it down. The writing was so damn melodramatic, and it kind of got annoying that gay people were treated as either evil villains or weak, blubbering porn peddlers. The author had some serious issues.

[kaitykaity]

26. The Pelican Brief -- Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington

were really great in it.

The book was typical Grisham, but I liked the movie
a lot.

[skypilot]

27. "Virgin Suicides" was a beautiful and compelling book...

...that made for a flat and incoherent movie. Big disappointment.

[sundog]

28. Interview with the Vampire was hideous

great book, terrible adaptation - cut all the good stuff out, blech... I hated it

[Pepperbelly]

30. Anne Rice needs three editors and a f*cking eraser.

She overwrites. And writes. What anyone else in the world could do in a page, she fiddle-fucks around and does a chapter and three quaters on it.

And James Ellroy would do it in a short paragraph.

A screenwriter's discipline helped Rice's tedious tale by boiling away most of her gratuitous modifiers and dead-end meandering.

[southpaw]

31. Finally

Someone who sees Anne Rice for the pompous, undisciplined hack that she is!

[Pepperbelly]

32. thanx, friend Southpaw and my very best description of Anne Rice ...

being far more succinct than she has ever been is simply this: tedious.

Verbose works also.

Edited because my typing SUXXXXX!

[Bridget Burke]

35. She needs ONE editor....

But apparently she's above all that. I loved "Interview" & liked "Feast of All Saints" (non-occult tale of New Orleans creoles).

I've slogged through a few of her later books--I read fast. But, as a book collector (hoarder), I've never kept any of hers around for another read.

[Touchdown]

34. Better? Bonfire of the Vanities-book, Die Hard-Movie

It all depends. I thought Jackson's take on LOTR was beyond expectations for such a daunting story as what Tolkein wrote.