Books Vs Movies - Vote Now!
September 25th 2008 02:02
The Movie or The Book?
How often do you here that?
Quite often it is one of those throw-away lines you hear from book lovers. And while it's hard for a book lover to say, "Hey, I really liked the movie better," it's true: Movies can be better than the books that inspired them.
But are there such beasts?
Is the published version of Lord of the Rings better than the celluloid?
Does the big screen do justice to Harry Potter?
Is To Kill A Mockingbird trivialised in film.
Should the African Queen ever been produced?
How about Bridge on the RIver Kwai or Dracula?
So are there any books which have transended to something greater?
Would love to hear your opinions.
| 186 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ann 2
Muzikal Mafia
Canadiens Watch
Football Slate
Harry Potter, on the other hand, is better on paper than on film. And so are Tom Clancy's The Sum Of All Fears, Patriot Games, and Clear & Present Danger (haven't seen The Hunt For Red October, so can't comment). Though in Clancy's case, the directors/screenwriters took a lot of liberties on the storylines so I guess that's why the movies aren't as good.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Bladerunner is better than Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep?
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy radio play is superior to the Film, Book and Movie. (Douglas was funny but not a great writer.)
Seeing Shakespeare is far better than just reading it.
The film of Oedipus Rex was an excellent representation of the book.
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
Ain't it grand that not only do we have the opportunity to both see the films and read the books?
I tend to agree with most of what you say though.
Cheers
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
What!
Surely that means you've never seen Cruise at his finest
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
What!
Surely that means you've never seen Cruise at his finest
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
All versions thus far have been nice but not great.
I want a version of War of the Worlds that is true to the novel. Thus far nothing has even come close.
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
Might even go home and listen to the soundtrack from Jeff Wayne tonight for a little escapism and nostalgia - from the 70's at least.
Cheers
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Comment by Lara M
Love Speaks
If there's a movie (inspired by a book), I make sure I read it before I watch it
Comment by Mac
The Home Guru
In the case of The Kite Runner, and The Shipping News, the books were much better. But then again, I did read them first before I saw the films...
Comment by Janet Collins
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
On the other hand, I have often been inspired to read a book after seeing the movie. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Catch-22 were two that come to mind and I loved them both as movies and books - but I did see the movies first.
Not having the time to read and see everything, I now prefer mostly to see different movies than the books I read. Both have merits.
Janet
Comment by Joey O
Two more examples to add: The Bourne books are vastly superior to the movies (although the movies are cool) and Jurassic Park makes a better movie than book.
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
How did you go with The Bible: In the Beginning from the 60's - now there's a heavy read prior to seeing the film.
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
That's probably true.
So often you're compelled to read the book if you've seen the film and vice versa.
It's like a dog chasing its own tail - and like the dog - it's sometimes disappointing when you finally catch it.
Cheers
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
I think we all read books of some description - it's just what we read that differs.
No1 and no.3 daughters can often have 2 or 3 books going at once - while no.2 daughter would be lucky to read a road sign (until recently at least).
All were read to as littlies and all had the same upbringing . . . it comes down to the individual I guess - but yes - it's good see.
Cheers
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
That's quite an analogy!
And one I can say I've never quite heard put that way before.
Here's to finding your soul mate.
Cheers
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
If I have the time?
Books (hands down)...
If I dont have the time?
A Movie for a quick download (fill in the blanks later) ...
Otherwise, I cannot think of one movie that I saw, which was better then the book... different yes, but not really better. For me I think it is because I cannot get inside the actors heads to see what they are thinking... I only have the outward appearance, not a page of explanations to the emotions raging within. Harder to put ourselves in the protagonists shoes perhaps, as outward appearances have so many variables? By virtue of the medium I would say that celluloid stays more impersonal.
Lilla ...
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
Listened to Jeff Wayne last night.
As for movies Forest Gump (despite Hank's role) is far better than the book in my opinion, "The Bourne Identity" and The Bourne Supremacy" both came from amazingly unreadable books, Bridges of Madison County. The book was awful: trivial, sentimental, predictable.
I'd also add in "The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3." and maybe even Fight Club.
Short stories (vs books) are more amenable to movie adaptations right from the start. It's much easier to translate a short narrative to film than it is to distill an hours-long narrative to a 90 good minutes.
Cheers
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The story lines are good but his choice of words is dull, dull ,dull.
I like the films better.
They fix a lot of the implausible scenarios and drop many of the paper thin characters.
(Sorry that is just my rebellion after reading so many of his books)
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
the film of "The Boys" (Australian, starring David Wenham) is much was more powerful than the original stage play
however in both cases the originals had no clear villains or heros, blame was not assigned entirely to one person, all the characters were more realistic and had human faults . . . i think film can make many stories more black and white, and hence more palatable
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
At least you're a rebel WITH a Cause.
Cheers
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
Sorry - I haven't read either book so can't really comment - though I have seen the films.
I'll bow to your greater insights til then.
Stay well.
Comment by Luke
Book Club
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
Being totally dismissive of someone's valid question is probably not the smartest approach to take with a comment on their blog either.
It must be great being superior to everyone else.
I saw a post recently about men wanting to get pregnant. Some of them are already menstruating by the looks of it.
Anyway MNG. Um I couldn't resist that. Luke needs someone around like me to take his angst out on. That's my excuse.
Where was I?
Oh that's right.
Nup. I must be a retard.
Comment by Jason King
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
I think the films of LOTR were much better - Tolkein really required an editor!!
I think the book for Silence of the Lambs nearly matched the book page for page and I love that!
Harry Potters can survive as brilliant in either format - sure they miss a few things in the movie as you can't squash it all in but everyone loves Harry and just to see more of it on the big screen is enough to keep people happy.
Awesome article!!
Comment by Luke
Book Club
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
Comment by Nomad
Awesome Food
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Comment by Lola Tahlulah
Lola Tahlulah
One exception I can think of is "The Jane Austin Book Club." I had to read this for a women's group that I was in, and I HATED it. THought it was awful. Then, after I was persuaded to see the film, I was pleasantly surprised.
I know that is a bit lighter fair than LOTR, but its my example.
Comment by The wonderful Peter Yang
The wonderful Peter Yang's No.1 blog
The wonderful Peter Yang's Ghost Story Blog
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
In relation to your main question:
I wonder how many people have read Robert Bloch's Psycho? As opposed to how many have seen Hitchcock's film based on the book?
I think Hitchcock's Pyscho is an example of a film transcending into something much greater.
Who associates Robert Bloch or his book with the film?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Could your next post be about 'Reductio ad Retards'?
I am going out on a limb here by saying, I am just not sure that it is an intelligent line of reasoning.
Comment by Raquelle
Cinema Voir
ALL of H.G Well's and Tenessee Williams' , Richard Matheson's JRR Tolkein's and screen adaptions...
More recently - About Schmidt, The Notebook, Assassination of Jesse James...
Having said that - there are the bad ones which I dont care to divulge...Some books just dont translate to the screen very well, or the filmmaker trys to stick to the book to appease the fans, often to the films detriment. Sometimes a film has gotta be a fillm and a book a book. OUR imagination is the worlds best cinema!
Really Long Link