Books Versus Movies

ket_the_jet
ket_the_jet Posts: 1,257 Member
edited December 2024 in Chit-Chat
I was engaged in a particularly interesting discussion this morning with a friend who is, for the lack of a better word, a filmophile. He can't stop watching movies. Good ones, bad ones, those ones that are kind of good but you don't really want to see it more than once...he'll watch them all. He's rather well-read [which leads me to question where he finds his time] but the basis of our discussion was a comparison.

Most people claim that the written source is superior to the big-screen version of a product. We peppered the conversation with a few examples, but the colloquy shifted when I posed the question: "Well, what films are better than their lexical counterpart?"

I'm prepared to start the debate with a bit of controversy, as I will say that the 1962 Robert Mulligan-directed To Kill a Mockingbird is far superior to the novel. In fact, I love the movie but am not particularly fond of the novel at all.

So I pose the question to you: What films do you consider better than the book?
-wtk

Replies

  • oregonzoo
    oregonzoo Posts: 4,251 Member
    maybe not even better, but equal to?

    I've never heard anybody complain about the Godfather. I think that movie was magnificent.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    I strongly disagree about Mockingbird, though the film was well done. Just like the Harry Potter books and movies -- great films, better books.

    I can think of two examples off the top of my head for movies that were much, much, MUCH better than the books:

    Rebecca
    The Notebook
  • trackercasey76
    trackercasey76 Posts: 781 Member
    Forrest Gump ~ The Movie WAS FAR SUPERIOR to the book
  • iLoveMyPitbull1225
    iLoveMyPitbull1225 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Every single book I have ever read has been far better than the film version.


    The biggest factor for me in this is that when you read, you are free to interpret how you wish. What the characters look like, the way the scenery looks, the feelings, etc. Also a lot of books go into such vivid detail that simply cannot ALL be captured in film. Its just not possible.

    100% of the time I will read a book and the movie does little to nothing for me because its just not how I had imagined and enjoyed the story.
  • AtticusFinch
    AtticusFinch Posts: 1,262 Member
    You're comparing apples to oranges - they're similar but not the same beast at all

    - btw
  • _Elemenopee_
    _Elemenopee_ Posts: 2,665 Member
    For me, the only movie I ever thought was just as good if not better than its lexical counterpart was The Green Mile.
  • lizzybethclaire
    lizzybethclaire Posts: 849 Member
    I strongly disagree about Mockingbird, though the film was well done. Just like the Harry Potter books and movies -- great films, better books.

    I can think of two examples off the top of my head for movies that were much, much, MUCH better than the books:

    Rebecca
    The Notebook

    I have to agree. To Kill a Mockingbird was an excellent book and they did a great job of bringing it to the silver screen.
  • saptamani
    saptamani Posts: 14 Member
    I agree, while most books are better than their accompanying movies, I have come across three strong exceptions in my experience:

    The Godfather -- Excellent movie, so-so book.
    Contact -- Great movie, but a real snoozer of a book (but I was admittedly 15 when I tried to read it, so my opinion might change if I tried again).
    Last of the Mohicans -- Excellent movie, and Daniel Day-Lewis might have caused me to slightly question my sexuality; the book, on the other hand, was really tough to wade through due to the early-colonial English.

    Also, I found the Life of Brian to be far more entertaining than Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.
  • MindyBlack
    MindyBlack Posts: 954 Member
    I would have to say Contact. No offense to Carl Sagan, who I love, but I felt it was too drawn out sometimes. It took too long to get to the main event. I should say I really liked the book but I like the movie better. Of course anything good can always be made better by Jodi Foster.
  • possibri
    possibri Posts: 158 Member
    I am reasonably well-read, and I'm probably closer to a horror filmophile, but I do enjoy other types of movies as well. I think that screen adaptation (and how "good" the movie seems) can be fun, but generally tends to leave out or change/add things — things that devoted readers think are important, or should (or shouldn't have) been added — due to budget, time, movie length, etc.

    I am an avid Stephen King reader, and many of the movies don't have the ability to truly encapsulate the novel because of it's length and detail. With that being said, however, the short story adaptations tend to be amazing. Both The Shawshank Redmption and The Mist were AMAZING adaptations of the stories, both about 100-150 pages. Now, I did see The Shawshank Redemption before I read the story, so that could've contributed to me thinking the movie was better, but I had read The Mist before seeing the movie, and the movie was amazing (of course, I believe Frank Darabount a damn genius, which helped with that). I also LOVE the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie, even though it doesn't fully stay true to the book. Again this is another example where I'd already seen the movie and loved it, and then read the book. Still an awesome book, but I have a special enjoyment of them both, and neither is really better than the other.

    Now, conversely, the first Stephen King book I ever read was The Shining; I loved it and it scared the crap outta me. I was quite excited when I finally got to see the movie with Jack Nicholson, but was so disappointed with the changes to the plot, and the fact that we didn't get to hear people's thoughts (which was a pretty important aspect of the story). Additionally, they killed a character off completely, and that was just maddening to me, because it was such a victory that he DID survive in the book. So yeah, pretty disappointing, albeit still a scary and good movie (definitely NOT better than the book, though). I really enjoyed the mini-series done in the early 90's however, as it was able to incorporate sooo much of the original book, since they had so much more time. The recent adaptation of Dreamcatcher was also a big let down, as they COMPLETELY changed part of the plot, killed people out of order, and also left a reasonably important character out of the story entirely. Very disappointing indeed.

    Ok, so I can rant about this all day, but basically my point is that it really depends on the book, and also how the director decides to use it. Some movies are just "based on" while others are supposed to be an actual adaptation (which to me means it's going to stick to the story in the book).
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    I would have to say Contact. No offense to Carl Sagan, who I love, but I felt it was too drawn out sometimes. It took too long to get to the main event. I should say I really liked the book but I like the movie better. Of course anything good can always be made better by Jodi Foster.

    I imagine a Carl Sagan novel to be the living embodiment of what a novel by Sheldon Cooper might look like.
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    Ohhhh Interesting conversation.

    I was discussing Game of Thrones yesterday on Facebook. For me, the series was actually better than the book. Simply because I had a hard time keeping characters straight in the book. On that particular book I enjoyed the series and the book served more as an enhancement.

    I just started the second book and can tell it is going to get into much more detail so that assessment will most likely shift for the second series. I will probably enjoy the book more than the screen version. (probably)

    What sparked this conversation was a friend asking if she should watch Hunger Games first or read the books. The consensus was, to watch the movie first since she hadn't already read the books. That way she wouldn't be as disappointed in the movie. :laugh:
  • ket_the_jet
    ket_the_jet Posts: 1,257 Member
    Last of the Mohicans -- Excellent movie, and Daniel Day-Lewis might have caused me to slightly question my sexuality; the book, on the other hand, was really tough to wade through due to the early-colonial English.
    That was a great example. And your Monty Python comment was awesome.
    -wtk
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    I am weird when it comes to Stephen King. I LOVE the movies but have never been able to make it through an entire book of his. I don't know what it is, the few I have tried to read just didn't get my attention.

    The Dark Tower...shoot me now! :indifferent:
  • possibri
    possibri Posts: 158 Member
    I am weird when it comes to Stephen King. I LOVE the movies but have never been able to make it through an entire book of his. I don't know what it is, the few I have tried to read just didn't get my attention.

    The Dark Tower...shoot me now! :indifferent:

    OMG NOOOOOOOOOO, The Dark Tower is soooo good. I hate fantasy-type books, but the characters are just so loveable! I'm actually re-reading the series now lol

    Which ones have you tried to read? I've come across a few of his I also couldn't get into: Bag of Bones, Firestarter and Christine are the first that pop into my head. Tried so hard and just couldn't do it. If you like horror, I highly recommend checking out some of his short story collections like Nightshift and Everything's Eventual. Short stories tend to be easier to get into, and you still get the awesomeness that is his writing. Or maybe you just don't like his style... lol in which case, that's too bad, but no reason to force it. =]
  • ket_the_jet
    ket_the_jet Posts: 1,257 Member
    I didn't have Jonathan Safron Foer's Everything Is Illuminated as a novel, but I liked the characters in Liev Schreiber's film interpretation much better [surprisingly, considering the main protagonist was played by Elijah Wood].
    -wtk
  • SabrinaJL
    SabrinaJL Posts: 1,579 Member
    The biggest factor for me in this is that when you read, you are free to interpret how you wish. What the characters look like, the way the scenery looks, the feelings, etc.

    Agreed. Last night we were catching up on True Blood and when Claude came on, I was like, "Wait, THAT'S Claude? Seriously? No. Just no."
    I am an avid Stephen King reader, and many of the movies don't have the ability to truly encapsulate the novel because of it's length and detail. With that being said, however, the short story adaptations tend to be amazing. Both The Shawshank Redmption and The Mist were AMAZING adaptations of the stories, both about 100-150 pages. Now, I did see The Shawshank Redemption before I read the story, so that could've contributed to me thinking the movie was better

    I read Shawshank before I saw the movie and I still thought the movie was better. In fact, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP. I did enjoy The Mist too, but my husband was so pissed off at the ending, I made him read the last few pages of the story.
  • possibri
    possibri Posts: 158 Member
    I am an avid Stephen King reader, and many of the movies don't have the ability to truly encapsulate the novel because of it's length and detail. With that being said, however, the short story adaptations tend to be amazing. Both The Shawshank Redmption and The Mist were AMAZING adaptations of the stories, both about 100-150 pages. Now, I did see The Shawshank Redemption before I read the story, so that could've contributed to me thinking the movie was better

    I read Shawshank before I saw the movie and I still thought the movie was better. In fact, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP. I did enjoy The Mist too, but my husband was so pissed off at the ending, I made him read the last few pages of the story.

    lol that's good to know! From my recollection, the story ended quite a bit more open-ended, didn't it? I enjoyed the ending of the movie because it added to the horror of the whole thing, and even though it wasn't quite what happened, it gave the story some closure. It wasn't the best ending, but definitely on par with how the actual story ended.
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    I am weird when it comes to Stephen King. I LOVE the movies but have never been able to make it through an entire book of his. I don't know what it is, the few I have tried to read just didn't get my attention.

    The Dark Tower...shoot me now! :indifferent:

    OMG NOOOOOOOOOO, The Dark Tower is soooo good. I hate fantasy-type books, but the characters are just so loveable! I'm actually re-reading the series now lol

    Which ones have you tried to read? I've come across a few of his I also couldn't get into: Bag of Bones, Firestarter and Christine are the first that pop into my head. Tried so hard and just couldn't do it. If you like horror, I highly recommend checking out some of his short story collections like Nightshift and Everything's Eventual. Short stories tend to be easier to get into, and you still get the awesomeness that is his writing. Or maybe you just don't like his style... lol in which case, that's too bad, but no reason to force it. =]

    I want to like it, I really do. I have so many friends that I have raved about the series. I just can't get into it. :indifferent:

    I've tried reading IT, Kujo and Hearts in Atlantis. I love his movies and love the stories I just can't seem to read his words without dozing off. :frown:
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    The biggest factor for me in this is that when you read, you are free to interpret how you wish. What the characters look like, the way the scenery looks, the feelings, etc.

    Agreed. Last night we were catching up on True Blood and when Claude came on, I was like, "Wait, THAT'S Claude? Seriously? No. Just no."

    Oh definitely agree on Trueblood. The show has gone so far off from the books though I have to completely put the books out of my mind and think of them as two separate things. :huh:
  • AtticusFinch
    AtticusFinch Posts: 1,262 Member
    The Ron Howard directed versions of Dan Brown's conspiracy novels probably fall into your catchment area.

    I've only ever read a sample of 'The DaVinci Code', and that was enough to convince me that although it was a book, it was designed for the masses and not challenging in anyway. The film however was an entertaining thriller.

    I think we're prepared to cut films more slack with their plots, partly because they offer us more than a written narrative in terms of visual impact and interpretation, but also because unless you're one of those people that can devour a book within a matter of hours, films have less time to build character development, relationships, storyline and nuances. A book often makes a more personal connection with it's reader.

    That said, if a book is a good read, and a filmed version is a great piece of cinematography - then the two can stand apart and offer different things to respective observers. Apples and Oranges, and I'm happy with that state of affairs.

    I'm very interested though to see what's going to happen with the forthcoming movie version of Yann Martel's 'Life of Pi'.
  • PhotogNerd
    PhotogNerd Posts: 420 Member
    Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of either the book or film versions of the following.


    However, I actually made it through the film adaptations of Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn when I couldn't even make it beyond chapter 2 of the first book.
  • Qarol
    Qarol Posts: 6,171 Member
    The Devil Wears Prada

    Movie was superior. The book, the characters were just so one-dimensional.
  • tashjs21
    tashjs21 Posts: 4,584 Member
    Oh I just thought of one, The Nanny Diaries.

    I couldn't finish the book it was so boring. The movie wasn't great but it was more entertaining than the book for sure.
  • trackercasey76
    trackercasey76 Posts: 781 Member
    "Stand By Me" was based on the Stephen King short story "The Body". The movie was much better but I think only because the Movie was full length and LOADED with great actors.
  • JhKd
    JhKd Posts: 20
    Forrest Gump ~ The Movie WAS FAR SUPERIOR to the book

    x2, this is the one I use as being the only example I know where the movie was better than the book.
This discussion has been closed.