film vs Book

why is it that whenever a book you've read is made into a movie, you always feel like it should have been different. In one film the main character is blond where in my mind it should have been brown or the city the character lives in is different from what i thought. I know that everyone who reads a book gets something different out of it, but up untill now i have never seen a film of which i thought that it was better than the book it was made from. Does anyone know a film that is better than the book?

Nope i can't think of one. Although I tried to read the short story The langoliers by Stephen King and couldn't get through it, then I saw the movie and it made me want to go back and read the book. Does that count? Probably not.

Also Stephen King, I thought "The Dead Zone" was a better as a movie, but that could just be Christopher Walken's acting. He's a scary guy isn't he?

its funny, i didnt think there was ONE Stephen King movie that was better than the book. there were a couple that were close (green mile comes to mind) but really for all the hype over say....The Shining, well it was a great movie, but the book takes it so much deeper.

What is so strange is that your perception of the film depends on wether you've read the book before seeing the film. when you've read the book first, the film will likely disappoint you because you already have a perception of the story in your mind. But when you've seen the film first you don't feel disappointed after reading the book because the book only adds to the perception of the film. but, in my idea, you read the book differently once you've already seen the film because you make your characters look (in your mind) as you've seen them on tv. Am I the only one that has this experience or do you have that too?

oh no, you are absolutely right. i think once you have seen a film you will always read the book and visualize the characters as the actors that played them. i dont necessarily think that's a good thing, as every actor brings to the role hints of their old roles and their reputations. that is why i prefer to read the book first and then be dissapointed with the movie later. i get to use the author's descriptions to build the imagery and the characters have only the backgrounds that they are given by the author.

I've read an article about this and it said that there are three ways to create a movie by a book:
1) cinematographic adaption (sounds terrible to me maybe you know a beeter expression) where the movie is created strictly by the book. I think Harry Potter movies belong here. That leaves no freedom for director but the fans are contended and they can just argue why some scenes were cut or so. In my opinion you can't create a movie better than book in such a way becouse you're too limited.
2) adapting the story of the book for the idea of director who can know express his own view to the book. I think this is the best way but it might leave you unhappy with the result. I thinkk the LOTR movies would fit here although I think that they are actually somewhere between the first and the second way.
3) Just the idea of the book. In this kind of movies you can hardly recognize the book becouse the story and idea of the book has been greatly altered. But I can't imagine a proper example right now.
As speaking for the second way- it's just a version about the book, the way director sees it and you must accept that he possibliy thinks different from you becouse he has experienced other things in his life and he perceives the story differen't. This might be the way you can create a movie better than a book. But I must admit that I don't know such movie. It is possible that I've even seen one but haven't read the book to compare or (and that is the most usual thing) I don't even know that a movie is taken by a book.

Did I ever mention my disgust at casting robert mitchum as Pug Henry in The Winds of War???? (Probably once or twice) Totally ruined my whole perception of the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edzabeen

I've read an article about this and it said that there are three ways to create a movie by a book:
1) cinematographic adaption (sounds terrible to me maybe you know a better expression) where the movie is created strictly by the book. I think Harry Potter movies belong here. .........
2) adapting the story of the book for the idea of director who can know express his own view to the book. I think this is the best way but it might leave you unhappy with the result. I thinkk the LOTR movies would fit here although I think that they are actually somewhere between the first and the second way.
3) Just the idea of the book. In this kind of movies you can hardly recognize the book becouse the story and idea of the book has been greatly altered. But I can't imagine a proper example right now......

---

Cinematographic adaption, IMHO, impossible, but the Harry Potter movies do do a nice job.

Adapting the story of the book , LOTR, loved the first, hated the second.
third was nice, but I didn't exactly love it. I'm a Tolkien freak so it was
stacked odds I'd be unhappy about something.

Just the idea of the book, Frankenstien ( 1931 ) the film makers cranked out a very nice product, but the story doesn't really resemble Mary Shelley's work at all.


*** I'm going to rent Frankenstien, pop some corn and turn out all the lights... Who wants to come over and watch it with me?*****

I think Apocalyps now is a good example of a plot taken from a book and made into a film in a different setting. But the story of the book is certainly recognisable, so it's actually in between one and three on edzabeen's list. quite strange, because point one and three seem to oppose each other but it is the same story really, only different time and different place

I always read the book first because I like using my imagination more than being told what to think. The good thing about reading is that you can take the books off in new directions just by imagining what a town looks like or how a person walks. In a movie, all of that is set out for you. I often don't read the book after seeing the movie because I find it takes the fun out of it...

I like reading the book much better 'cuz if you wanna watch a movie based on a novel and you haven't read it, sometimes you'll just confuse yourself saying, 'who is that man in the grey hat? What's his role really? Did she drink a tea with him or what?' and some other questions that will make you understand the movie more. Also, some movies make the story from the book better than the original, so you are lucky if they did the movie better and you do know what is going on.

But really, I like to read the book first, so that I won't be wondering too much.

Stumbled across this thread and instantly felt all the anger and frustration felt upon seeing the film "Eragon"

The Harry Potter films, I agree, stuck very nicely to the book. Up until the Half Blood Prince anyway. Such a let down on the whole. Half the story points are missing and the last few chapters of the book were cut out entirely. It is the first Harry Potter film that made me angry.
I was thinking as the release date for Half Blood Prince drew near, how close the films always came to the book. Even the fact that sentences from the book were literally used at the right time in the films. If you watch one of the films and then read the book, you can even imagine that you are watching the film.
- When I read, it is like watching a film anyway. I often forget that I am reading at all and seem to be watching it happen. I am sure I am not the only one. Anyway...

I love to read and though there are cases when I seen the film and did not read the book, generally it is the other way around. I would sooner not see a film when I can simply read the book - which is always better in my opinion.

I have NEVER seen a film better than the book. Films will always miss something that was vital in the plot, or skim over minor details to save time on the film, details that made all the difference. The worst example of a book turned to film in my opinion would be ERAGON

WHAT THE HELL!!!! - That film deviated so far from the book, they won't even be able to make the second book into a film. I wouldn't be surprised if they wait ten years until everyone forgot the film and remake it how it was supposed to be done. That film ... :rage: :rage: :rage: :rage: :mad:
Anyway... In the film (I can't remember the name because the film got me so mad I ripped the book up. I wanted to slap Christopher Paolini for selling the rights and allowing that P.O.S film to be released. Probably would have if I knew him...) - Two creatures that were sent to kill Eragon. In the book, those same two creatures were alive at the end of book 2, "Eldest". Yet in the film Eragon, they were killed fairly early on. What the...!!!

In the case of Stephen King. I find I can easily read and enjoy some of his books and others I cant. Even if I watch the film version, I can still fail to get into some of his books. The worst of that was The Tommy Knockers - I couldn't get into that book at all. Where as Cell and Needless Things are two of my favourite books and still keep them close at hand wherever I go, just in case I decide to read one again.

Lastly, I will comment on the "Da Vinci Code" followed by "Angels and Demons"
- I read both books, but didn't watch the film of "The Da Vinci Code." I am a fan of Tom Hanks, but I enjoyed the book and didn't want the image in my head destroyed. I knew that Robert Langdon was played by Tom Hanks and the description of Robert in the book was nothing like Tom Hanks. In my opinion.
When the film Angels and Demons was released I seen highlights and decided once again to read the book and not watch the film. The book however had set my imagination rolling and I was curious how the film would manage some of the imagery presented in the book. So I did the unthinkable.
I watched the film.
- In short, I hated the film.

Though this thread didn't really need a biased essay on the matter. I just wanted to vent a very small amount of the built up anger and frustration created by watching films made from books I have read. With the exception of the Harry Potter films (except Half Blood Prince, which as I said; total let down, and I expect Deathly Hallows will be also - considering they are doing it in 2 parts...) ALL films that are made from books are major let downs. Films seem to be for people too lazy to read, and as punishment, they get a crappier story for their laziness. Probably a fair punishment considering some of the stuff people have missed out on by not reading the book and watching the film only.
However, readers, myself included, still watch the films. We are equally punished for it. We are punished with disappointment. In fact, we are probably punished more by the let down. Probably for being cheeky and greedy in wanting a seconds.

Finally verdict. - Books are Better, so in film vs book, book wins.
Sentence. - Disappointment and Let down.

If I really like a book, I don't go see the movie, usually.

But then big things like Lord of the Rings, Narnia they are big screen worthy for the most part, although there were bits and pieces that need to be left out for the sake of time as long as it does not compromise the story or is not so contrived I can live with it.

~L

I think movies and books have different jobs. They each have different strong points. Books give better characterization and stronger revelations and internal conflict, but movies create better mood with music and visuals.

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Watchmen is better as a movie than a book. The author's ending was ridiculous, but the director fixed it, making all the same points, but in a better way.

sorry for pointing out the obvious here but in response to the OP, the reason you feel like it should have been "different" is because you're watching someone else's interpretation of a novel, not your own.

Sometimes a film can introduce you into a novel you probably never heard of, or can help you imagine it in a clearer way to your senses. I like to see the story from both angles and I think they have different purposes and shouldn't be compared.

I agree with lima. Besides, if a particular film is a particular interpretation of a novel, then how can we know it's not a good interpretation just because it's different from how we would have told the story? What could make us believe that our interpretation is better than the makers' interpretation?

Last but not least, I believe a film is not supposed to be better than a novel. It's supposed to be... one interpretation out of many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poehee99

why is it that whenever a book you've read is made into a movie, you always feel like it should have been different. In one film the main character is blond where in my mind it should have been brown or the city the character lives in is different from what i thought. I know that everyone who reads a book gets something different out of it, but up untill now i have never seen a film of which i thought that it was better than the book it was made from. Does anyone know a film that is better than the book?

---

The majority of Hithcock's films were based on books.

2001: A Space Odyssey film was a LOT better than the book.

Breakfast At Tiffany's movie was (a tad) better than the original Truman Capote novel.

Schindler's List.

The Godfather.

The Shawshank Redemption.

Goodfellas.

No Country For Old Men.

And the list goes on and on and on.


Generally, if you go back and look at all the greatest movies of all-time, the vast majority of them are based on books. So i think it really depends.

I'd say 90% of the time I like a book better. But I have some exceptions.

The Godfather. I thought the book had some random, bizarre fascination with Sonny's genitalia and some really crappy prose. But the film was amazing.

The Graduate. The book wasn't that great, but the movie was.

The Red Riding Trilogy. The books this trilogy was based on were actually a quartet, but although the books were good, the movies were amazing.

Don't Look Now. I read the Daphne du Marnier short story and thought it was pretty good, but the movie by Nicolas Roeg was amazing, and got way more in depth with the characters than the short story.

The books are almost always better than the movies but there are exceptions and Mathor pointed out some great examples.

Here are some others.

Fight Club
Basic Instinct
The Rules of Attraction
The Color Purple
Trainspotting (the book and movie were equally as good as each other)

I wouldn't say that Breakfast at Tiffany's is a better movie than a novella. But I would say that both are wildly different and both deserve their stature as classics. Audrey Hepburn is about as far from Holly as I could possibly begin to imagine. Yet she defies the odds, and brings something of the heart and soul of the piece, as well as something wholly new and vivid. The movie is extremely different from the book in many ways. George Peppard is wonderful. The beginning and the end of the film are indelible.

Art is funny. As different as Breakfast as Tiffany's movie is from the novella it remains much more artistically faithful to it than some "on paper" loyal screen adaptations which fail to suggest an ounce of the source material's soul.

(I hope it goes without saying that I in no way approve of Mickey Rooney's caricature of the Japanese neighbor.)

One could imagine a beautiful, "to a t" faithful version reaching the screen with Marilyn Monroe. But it wouldn't change the fact that the movie we have and the images of Hepburn's morning walk on 5th Ave. and Hepburn and Peppard in the rain with the cat are, justifiably, part of the film cannon.

While there are many reasons I didn't like the movie of "Interview with a Vampire," I was shocked at how many ways it visually matched my reading of the novel.

"Daniel Deronda" with Hugh Dancy, Romola Garai, and Jodhi May uncannily matched my visualation of the novel, and is an absolutely stunningly beautiful adaptation, Faithful to Elliot, brilliantly performed and directed (by the director of The King's Speech, I believe, whose name I forget at the moment) sublime television-filmmaking.

An example from the other end of the spectrum.

If there ever was a modern bestseller - we can all argue its merits as a novel - that was "born" to be a great film - it is Isabel Allende's The House of the Spirits. The film adaptation with Irons, Streep, Close, Banderas and Ryder is so ill-conceived in every respect, one can hardly begin. It is simply, a bad movie, and a justifiable flop. And the absence of any Latin American actors in any of the leading roles is quite embarrassing.

first one that comes into my mind where film is much better than the book is A Clockwork Orange.

also Mathor gave a good list. however it doesn't change a fact that in most cases book is always better.

-------
ogrody

The Jaws film was much better than the novel, as they trimmed out lots of extraneous soap-opera filler like Hooper's affair with Ellen Brody.

Here are a few more.

The First Wives Club. Whoever made this movie did it justice and made it just as funny and entertaining as the book.

I mentioned this in another thread but Mel Gibson gave a spectacular performance of Hamlet in the film version, making it the best screen version of a Shakespeare play for me.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I liked both the old and the new film adaptations.

yeah may be 'The Social Network' film would be better than its book 'Accidental Billionaires.' I don't exactly know, as I haven't read it yet...

I don't think most people think "The Color Purple" the movie is better than "The Color Purple" the book.

I've seen several versions of Jane Eyre and read the book and enjoyed them. I love the book and think the most recent adaptation is really good.

The children's novel, "Bridge to Terebithia" was good. I thought the movie was good, but for some reason I didn't find it as compelling as I did the book.