Printable View
I always have this debate with my friends about the quality of movies versus books. I bring this up because 90% of the time, when a movie comes out as a remake of a book, the book is almost ALWAYS better.
Now, in fairness to movies, rarely do we see books made from movies. But it's still pretty staggering to see how many of us still think the book version is better than the movie.
What do you think? Seems like kind of odd to me.
When you watch a movie, it's filtered through someone else's vision of the book, which never quite hits the internal mark.
Even with a fantastic film like The Godfather, the book is superior. Puzo can take his time to develop the story and characters, and employ his significant writing gifts.
I love books and films equally. I don't think that the book is always better than the movie, in fact I find that the film representation is often superior. The Shining, Clockwork Orange, Apocolypse Now (from Heart of Darkness), Misery, The Lord of the Rings, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, I could go on and on. Sure you get more time for description in novels, but films also have things that books lack; the cinimatography, the acting, tone, ect..
Also, it's super annoying when you leave the theatre with a "cultured" friend who in true pseudo-intellectual style is heard to remark: "It was good, but the book was better."
Well they are essentially two different art forms and should be treated as such on their own merits. However, almost always I prefer the book form, that is just a personal like, though the only film which I think was better than the book (that I have both seen and read of course) was The Talented Mr Ripley which I quite adore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pISZ6_0R3Ho
It's just a beautiful film, just look at the photography for one, adorable.
The book has so many advantages over film that books should win hands down. They don't always though. I thought A Clockwork Orange was a better, if pretty limited film, but as good as The Shining Film was, the book was better, just by virtue of the limitations of the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Wowee, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
...
Huh. I've never heard anyone say that The Shining was better in book form.
Just my humble opinion. I watched a bit of the film the other day as my kids are into it at the moment. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I think this is best explained by what Kubrick once said that "the best adaptations come from average novels" (paraphrasing). Besides Apocolaypse Now and A Clockwork Orange, most of the films you mentioned such as The Shining, weren't derivative of great novels anyway, which is why many of the best adapted movies come from books you've never even heard of or regarded as a classic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
For me, I will have to say that the two, being two completely different mediums, are incomparable. Sure minimalism is more workable in films as oppose to intigrating stream-of-consciousness modernist techniques in a novel, but they both have their merits. Why compare, and just enjoy them.
Exactly. Seriously how can anybody cast Robert Mitchum and Pug Henry?? Robert Mitchum???Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
*edit*
Said something stupid. I'm tired :sick:
I made a point of saying this to all my friends after I went and saw Garfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Hey, that's a moot point. There are good adaptations and there are bad adaptations. People need to get over it. I'm sure that a classic can be well adapted (as has been proven with The Heiress, Lolita and plenty of Kurosawa's adaptations). It's not the fact that the novel is unadaptable, it's whether or not it's in the right hands. Must we go on debating this? Cinema works through images, literature works through words. Big difference, different mediums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil
I just thought the idea of a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual twit expressing a preference for the Garfield books over the Garfield movie was sort of intrinsically funny since, you know, the books are only collections of a really terrible comic strip. But your point is well-taken.
:lol: Man, I effin' love it when you post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil
ohhh Daniel, this is litnet. Who would we be if we didn't debate? Have you seen all the Harry Potter threads??:pQuote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
The Winds of War was ruined for me forever after seeing the film adaptation, that's a direct relationship. I can't separate the two versions now. How can I not compare the two?
Do you think it would be safe to talk about HP here? No, perhaps not. I liked the films, but ....I'd better not say any more.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
icksnay on the arryhay otterpay!!!!!!!!!!! Do you want 20+ pages of "yeah huh" - "nuh uh"??
R e m i n d e r
Please note that making moot points is not allowed on our Forum.
Posts containing such points will be deleted without any further notice.
Members who persist in making moot points might receive infraction points.
*looks at Basil pointedly*
Going back to the OP, yeah, books are, like, way better... But, then again, some movies are cooler than the books and all.
I guess I forgot to put on my humor radar yesterday :redface:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
You're right. Or should I just say it and leave quickly just for the hell of it? Nah -I remember you were telling me about your neighbourhood...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Oh, I don't mind if you say it, I was just trying to save you from the ensuing brouhaha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem