Movies or Books?

[contentbiz]

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.

[Paulclem]

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.

[JuniperWoolf]

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."

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.

[Paulclem]

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."

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.

[JuniperWoolf]

as good as The Shining Film was, the book was better, just by virtue of the limitations of the film.

Wowee, really?

...

Huh. I've never heard anyone say that The Shining was better in book form.

[Paulclem]

Wowee, really?

...

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.

[DanielBenoit]

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..

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.

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.

[papayahed]

When you watch a movie, it's filtered through someone else's vision of the book, which never quite hits the internal mark.

Exactly. Seriously how can anybody cast Robert Mitchum and Pug Henry?? Robert Mitchum???

[DanielBenoit]

*edit*

Said something stupid. I'm tired

[Basil]

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."

I made a point of saying this to all my friends after I went and saw Garfield.

[DanielBenoit]

I made a point of saying this to all my friends after I went and saw Garfield.

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.

[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.

[JuniperWoolf]

I made a point of saying this to all my friends after I went and saw Garfield.

Man, I effin' love it when you post.

[papayahed]

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.

ohhh Daniel, this is litnet. Who would we be if we didn't debate? Have you seen all the Harry Potter threads??

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?