Fresh Question #98: The Book Was Better

[Nightwing]

People! Warm sweet Summer hellos to you all. It's New Fresh Question time, so let's go!

I think we already established that books are what give movies the power they have when they're done right. Lots of times a movie's story/idea/etc will come from a book. And just for the sake of preventing future mistakes that have already been done in the past, tell me:

In what movie of which you are a thorough fan have you said, "the Book Was Better??" Why??


Was it something specific or is it just a general rule of thumb that happens in the transition?

[Mynd Hed]

Anyone else think it might be quicker just to list those rare cases in which the film was better?

It's a fact of life that no matter how amazing special effects become, and no matter how gifted actors and directors might be, seeing a scene in one's imagination is always superior.

Then there's the question of interpretation. Case in point-- in Tolkien's Felloship of the Ring, it "seems" as though Bilbo becomes a greedy, grabbing orc when he catches a glimpse of the Ring in Rivendell. Peter Jackson interpreted this visually in the film version by having Bilbo literally taken on a monstrous appearance for a moment. That's a perfectly valid interpretation of the text, but it would be equally valid to interpret the line less literally by having the actor portray greed via facial expression rather than relying on a special effect. For a reader who is used to imagining the scene one way, seeing it interpreted another way on the screen is going to be jarring. Multiply that one quick moment by a thousand similar moments onscreen, and it's just plain impossible to please all the fans all the time.

Then add those times when, because of the demands of budget or running time, it's nearly impossible to be faithful to the original work, and it becomes increasingly suprising that ANY film adaptations of books are ever any good at all. It's a testament to the skill and imagination of our screenwriters, directors, and actors that even a fraction of such adaptations succeed.

[Shnay]

The Virgin Suicides was one of those cases where everything that made the book interesting was cut for the movie version. The book is driven by an unknown narrator who relates the ongoing attempts of him and several old friends to discover the true nature and beauty of the mysterious Lisbon girls. The movie conveys none of this mysterious allure, and makes it seem as if the boys in the neighborhood are only interested in these girls because of a sexual attraction to Lux (played by Kirsten Dunst in the movie). While sex enters into their obsession, it's in a far more subtle way than the movie portrays.

Basically, the movie focused on trivial dialogue (and the final fate of the girls) while ignoring the narration that provided both social commentary and poetic questions of beauty.

[PeterFries]

Anyone else think it might be quicker just to list those rare cases in which the film was better?
Agreed; you'd end up with much shorter lists that way. Just like if you asked for lists of sequels that were halfway decent.

Here's a few movies off the top of my head that were easily better than the books they were based on, which is to say, great movies based on crappy novels:

The Shining
Jaws
Adaptation (the book was Orchid Thief, sort of)
Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electic Sheep, sort of)

[Dirtbag]

The one case where the movie was definately better was the LOTR trilogy. The books are easily the dullest I've ever read. I'll never know why Tolkien thought it was a good idea to write in real time.

The one I'm torn on is Fight Club. The movie is in my top 5 ever. The book is probably a more valid social commentary, but the movie is infinetly more entertaining.

[purplehairedwonder]

The one case where the movie was definately better was the LOTR trilogy.That I can agree on. I found myself enjoying the film adaptations more than the books. I enjoyed the books as well, as they were the originals and had more story that was not included, but I thought the movies made such a vivid portrayal of the works that they seemed better.

Staying with the fantasy genre, the Harry Potter books are vastly superior to the movies. I highly enjoy the movies, but PoA especially gave me an urge to read the books again. So much was left out and I was left disappointed.

[Captain Harlock]

I think the answer for me is fairly simple: Catch-22. The tale of Yossarian seems to be in a league just like Catcher in the Rye (which I hope never gets made into a movie) in that they wouldn't transition well on the big screen. The adaptation of Heller's novel was completely butchered. Events and characters were cut out entirely, some characters were in events in the movie that they weren't in the novel. The film made the novel seem like one big comedy. There's surely absurdity in war, which the book shows, but ultimately it's a tragic and depressing one. The message was lost in translation, and I wouldn't reccomend the movie version to anyone. Book only.

[The Weed Of Cri]

.......Hooo, where to begin?

I think I could make a shorter list out of movies that were better than the books, but the only one that comes immediately to mind is "Gymkata", in which the producers of Enter The Dragon tried to turn Olympic gymnast Kurt Thomas into an action-film hero, like they did with Bruce Lee a dozen years before. It's actually based on a book called "The Terrible Game" by Dan Tyler Moore. Truth to tell, the movie stinks on ice, but even so, it's still better than the jingoistic, Cold-War-era pulp mess that spawned it.

There are some movies that are as good as the novels from which they are adapted, but due to the diffecences in the media in which they are presented, the movies are often entertaining for different ways than the books. Jurassic Park, The Exorcist, Gone With The Wind, the John Houston/Humphrey Bogart version of the The Maltese Falcon and a couple versions of The Hound Of The Baskervilles stand up to their source novels.

As for books that are better than the movies, the list is legion:
The Lord Of The Rings
The Postman
Starship Troopers
Anything adapted from the works of Ray Bradbury or Philip K. Dick
War Of The Worlds (the new version)
The Time Machine (the new version)
Eight Million Way To Die
The Burglar In The Closet (made into "Burglar", starring Whoopi Goldberg)
Bonfire Of The Vanities
Interview With The Vampire
And the list goes on (and on and on and on)

[Mr Cat Dog]

Harry Potter: All of them

Quite frankly, so far - up to Prisoner of Azkaban - I have loathed every single one of the Harry Potter films, ironically with Philosopher's Stone and Prisoner of Azkaban being my favourite books.

Chris Colombous butchered the first film (and subsequntially the rest of them) by hiring three of the most wooden actors to play characters that play emotions they probably don't even understand. When Daniel Radcliffe shouts in anger, he makes it look like either some teen angst fest (which will be great for Order of the Phoenix, but not Philosopher's Stone), or a weak whimper... which would probably be more believable if it were coming from a cat.

Chamber of Secrets I didn't mind as much as the former and latter, but Colombous was cutting out parts of the book and dragging along others. The acting was still as wooden and the characters still seemed to be 11, no scrap that, 6 year olds with superpowers.

But Prisoner of Azkaban takes the biscuit. In fact, it can take the whole biscuit tin it's that crap! Firstly, this movie was just as butchered as One Piece, with countless parts of the book taken out yet again. When I left the cinema, I really thought it was a comedy I'd seen because I was laughing so hard at everybody's crap acting. My 2nd favourite book trashed into the dire heap of a movie. Ironic...

I can only despair for the next 3 movies. All twice as long, and will have twice as much cut. Tis a shame, indeed.

[elfwithagun]

Yes Peter, I agree Jaws was better as a movie. Still I cant help but like Quint's almost unstoppable swearing in the book.......

[Alex Toon]

Catcher in the Rye (which I hope never gets made into a movie) Not only would it be unfaithful to the book, but the story is mostly flashback and hard to do in a movie. But they did it with Charly and it came out fine.

[Echidna]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I know every version has been different (Books, radio series, TV series) but the movie went in a completely different direction to everything before it. It added an unresolved (And extremely unecessary) subplot, changed some of the character's motivations, left out stacks of classic jokes, and even threw in romance. Romance!

[Behonkiss]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I know every version has been different (Books, radio series, TV series) but the movie went in a completely different direction to everything before it. It added an unresolved (And extremely unecessary) subplot, changed some of the character's motivations, left out stacks of classic jokes, and even threw in romance. Romance!Agreed here. I didn't expect it to match or surpass the book, but they could have done a lot better.

First off, look at the added subplots and how wasted they end up being. Humma Kavula wants them to get the gun, they do...And neither he or the gun is mentioned again, along with the head he gets from Zaphod. Okay.

Zaphod himself is also completely butchered as a character. In the books, the obnoxious cool guy persona is really just a mask that disguises a very tormented and confused guy. None of that is in the movie; he is a complete jerk and little more, which makes his motivation bizarre.

I won't say anything about the romance because nothing needs to be said. It was an awful idea.

All that said, I'm still surprised that I like the movie. I guess it's just because I like it on its own, but compared to the book it's almost as bad as Catch-22, which wasn't enjoyable either way.

[Phantasm]

harry potter and the prizoner of azkaban

Such a abutchering of source material!!! :mad:

[I.R Joey]

Jurrasic Park 2: The Lost World: Read the book before I saw the movie. Now the original JP wasn't to accurate to the book either but still the Lost World was both innacurate and boring. Anyone who saw the last 30 minutes of it knows what I'm talking about.

Dune (Both versions): The first one skipped to much, and the second one cut out all of the internal dialoges. I'm sorry but it isn't Dune without internalization.

The Two Towers: It wasn't a bad movie mind you, but the way Tolkien ended the second book was just the perfect cliffhanger. Had the movie done it the same way I'm sure 2003 would have been one of the most exciting (and longest) waits for movie fans.

[Jave]

Well heck. I don't think I've seen any movie that it was better than the book that inspired. Harry Potter, My Fair Lady, Animal Farm...

Wait, no, there is one where the movie was better. Forrest Gump.

[BrendaBat]

When I was about 12 years old, I loathed Nickeloadeon for what they did to Harriet the Spy. Harriet the Spy was my favorite book at the time and the movie was so bad it actually tramatized me!

I haven't actually seen the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy movie. But the romance shown in the movie trailers instantly killed my desire to go see it.

[Speedy Boris]

Jim Gaffigan: Did you ever see a movie that was based on a book and talk to someone that read the book? They're always so condescending: "Aw the book was MUCH BETTER than the movie." Oh yeah? You know what I loved about the movie? NO READING. It took two hours and then I could take a nap. :p

Jurrasic Park 2: The Lost World: Read the book before I saw the movie. Now the original JP wasn't to accurate to the book either but still the Lost World was both innacurate and boring. Anyone who saw the last 30 minutes of it knows what I'm talking about. Ugh... a T-Rex loose in San Diego. The low point for the Jurassic Park series.

[Kati]

Although there are movies whose scripts are excellent adaptations, most of the time I prefer to read the book.

It's very hard to adapt all the elements from a novel to a script and at the same time keep the lenght of the movie inside the standard.

I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies, but I still prefer the books. Not only because the scripts tend to omit some scenes from the novels, but also because IMO they butcher the characterization of the three main characters. I think that the script writers worship Hermione and hate Ron. I can't remember a movie in which Hermione appeared as complete nerd or freaking out because of her grades (and that's something I love about this character). And Ron is not that stupid.

And even if I liked PoA and I'm a little biased because Cuaron is mexican, I can't believe they never explained the deal with the Marauder's map or why Harry's patronus had the shape of a deer. My mother hasn't read the books yet, so I had to explain her that part when we rented the movie.

Another movie I liked is "House of the Spirits", based on Isabel Allende's novel. I think they made a pretty good adaptation (even if they had to omit a couple of characters and change the timeline a bit), but I just love the book, it's one of my favourites of all time.

And the same can be aplied to "The Neverending Story". Excellent movie (well, the first one, I haven't seen the others), but the book is superb.

When I was a kid I loved "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and I remember I read it three times. I can't wait to see the movie and compare both of them. At least it'll be pretty fun to *see* the factory for the first time (although I believe that you can perfectly imagine it as you read the book).

I'm also curious at "The Da Vinci Code" movie. I liked the book (it's not the best one in the world but it was entertaining) and I can't wait to see Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon :D.

[James]

I think I'd have to start of with Harry Potter. I used to love those books, but the dull and draggingly bad movies have utterly killed the franchise for me. So yes, book better there.

To swing the tables on adaptional novels, Star Trek III: The Search For Spock and "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" are far deeper and richer than the film. I love III as a cinematic experience, but the book does the idea more justice.

Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy: I'm no purist (you can't be in HHGTTG as there are so many variants) but the book is far better than this film, and I've not seen the film yet. How do I know? Universe entrenched tremors vibrate through my body telling me so.

Dracula... compared to ALL variants on the book. The Coppola Dracula was an insult to the very core of what Dracula was about and had the cheek to call itself in some countries "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Fine, play with the myth, but don't hide behind the pretence you even understand the book.

[atf487]

Definitely the Harry Potter books, it's no comparison.

Otherwise, Friday Night Lights. The movie was NOT AT ALL like the book. The book shuns the town, makes the people look like idiots, and just is a negative few on the whole situation, except for the fact that the games were fun to watch. The movie glorifies all the aspects the book didn't like.

Also, one of the players was never a factor in the book, but in the movie when he gets injured, its a huge part.