Kindle Forum banner

Book Versus Film?

2K views 22 replies 16 participants last post by  C. J. Sears 
#1 ·
It's the eternal debate.

Pretty much as one sided a competition as Batman versus Superman. How could Batman ever beat Superman? No chance.

In the novel "Papillon", a French convict in the 1920's tries desperately to escape from the penal colony on Devil's Island.

The story is truly epic, if untrue. It was discredited a few years ago.

In the film Steve McQueen played the lead and Dustin Binman was his friend for many years in captivity.

Filming took place in Jamaica, and while the method actor, Binman, starved himself and stayed out of the sun for his role, McQueen sunbathed on the beach and smoked dope, putting on a couple of stone.

The director had to be creative and film McQueen from acute angles, and the make up department earned their money.

Ironically, McQueen earned the only acting award for the film, a Golden Globe for best actor. Chew on that Binman. PS: You didn't look like a woman when you played Tootsie. You looked like Kathy Bates on a very bad hair day.

I watched the film at the weekend and though it comes a poor second to the book, it might spur on a few people to pick up the book.

So, please remember that film versions can actually assist book sales.

What classic films do you think are actually better than the books?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Phantom of the Opera (whichever version, it's a dreadful book)
Le Mepris
Pierrot le Fou
The later Harry Potter films (ie, the third one onwards. The first two are rubbish)
Watership Down
 
#3 ·
Better than the books? That would be rare. But, I have to say that A Tale of Two Cities, with Dirk Bogarde, was much easier to understand for me. Of course I was only ten when I saw the film and came home and read the book, so that could explain it.

Usually in a film, bits of the book are cut out to make it fit the length. Gone with the Wind of course had loads cut out of the story, and even the film seemed to jump from one scene to another without much continuity, just to squeeze it into four hours. I don't mind that, but I object to the film producers actually changing the story from the book, like they did with the Laurence Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice. Completely ruined it.
 
#4 ·
I much prefer the movie versions of Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Hobbit to the actual books. Shoot me, I know! I love Tolkien's ideas but his implementation isn't always clear or my viewing of what he described was just lacking in imagination. That entire horse charge down the hillside with the sun rising was pretty lame in my own mind but epic in the theater.
 
#5 ·
Actually, on considering this question, I realise that there are more. Rebecca, for instance, was a great film; I thought the book was so tedious and boring I can't imagine how it ever got published. I have similar feelings for H.G. Wells' stories, the Time Machine was much better in film, both versions. Dracula has been made into film several times, some really brilliant and others really pathetic, but the book I just couldn't get into.
 
#6 ·
C. Gold said:
I much prefer the movie versions of Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Hobbit to the actual books. Shoot me, I know! I love Tolkien's ideas but his implementation isn't always clear or my viewing of what he described was just lacking in imagination. That entire horse charge down the hillside with the sun rising was pretty lame in my own mind but epic in the theater.
They're marvellous films (Lord of the Rings more so than the Hobbit for me). I love Tolkien's prose, and I know a lot of people have views on the following opinion, but cutting Farmer Maggot, Tom Wretched Bombadil, and most of the Elvish songs was an inspired move by Peter Jackson. Those first few hundred pages before the hobbits leave the Shire are painful.
 
#7 ·
C. Gold said:
I much prefer the movie versions of Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Hobbit to the actual books. Shoot me, I know! I love Tolkien's ideas but his implementation isn't always clear or my viewing of what he described was just lacking in imagination. That entire horse charge down the hillside with the sun rising was pretty lame in my own mind but epic in the theater.
I agree. I couldn't slog through even one of the books, but enjoyed the films.
 
#8 ·
Agreed on LOTR. Tolkien describes the colours of the flowers in the fields and it's torture to read.

I would just mention that some of the biggest blockbuster films of their day were based on books and the books were definitely better than the films.

That was mainly because the books had so much more in them, that the director could never fit into the time length for a film. Think about "The Godfather", three hours long, and yet three hundred pages of the book are never shown. Or "From Here to Eternity" which has another three or four hundred pages never shown on film.
 
#9 ·
Movies better than the book:

1. The notebook
2. The devil wears prada
3. A walk to remember
4. Chocolat
5. Love Rosie
6. Sex and the city
7. Brokeback mountain
8. PS I love you
9. If only it were true (movie is called 'Just like heaven')
10. The time traveler's wife
11. confessions of a shopaholic

 
#10 ·
Wicked. It hasn't even been filmed yet, but it'll be better than the book because the stage play is better than the book.

Planet of the Apes is arguably better than the book, but the two stories have so little in common as to be incomparable. Both work well in their own ways.
 
#11 ·
The Princess Bride has been one of my favorite movies for years, and I was so excited to finally read the book. Ugh, what a disappointment! The movie is so charming and sweet and funny, and the book ... well, the book is not.

BellaJames said:
Movies better than the book:

1. The notebook
2. The devil wears prada
3. A walk to remember
4. Chocolat
5. Love Rosie
6. Sex and the city
7. Brokeback mountain
8. PS I love you
9. If only it were true (movie is called 'Just like heaven')
10. The time traveler's wife
11. confessions of a shopaholic
Oh, I'll argue with you about Time Traveler's Wife! I thought the book was an absolute masterpiece, but hated the movie! Ah, well, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions. ;)
 
#12 ·
BellaJames said:
Movies better than the book:

1. The notebook
2. The devil wears prada
3. A walk to remember
4. Chocolat
5. Love Rosie
6. Sex and the city
7. Brokeback mountain
8. PS I love you
9. If only it were true (movie is called 'Just like heaven')
10. The time traveler's wife
11. confessions of a shopaholic
I have to disagree on Chocolat, if only because I was in a charity anthology with Joanne Harris and she's wonderful, and has been enormously encouraging to my wife (who desperately wants to write but has a confidence issue before she can even pick a pen) on Twitter.

On the other hand, much as I can't stand SATC, I did once flick through the book when a colleague left it kicking around the workplace and that was awful.
 
#14 ·
I went through a phase a while ago where I read the books for classic movies I've loved (Psycho, Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, and others). The only one that was disappointing was Jaws. There were some subplots in the book that added nothing to the story. The movie cut it down to a cleaner story with much more sympathetic characters.
 
#17 ·
LadyG said:
The Princess Bride has been one of my favorite movies for years, and I was so excited to finally read the book. Ugh, what a disappointment! The movie is so charming and sweet and funny, and the book ... well, the book is not.

Oh, I'll argue with you about Time Traveler's Wife! I thought the book was an absolute masterpiece, but hated the movie! Ah, well, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions. ;)
My gosh, I struggled through 'The time traveler's wife' book. It took me weeks to read it. Each to their own. I thought the movie was slightly better than the book, although the movie was not that good.
 
#22 ·
Have to agree with you, V.P on the Shawshank Redemption. That was  a short story which became an epic film and a  modern classic.
Oh and yes I agree with you as well, Doglover. I also  love the Dirk Bogarde  film version of A Tale of Two cities. Makes me cry every time.

And  controversially I'd  say most adaptations of Gulliver's Travels.
We had to read it at University after we'd spent  three weeks studying Moby Dick. Everyone in the group was so disappointed it wasn't full of lots of little people but instead was mostly made up of  serious political  satire we  didn't find anywhere near as entertaining.  :eek: :'(

This question is definitely one to ponder and come back to as I'm sure there are more...

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top