View Full Version : Are books better than the movie?
Reddevil63
16-07-2005, 18:57
As per topic.
Personally I think books are better than the movie version.
TheBlueRaja
16-07-2005, 19:00
100% agree - never seen a movie yet that I enjoyed as much as the book. Movies are good but at the end of the day a movie directors vision of something which is limited by a specific budget or technology is nowhere near as good as the one in your head.
Additionally, the content is usually trimmed to satisfy cinema schedules.
makikomi
16-07-2005, 19:12
I agree with you completely.
With books, you get a chance to see how the characters are thinking, and you can picture the scenes in your head.
With films there is often a bit of Hollywood-isation involved, the scenes are rarely how you picture them, and trying to pack into 2 hours what could be 14 hours' reading is never gonna work 100%.
I read Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" and thought it an excellent read. The film was a big disappointment. Too many cliches, and strayed too far from the original story.
On the other hand, if a film is done well, it can add a lot to the book. I read "Blackhawk Down" before I saw the film, and got an idea of how desperate the situation was for the soldiers involved. When I saw the film (which was made with full-co-operation of the people that were actually there) it made me realise how horrifying it must have been, and the bravery of the troops. The old saying "a picture tells a thousand words" can ring true then.
However, by and large I usually prefer to see a film AFTER I've read the book, not before.
I would think the answer depends on which you saw/read first.
dilli-theclaw
16-07-2005, 20:10
I usually prefer the book to the film.
The most notable exception to this would be The Tommyknockers. Which I suppose shouldn't count as it's more a mini series than a film. but the series was MUCH better than the book.
Book and your minds eye everytime.
Lord Nikon
16-07-2005, 20:18
Dunno, I always found Tolkein spends too much time building a scene in LOTR, I struggled to read it as I found my attention drifting too often, yet the movies were very enjoyable.
I guess it's down to how well the books were written, and how well the movies were made.
I would think the answer depends on which you saw/read first.Not necessarily.... just as an example, I saw Carrie first, then read the book. The book's much better. Same with IT... book's better by far. Maybe it's just King's novels that don't translate well to film, but it was also the same for Charlie & the Chocolate Factory which I've just watched and then read with my son.
Too often I don't have time to read a book so the film is a convenient alternative, but I'm struggling to find a better film than a book I've read.
Almost without exception, books are better than movies. I think I have seen a movie that is better than it's book, but I can't remember which one off the top of my head.
For one thing, a book often sets more of the atmosphere than a movie, a movie tends to gloss over the less important, but still good material in the book.
Dunno, I always found Tolkein spends too much time building a scene in LOTR, I struggled to read it as I found my attention drifting too often, yet the movies were very enjoyable.
I guess it's down to how well the books were written, and how well the movies were made.
I have to agree.
LOTR books were awful, so much desciption. It drives you crazy, they change scene enough and then gives pages after pages of description. The plot could fit into one book! The films are much better, but i have to think that the books are thin on plot and this caused problems in the movies as it does drag in places and they dont have the benefit of waffleing on.
i'd go with book 99.9% of the time.... i have a fairly vivid imagination, and if i watch a movie, i always come away disappointed that the characters aren't as i imagined them. also film generally stray to far from the books... an example which springs to mind are the bridget jone's diary films/books... the film was completely different to the books,,,, the films left out whole parts of the plots
Generally, I prefer the book version over the film. The only time that I seen a film where it was (nearly) the same as the book was Fight Club. A couple of alterations, that was it. I read the book after the film and was really surprised in how the film turned out.
I can read a book then watch the film but I can never watch the film first then read the book....strange
I can read a book then watch the film but I can never watch the film first then read the book....strangeWell, if I've enjoyed the film and I find out that it came from a book, I sometimes get the book just to see what it was like.
I can read a book then watch the film but I can never watch the film first then read the book....strange
Films are passive, it doesn require much effort on your part. Reading requires a insane amount of attention and time. The majority of the time the motivation of reading a book is the need to know what happens next, if you already know then most of the motivation is gone. At least thats what its like for me
dilli-theclaw
16-07-2005, 22:02
I nearly always try to do both mind you. Read the book AND see the film. I can't say as I try and do it in any order tho.
I think it's interesting to read a book where the film is more loosely based on the book - eg do androids dream of electric sheep. Or I, robot.
The first time I saw a film/series and thought I MUST read the book - was The Stand. Then a coiuple of years later I got the uncut version and it was even better :)
p.s. I'm STILL citing the tommyknockers as a case in point where the film/series was better than the book.
Depends on the book and the film.
Enigma for instance was better as a book.
Planet of the apes however was better as a film (either version), however being worse than the book in that case would be quite hard!
Tezcatlipoca
16-07-2005, 22:09
Book....usually.
The thing with movie adaptations is that they pretty much have to leave out a lot of stuff which was in the book, due to time contraints.
(plus they're often crap anyway!)
Although...
I prefer the movie versions of LotR to the books, simply as they're more accessible.
And, although the original novel of Silence of the Lambs is excellent, the movie version is pretty damn excellent too.
homealone
16-07-2005, 22:34
both are as good as they are - but I prefer reading the book then seeing the movie - 2001 Space Odyssey being the prime example, for me, if I had watched that film without reading the book, I would have been very confused ;)
both are as good as they are - but I prefer reading the book then seeing the movie - 2001 Space Odyssey being the prime example, for me, if I had watched that film without reading the book, I would have been very confused ;)The book of that was written at the same time as the film. (Well according to the introduction in my copy). So the film didn't technically come from the book and vice-versa.
dilli-theclaw
16-07-2005, 22:46
The book of that was written at the same time as the film. (Well according to the introduction in my copy). So the film didn't technically come from the book and vice-versa.
The idea was developed from The Sentinel - a Clarke short story. It was interesting to see how the idea developed into the film/novel
Tezcatlipoca
16-07-2005, 23:18
I read Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" and thought it an excellent read. The film was a big disappointment. Too many cliches, and strayed too far from the original story.
All the Clancy movies have been quite poor when compared to the books.
Only one I think is really any good is The Hunt for Red October...brilliant film, although still not as good as the book (& misses *a lot* out).
Hmm. Some other book to film adaptations...
The Godfather - excellent book & excellent (1st two) movies.
Jurassic Park - excellent book, OKish movie (great special FX, but v poor adaptation of the book).
Sin City - excellent graphic novel, excellent movie.
The idea was developed from The Sentinel - a Clarke short story. It was interesting to see how the idea developed into the film/novelI didn't know that. I just went by what was said in the introduction, that the novel 2001 was made at the same time as the film. :)
The idea was developed from The Sentinel - a Clarke short story. It was interesting to see how the idea developed into the film/novelI didn't know that. I just went by what was said in the introduction, that the novel 2001 was made at the same time as the film. :)
As I understand it, Kubrick and Clarke wanted to work together. They went through Clark's back catalogue to find a good story to work from, then picked on "The Sentinel", and started to expand the story. They used the same basic plot, but Kubrick wrote the film (with help from Clarke), and Clarke wrote the book. As such, I believe they are slightly different interpretations of the same story.
dilli-theclaw
17-07-2005, 00:21
I didn't know that. I just went by what was said in the introduction, that the novel 2001 was made at the same time as the film. :)
If you want to read it, you can get it (and some other short storys) from here...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743479750/qid=1121556026/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-5420301-2371662
It totally depends on the movie and book. Some movies miss a lot of information out from books as it would be so hard to cram everything in.
I think that you learn more about charactars, their lives, and feelings, in books. Some films can work really well from book to film, but a lot miss out several parts that are in the actual books.
Does any one else find it really annoying when you read a great book then see the film and the story is totaly different to the book!
If you want to read it, you can get it (and some other short storys) from here...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743479750/qid=1121556026/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-5420301-2371662Thanks for that. I might give it a go. :)
I voted "sometimes" because, as others have mentioned, some films, eg 2001 are better than the books, but, generally I'd go for the book.
There again, when you have films "based" on books (eg Blade Runner based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) often the two versions are so majorly different that, whilst they may be very good, they are effectively non-comparable.
Does any one else find it really annoying when you read a great book then see the film and the story is totaly different to the book!No because THE MOVIE has its own identity!!
Who says the movie has to be 100% like the book? It doesnt... I voted NO on the poll.....
Eleven year and seven months bump.
Impressive...
rogerdraig
20-02-2017, 21:38
i expect it is whether you read a lot or not . I with very few exceptions would always go with the book. 007 being my main exception and that only on they are really two different story lines with the films loosely based on the fantastic books). Followed lately by the series ( yep not really a film though they could rival many on content and effects ) Game of thrones where again i love the books but the adaptation is also great but different.
TheDaddy
21-02-2017, 01:36
Eleven year and seven months bump.
Impressive...
It's nice to be reminded of some of the old members who no longer visit for whatever reason every now and then, makes me remember how good it once was here!
Nothing like a slightly rose tinted view of the past. ;)
TheDaddy
21-02-2017, 07:27
Nothing like a slightly rose tinted view of the past. ;)
Well it wasn't me that had to deal with them :)
tweetiepooh
21-02-2017, 10:00
Just read through this and mostly books are better than the films. I found the films of LOTR and The Hobbit far inferior to the books and they changed too much or tried to fit in too much to stretch the films out. This was especially true of The Hobbit.
Books do have to spend lots of time in description because on film you can show fairly quickly what may take paragraphs or even pages to describe. Sometimes the description is important other times it is just padding. Often though it fits in to the literature of the author. You are meant to appreciate the skill of the writing not just the content.
Another thing that may need to be taken into account is the original readership. This is important for more classical or ancient works. The Bible was written to an oral society (though many could and did read) so it uses literary devices that to modern eyes can be quite dull, long lists of the form; and a was the father of b, and b was the father or c; where we as modern readers would prefer a form like; and here is the list of people father to son a,b,c... I use The Bible as an example because it's the one I know best but I am sure other works have other "non-modern" devices.
ThunderPants73
21-02-2017, 19:46
I picture everything I read in such great detail, sometimes I don't remember if it's a film I saw, or a book I read (and saw, in my mind, in HD, sometimes with CGI and subtitles). Actually I picture everything someone tells me too, which can be quite disturbing if they told me they had diarrhoea, or had sex, or showered, or indeed, all three. These are usually rated 18 and can be quite distressing if it's a colleague at work, who I don't really know all that well, but I kinda know them REALLY well, if you catch my drift.
Uncle Peter
21-02-2017, 21:56
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is a strange one. The book demands absolute concentration and focus to properly digest the complexity of the plot and you could be excused for giving up and putting it down. The original TV mini series on the other hand was infinitely more accessible without sacrificing any essential detail. It was no less than a triumph and a masterpiece, possibly the finest drama the BBC have ever made imho.
In a way that became the benchmark for what the big screen remake should have been. In comparison however, it fell way short of the mark despite the quality of the cast. There's far too much emphasis on fluffing up the story than building around the characters.
rogerdraig
22-02-2017, 19:04
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is a strange one. The book demands absolute concentration and focus to properly digest the complexity of the plot and you could be excused for giving up and putting it down. The original TV mini series on the other hand was infinitely more accessible without sacrificing any essential detail. It was no less than a triumph and a masterpiece, possibly the finest drama the BBC have ever made imho.
In a way that became the benchmark for what the big screen remake should have been. In comparison however, it fell way short of the mark despite the quality of the cast. There's far too much emphasis on fluffing up the story than building around the characters.
I agree a hard read ( though worth it ) and and excellent series
I read the book Total Recall (Arnie version) after seeing the film.
The film was novelized by Piers Anthony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Anthony). The novel and film correspond fairly well, although Anthony was evidently working from an earlier script than the one used for the film, and was criticized for the ending of his book which removed the ambiguity whether the events of Total Recall are real or a dream. In addition, the novel had a subplot wherein the aliens planted a fail-safe device within their Mars technology, so that if it were misused or destroyed, the local star would go nova and therefore prevent the species from entering the galactic community. It coincided with a comment earlier in the novel that astronomers were noticing an abnormal number of recent supernovae, giving an indication that the aliens seeded their tech as part of a galactic experiment in technological maturity. Instead of mentioning that he dreamt of her earlier in the film, Melina mentions she was once a model, explaining how Quaid could have seen her on the screen at Rekall.
having seen the film I could picture the book better.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.