Are books better than the movie? - Page 2

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.

Xaccers · 16-07-2005, 22:03

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.

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

Mal · 16-07-2005, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by homealone

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by makikomi

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.

Mal · 16-07-2005, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

The idea was developed from The Sentinel - a Clarke short story. It was interesting to see how the idea developed into the film/novel

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.

Stuart · 17-07-2005, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

The idea was developed from The Sentinel - a Clarke short story. It was interesting to see how the idea developed into the film/novel

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

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/...420301-2371662

Halcyon · 17-07-2005, 11:26

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.

Jules · 17-07-2005, 11:42

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!

Mal · 17-07-2005, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

If you want to read it, you can get it (and some other short storys) from here...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...420301-2371662

Thanks for that. I might give it a go.

Graham · 17-07-2005, 22:49

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.

Dude111 · 20-02-2017, 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules

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.....