Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is more detail in the books. Of course a movie is limited so you can't expect everything from the book to be shown However, it is frustrating when the movie adaptation leaves out key elements. That said there are certain books in which the movie adaptation is better than the actual book itself. I didn't care for Forrest Gump the novel, but I absolutely loved the movie.
HAHA: the poster above me already mentioned Forrest Gump and I didn't even see it!
Last edited by TexasColoradoOhio; 01-19-2014 at 06:20 AM..
Reason: Just noticed something familiar in the post above me
Jurassic Park was a butchered version of the book but just as entertaining, IMO.
I agree. However, I don't think that most movie goers would have dealt with the technical details that went into the book.
The Help was unreadable to me (and the movie was boring as heck), but I got through the movie much better. I was the opposite for the movie and the book. I really enjoyed the book, but the movie was "meh" to me.
The first Harry Potter actually bored me because it was like revisiting a place that already existed in my head. I felt like they were almost too word-for-word...honestly, it speaks well of the movie's makers, because I literally had those scenes in my head before ever seeing that movie. Not to mention the characters were very well cast. But it was 3 hours of reading the book all over again and it kind of took away some of the excitement.
This is exactly why I enjoyed the movie! The first two movies that were directed by Chris Columbus was so well done and matched my mental movie. I felt that I was in the book again.
The worst book adaptations that I remember watching are Congo and the Stand. I LOVED both novels. Congo scared the crap out of me reading it, but there wasn't any anticipation in the movie. The Stand just was awful all around as a movie, they didn't spend nearly enough money on it to bring it to life.
Another excellent adaptation is A Christmas Carol, my favorite is the one with Patrick Stewart.
Yeah, I definitely don't think you can throw a blanket statement over movies made from books and come up with something accurate.
Two entirely different forms of storytelling.
I do prefer to put some distance between reading the book and seeing the movie (regardless of which I do first) so I'm not spending the entire time nitpicking the details.
For me it is more about capturing the overall essence of the experience.
In a way, the OP is right, because the medium of film is inherently visual, so there's a lot more showing than telling in the movie experience. A lot of times when I feel like a movie is lacking it's because in a novel, the narrator (either first person or omniscient) is telling you as a reader a lot about what the characters are seeing and feeling and thinking and remembering, and there's really no way to convey that to screen without clunky voice overs or exposition.
The books that really stand out in my mind as being much, much better than the films are by Stephen King. The Shining in particular was an incredible read--I could not put it down. Kubrick or not, I thought the film was just 'flat' compared to the book. Also The Stand, which I loved, compared to the miniseries was not even close--I know miniseries are not films, but it had some big names attached. I heard The Stand is being made into a film, but I am not getting my hopes up--it was such a great book.
My theory regarding Stephen King is that his books contain a huge amount of dialog that takes place in people's heads, and King excels at this. It simply cannot be translated into a film. Even when King is involved in the films--they just do not translate well from the books, which are always better. I would love to see someone do Stephen King's books justice in a film, but do not expect it to happen.
After reading the Godfather, I swore I'd never watch the movie.
That's how brilliant the book was.
Fifteen years later, I just happened to have insomnia one night....it was a Godfather marathon.
I was stunned that I actually liked the movie, almost an much as the book.
Part two was even better....
That being said- I read Interview With A Vampire- incredible book,
but I'll never watch that movie- what a joke .....
One book I absolutely think would make a spellbinding movie is Devil In The White City-
not likely to happen anytime soon
For years I couldn't understand why people are so insistent on claiming the book is better than the movie. I just figured it out, and I feel stupid now for not thinking of this sooner.
When you read a book you are creating a new world that is yours. The story is being told, but YOU are building a mental-movie of it as you read. So, when the movie version comes out and it's not the way YOU seen it, then automatically you are turned off by it.
Chances are the Director shot the movie in the way that he created it in his mind as he read the book.
Just something I have been fascinated with. Why do you think people tend to like the book better? Is my theory legit?
Honestly, I love seeing the creation of the book on the screen. What I dislike sometimes is that so many liberties are taken with the script. I understand that the book and screen are two different mediums, and the writers have to fit it into a two-hour window (or a few hours if it's a series), but sometimes it's just so different that it doesn't even seem like the same book. Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining was like that for me. It seemed like the bones of the story was there, but so much was changed it just didn't seem right. If it wasn't for the stellar performance of Jack Nicholson, that movie would have bombed.
Another thing for me is that with a book, you are completely immersed. You know the character(s) thoughts, actions, and backstory in so much more detail that it's frustrating to see how much is left on the cutting room floor by the filmmakers.
The books that really stand out in my mind as being much, much better than the films are by Stephen King. The Shining in particular was an incredible read--I could not put it down. Kubrick or not, I thought the film was just 'flat' compared to the book. Also The Stand, which I loved, compared to the miniseries was not even close--I know miniseries are not films, but it had some big names attached. I heard The Stand is being made into a film, but I am not getting my hopes up--it was such a great book.
My theory regarding Stephen King is that his books contain a huge amount of dialog that takes place in people's heads, and King excels at this. It simply cannot be translated into a film. Even when King is involved in the films--they just do not translate well from the books, which are always better. I would love to see someone do Stephen King's books justice in a film, but do not expect it to happen.
Ha, I posted my other comment before reading yours. We agree. I did like The Stand a little better than Kubrick's The Shining. It was pretty low budget and obviously a tv series, but at least it had enough time to follow the book a little better.
Your explanation for why King's books don't make better movies is pretty good. Oddly, some of the best movies are based on his short stories (Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me).
It can go either way. IMO the book needs to be read first because a movie can ruin a book more than book can ruin a movie. In other words, I'll watch a movie if I've read a book first, but I won't read a book if I watched the movie first. I won't sit down and read a book already knowing the ending, but I will watch a movie knowing the ending. Plus, I don't like the idea of the movie's images being stuck in my mind while I'm ready a book. In that regard the OP is right. I prefer my own imagination because I have a good one!
It can go either way. IMO the book needs to be read first because a movie can ruin a book more than book can ruin a movie. In other words, I'll watch a movie if I've read a book first, but I won't read a book if I watched the movie first. I won't sit down and read a book already knowing the ending, but I will watch a movie knowing the ending. Plus, I don't like the idea of the movie's images being stuck in my mind while I'm ready a book. In that regard the OP is right. I prefer my own imagination because I have a good one!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
