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.
I agree with just about every example in this thread of cases where the movie is as better than the book. I'd add No Country for Old Men, The Road, Terms of Endearment, The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Wizard of Oz, and The Princess Bride.
In another thread, a poster ventures that Stephen King is a better storyteller than writer. I agree, and that's likely why his books/stories almost always come off better on screen: Misery, Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemption, Carrie, Green Mile, The Shining, etc.
Ditto James Bond movies.
Also imo many westerns were improved when they moved from book to the screen: Shane, Cat Ballou, The Searchers, and Lonesome Dove come to mind.
I agree with er'ythang..but Misery is a toss up. Book was killer, movie was killer.
I liked the No Country For Old Men movie, but it seriously misunderstood two key characters. The movie suggested the Chigurrh was a just a psychopath, and the sheriff bowed out because he was scared. That's a serious misunderstanding of both. The book was far, FAR better.
The only Bond book I ever read was Casino Royale, and yeah, it was a bit of a snoozer. Movie was better in every way.
I don't think the book is always better than the movie. A perfect example is "The Shining" everybody I know likes the movie better. I think that most people find the book better because it doesn't have the same constraints as the movie. There is no budget thus they can describe the moon exploding or an army of 2 million. Whereas as a movie has to try and create these scenes and it can get very expensive to do it right thus they cut corners and it never feels like the book. Also, it's very difficult to touch on everything in a movie that is slated to be 90-120 mins. Thus character development, back story and the plot line are either truncated or changed to fit the time parameters.
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?
I think you only see the movie if you liked the book. If you didn't like the book you wouldn't see the movie so the movie you do see is automatically competing with something you liked.
I don't think the book is always better than the movie. A perfect example is "The Shining" everybody I know likes the movie better. I think that most people find the book better because it doesn't have the same constraints as the movie. There is no budget thus they can describe the moon exploding or an army of 2 million. Whereas as a movie has to try and create these scenes and it can get very expensive to do it right thus they cut corners and it never feels like the book. Also, it's very difficult to touch on everything in a movie that is slated to be 90-120 mins. Thus character development, back story and the plot line are either truncated or changed to fit the time parameters.
The Shining is one of those examples where the book and the movie are equally good. However, Steven King's Shining is completely different than Stanley Kubrick's Shining. They're two separate animals, so if you can get over that in your head you can enjoy both. (I liked the book better, myself.)
The Shining is one of those examples where the book and the movie are equally good. However, Steven King's Shining is completely different than Stanley Kubrick's Shining. They're two separate animals, so if you can get over that in your head you can enjoy both. (I liked the book better, myself.)
Kubrick's movie is a masterful mood piece. But the characters are one dimensional, and there are no real surprises in the plot. Jack Nicholson looks crazy in scene 1. He looks crazy in his last scene. In between, he types a lot. And we even get the old "Indian burial ground" booga-booga that was old when Scooby Doo was new.
Kubrick was a master of cinematography and mood, but he's probably the coldest director of all time. He doesn't seem to have liked human beings, much less understood them.
The book The Shining, despite its flaws, has well drawn characters that grow throughout the story, a tight plot, some genuine scares, and manages to say something beyond the scares.
Well I think your theory is right, but it's also because they leave things out. Don't get me wrong, I do understand that they can't include everything in the movie. They do have a time limit. However, sometimes they take things out, and then they add other things that weren't in the books originally. I think that is what annoys me the most about it. I'll admit, I loved the Harry Potter books but I was never a fan of the movies even though I watched every single one in the theaters. I didn't enjoy the movies as much as the books.
I agree with just about every example in this thread of cases where the movie is as better than the book. I'd add No Country for Old Men, The Road, Terms of Endearment, The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Wizard of Oz, and The Princess Bride.
In another thread, a poster ventures that Stephen King is a better storyteller than writer. I agree, and that's likely why his books/stories almost always come off better on screen: Misery, Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemption, Carrie, Green Mile, The Shining, etc.
Ditto James Bond movies.
Also imo many westerns were improved when they moved from book to the screen: Shane, Cat Ballou, The Searchers, and Lonesome Dove come to mind.
I agree about 'No Country For Old Men'. You've seen the movie you may as well have read the book. In fact the movie is probably better and I don't say that very often.
'One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest' however was a far better book.
For me the book is generally better because for one, you can use your imagination to paint a mind's eye picture of what you are reading. For two, you can absorb the essence of the book at your OWN rate (can't do that with the movie). For three reading the book helps you with spelling, sentence structure when it comes time for you to put pen in hand and write anything (seeing words written, sentences put together). There are those occasions where the movie turns out to be better. And that may be in part because the book was dry, artistic license in making the movie more interesting( for instance the movie, Hamlet, and the written play). But for the most part I find the book to be better.
I agree with the comments posted previously regarding why books are better than film adaptations, "Ender's Game" being the most recent example. I did not think that Orson Scott Card would translate well to the screen because a primary virtue of his books are the depth of the character's thoughts, something hard to depict in a visual medium. The "Ender" movie seemed more like the comic book version of the novel.
But...sometimes the film has been better than the book. I would list "Fahrenheit 411" and "A Clockwork Orange" as far superior achievements to the novels upon which they were based. Also the film "Hud" was was much better than the McMurtry novel "Horseman Pass By" which was adapted into Hud.
And sometimes both are great. "The Godfather" was already mentioned and "To Kill a Mockingbird" was fantastic as a novel and as a movie.
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.
