Book vs. Movie
 

Which do you find better?

Movie is quicker and is pleasing to the eye.

Book allows you to use your imagination.

Any thought? Any examples where one is better than the other?

People will submit a list ten miles long of books better than movies, but for the reverse, I submit THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, sappy schlock in print but a transcendant, profound story on celluloid. Though hardcore fans may blanch, I was actually astonished to find that virtually every single alteration made to the original text of THE LORD OF THE RINGS (e.g. axing Tom Bombadil; having Frodo and Sam actually go to Osgiliath, etc.) was an improvement and welcome enhancement to Tolkien's original work.

I find it to be a case to case basis. There are some that I like the movies more than the books -- LOTR being the primary example. Then there are those where the movies aren't even a single iota close to the books -- Cuaron's Azkaban for one. Then there are those that the books and movies both work in their respective mediums like "A Walk to Remember".

So I'm not going to give a blanket statement that I prefer one over the other.

There are some definite examples of movies that are even better than the books they were based off of: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Battlefield: Earth, and Sphere coming to mind pretty readily.

Hmm, your right its nearly always the books that win. I have to give special props to LOTR franchise for way it respected and treated the material. I only wish HP series did this and had extended edition dvds and such.

I do have to say, I enjoyed the lastest film adaption of The Count of Monte Cristo more then book. Yes the aspect of revenge was not as well developed but the changes to characters I found alot more interesting and not so boring as 1200 novel that prattled on.

I agree on LOTR. Also, what about movies and books that are both good, but have almost nothing in common except for Character names?

"L.A. Confidential" the movie was great but it looks nothing like the book. However, both are good.

I agree about The Count of Monte Cristo. The Last of the Mohicans is that way too, imo. I like the theatrical version of the movie but it is a boring, wretched book (no wonder Mark Twain felt compelled to write about "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses")

:sad:

One movie I can remember liking as much as the book was Deloris Claiborne. Normally I hate it when they change anything major to the plot, but the addition of the daughter, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, who was mentioned in the book but not a part of the plot except for a brief mention of her coming back to town at the end was a welcome change to the film giving the plot a bit more emotional resonance and allowed the audience to see the two grow closer together when it was only hinted at in the book.

Most changes Hollywood make to books are instead to simplify and give things a statisfactory ending that'll be acceptable to test audiences. I remember being furious after seeing Circle of Friends- I had picked the book for some summer reading just before seeing the film and the film ruined what I saw as the whole point of the book

I go case by case as well. Some books are good like Jurassic Park, but the words on the page just couldn't compete with the mindgasm I had when seeing those special effects on the big screen for the first time. So that is a case of the movie being more powerful to me, but the two working together nicely where the book expanded on the world. Also Misery was a good book, but Kathy Bates really took a hold of the character and brought that to life. So again the movie was more powerful to me. Fight Club is another one that did a good job, but I bet half of the people that saw that movie don't even know a book exists.

But those are exceptions and not really the rule I find. The Alex Cross (with Morgan Freeman) movies are ok but if you read the books, they look like huge piles of steaming shit. This was a victim of that dumbing down <b>Tscott</b> is talking about. Granted these books aren't deep, but the movies practically stripped all of the drama away to make it your standard Ashley Judd type mystery movies (I can enjoy those movies, but this should have been something more).

I definitely tend to favor books.

I would agree case by case. I loved reading Blood Work, but the movie was kind of dull and I did not like the changes made. One of the few times that the movie did justice to the book was Silence of the Lambs. LOTR did a great job from book to the big screen. I was extremely disappointed with the movie Prisoner of Azkaban, my favorite book in the Harry Potter series.

Sphere :hscratch:

God-damn, son...

I agree 100% about leaving Tom Bombadil out of the movie. Whenever I read FOTR I start at At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

The one example of a movie being better than the book that immediately springs to mind is The Princess Bride. I was so eager to read the book because I loved the movie so much. The book was total garbage, I couldn't finish it. Very dry, very boring.

That is interesting to know as I adore the movie and always thought I get around to reading the book. Guess I dont have to now!

Are you in bizarro world?

Well don't just take my word for it and avoid it... opinions always vary. I'd say that you should try and rent the book from your library or something... just don't do what I did and pay for a brand new hardcover :)

Of course I've yet to run into anyone that likes the book more than the movie. Some have gone as far to say it was "OK," but no one would say it matched up with the film.

Something about that movie is just magical. In all the years it's been out, I've only met 2 people that didn't like it.

Well I suppose I could come up with some more "popular" examples, but those were the ones that I thought of first. I could mention Cat in the Hat, but it's based off of a children's story so it's not too hard to improve on that. There's also I, Robot but that one stars the delightful Will Smith, and I think everyone would agree that any movie he's in would surpass the book it was based on.

The majority of I, Robot wasn't based on the book, though...most of it was based on a screenplay called "Hardwired". Only a few of Asimov's original story ideas were kept in the plot.

Your sarcasm is finally recognized, oh dryly humorous one.

Was it my use of the word delightful? :(

My favorite movie adaptations are ones that compliment the books, I'm not sure if I've ever seen one that I actually enjoyed more than the book (I've never read The Princess Bride though). Lord of the Rings and Jurassic Park did a fantastic job bringing the stories to life visually, but I'll always enjoy the added depth I get from the novels (although LotR has as much story depth as I ever could have imagined from a screen adaptation of the series).

Speaking of Asimov stories, I would enjoy a movie adaptation of The Caves of Steel, provided they didn't try and turn it into a big budget action movie.

I'm very leery of the talk of a film version of Ender's Game. If it stayed true to the story then it would need a number of high quality child actors and I shudder to think of someone of Jake Lloyd's caliber in a prominent role. They missed the boat by not doing this when Haley Joel Osment was young enough, he would have made a great Ender in my opinion.

I caught on that his original post must have been sarcastic when it listed Battlefield: Earth as a movie better than the original book. I mean, that's like comparing two turds. Yes, one turd might be slightly better than the other turd, but when all is said and done, it's still just two turds.

I thought it might be, but I wasn't sure. I was thrown off because I've only read Hitchhiker's Guide and seen the movie of Battlefield Earth, so I have no basis for comparison. I've read and seen Sphere, but couldn't tell you a thing about either one--they were incredibly forgetable.

The idea that someone could think Battlefield Earth is a good movie is strange, but I know someone who thinks it's great in an Ed Wood sort of way. Even though I didn't like the movie, the slow-mo-noooooo at the beginning was pretty classic.

Off the top of my head I think Relic was the worst movie that came from a book. I remember being excited when I heard it was coming out in theatres...and then I saw the movie. Completely disappointed.