Book or Film

[Zimmerman]

Following on from this post in the other thread, seemed like a good topic in its own right;

Is the film ever better than the book?

Maybe the book is the deciding factor then - I really enjoyed it and the level of detail it allowed far surpassed the film.

I'm struggling to think of an example when this isn't the case;

The Beach and Silence of the Lambs were both very well done.
Trainspotting was very well done, but quite different to the book. All three were brilliant films and did the books justice. But I've still preferred the books in each case.

[Zimmerman]

The Beach - done well, but preferred the book
Silence of the Lambs - done well, but preferred the book
Red Dragon - book
Hannibal Rising - book
Hannibal - book
Empire of the Sun - book
Let the Right one in - done well, but preferred the book
American Pysco - book
Strip Tease - book
Trainspotting - done well, but preferred the book
Crow Road - book
Complicity - book
One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest - done well, but preferred the book
Fever Pitch - book
Donne Brasco - par
Commitments - book
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - book
Atonement - par

[Zimmerman]

Goodfellas!!!! I think I preferred the film

[Arch Stanton]

With me it depends which one I have seen/read first.

I prefer Stand by Me to The Body and the same goes for The Shawshank Redemption over Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. I think it is because on the occaisions where I have seen the film first it has acted as a sort of a spoiler when it came to reading the book.

Having said that, I also prefer The Shining film to the book - although in that case the film doesn't follow the story as faithfully as Stand by Me or The Shawshank Redemption.

Despite those examples I generally think books are better just because you get more insight into how the character's think which is harder to convey in a film. Films like Blade Runner have used narration as a way of filling in the blanks but it is not the same. I like to know every corner of why the characters do what they do and nothing beats a book in that respect.

Anyway...

Stand by Me - Film
The Shawshank Redemption - Film
The Shining - Film
A Clockwork Orange - The Film
The Godfather - Same
The Bone Collector - Book
Blood Work - Book
Bonfire of the Vanities - Book

They are only examples I can think of off the top of my head.

[blahblah]

With me it depends which one I have seen/read first.

This probably, but the book is more likely to still be better.

I can't say that I enjoyed reading Great Expectations as a kid, though.

[Wiz]

Films are adaptations, filling in the gaps left by the author for you to imagine yourselves and hacking out characters/scenes that don't translate well to the screen.

Playwrights were the equivalent of script writers so, better than the book....

Cyrano de Bergerac (no subs)
Ran
Titus
Glengarry Glen Ross
Romeo and Juliet
Merchant of Venice
Hamlet
The taming of the shrew

[andycoull]

Debbie does Dallas ?

[Jagduracell]

I'm with Arch Stanton on the Stephen King shorts (Shawshank and Stand by Me) but other than the Godfather I can't think of any other films that I like better than the book. I loved Moneyball as a film but the book catered to my geeky need for facts and figures so preferred that.

Same with all the recent fantasy adaptations (Harry Potters/Lord of the Rings/Lion, witch and wardrobe etc) Books were better by a country mile.

[Ave a banana]

One of my all time favorite films is Once Upon a Time in America, which is based on the book The Hoods by Harry Grey.

The film is far more superior to the book IMO.

[el_pappje]

Jurassic Park is a cracking book - if they'd made one film based on that, rather than spreading the ideas over 3.....totally different outlook than the box office film mantra.

[Wiz]

As much as I love The Godfather film, I still want to see Johnny and Nino's story which is completely cut out.

I suppose the only way to do a book any real justice is to get HBO to do the series and have last say on the script etc, like George RR Martin and his Song of Ice and Fire.

We ought to have a thread on which film fell so far short of the book that it was embarrassing to watch after about 5mins.

Robert Heinlein's excellent Starship Troopers to start

[Spencer4]

How about The Da Vinci Code?

The film was watchable, just about, but I hear the book is appalling.

[Pincher]

I try not to do both, but it happens on occasion. The standout example of a better film, for me, and always has been, is Stephen King's Misery - a very rare example as most adaptations of the horrormeister are atrocious. In this case, while the central story of the book is good, and fairly similar to the movie, there are lots of chapters of the book within the book that don't add anything for me - it really feels like he had 120 page novella and the publishers told him to fill it out. Thought Kathy Bates does a fantastic job as the psycho "Number One Fan" - rightfully getting the Oscar for the performance.

The Shining is pretty good - perhaps equal to the book, though pointed out above, it doesn't follow the story perfectly faithfully, but then again cinema is a completely different medium from the written word.

[el_pappje]

How about The Da Vinci Code?

The film was watchable, just about, but I hear the book is appalling.

I got sucked into the hype and read the book. It was badly written (if Ihad a penny for every time a car was "gunned up the street", I'd be filthy rich) but did keep the pages turning.

I haven't been fussed to watch the film which I've heard to be inferior to the book.

[Wiz]

Stephen King's books are so varied it's hard to make them all into great films, I agree with the ones mentioned above.

Shawshank Redemption
Stand by me
Misery
+Carrie
+The Green Mile

But so many bad ones, Christine, Cujo, Salem's lot, Firestarter and worst of all The Running Man.

I've always wanted to see The Long Walk made into a film though so I might be a bit weird.

[murf]

How about The Da Vinci Code?

The film was watchable, just about, but I hear the book is appalling.

I got sucked into the hype and read the book. It was badly written (if Ihad a penny for every time a car was "gunned up the street", I'd be filthy rich) but did keep the pages turning.

I haven't been fussed to watch the film which I've heard to be inferior to the book.

Yes the books are crap but very readable crap which really keeps the pages turning. Books are inferior, partly because Tom Hanks isn't quite how I imagined the character.

[Wiz]

How about The Da Vinci Code?

The film was watchable, just about, but I hear the book is appalling.

I got sucked into the hype and read the book. It was badly written (if Ihad a penny for every time a car was "gunned up the street", I'd be filthy rich) but did keep the pages turning.

I haven't been fussed to watch the film which I've heard to be inferior to the book.

So much hype sometimes you feel like you're missing out, 50 Shades of Grey anyone?, have they just taken 'O' and the Marquis de Sade and bought them into the 21st Century?

The films will be next just like the Twilight lunacy and Hunger Games Japanese rip offs.

With both I read the first, and the first couple of chapters of the second and felt a bit dumber after each.

[Billy Whiz]

Mostly books win, but sometimes setting, acting, tone and atmosphere can improve on the written word. The film of A Room With a View is even better than EM Forster's original - and I like the book. The BBC's adaptation of Trollope's Barchester Chronicles and Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga (the remake with Damian Lewis and Gina McKee) were superb - for me, far more accessible and involving than the books. Possibly because they were made for a contemporary audience, but no harm in that.

[Wiz]

Mostly books win, but sometimes setting, acting, tone and atmosphere can improve on the written word. The film of A Room With a View is even better than EM Forster's original - and I like the book. The BBC's adaptation of Trollope's Barchester Chronicles and Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga (the remake with Damian Lewis and Gina McKee) were superb - for me, far more accessible and involving than the books. Possibly because they were made for a contemporary audience, but no harm in that.

I'd add The importance of being earnest and Pride and Prejudice (1995) to that list if only to put faces to familiar characters, probably just as guilty pleasures though.

[Razorback]

Stephen King's books are so varied it's hard to make them all into great films, I agree with the ones mentioned above.

Shawshank Redemption
Stand by me
Misery
+Carrie
+The Green Mile

But so many bad ones, Christine, Cujo, Salem's lot, Firestarter and worst of all The Running Man.

I've always wanted to see The Long Walk made into a film though so I might be a bit weird.

Cronenberg's 'The Dead Zone' is a fantastic Stephen King adaptation...

[Wiz]

Stephen King's books are so varied it's hard to make them all into great films, I agree with the ones mentioned above.

Shawshank Redemption
Stand by me
Misery
+Carrie
+The Green Mile

But so many bad ones, Christine, Cujo, Salem's lot, Firestarter and worst of all The Running Man.

I've always wanted to see The Long Walk made into a film though so I might be a bit weird.

Cronenberg's 'The Dead Zone' is a fantastic Stephen King adaptation...

Walken was great, but as good as the book?, I didn't think so, the build up to the finale is so much more dramatic in the book as it calls on more than just sight and sound inside his brain.

There's a book similar to it as well called The Dark Half, which I don't think was made into a film but worth a read anyway.

[Flyman]

'Apocalypse Now' is an interesting case.
I think the film is fantastic but it is based on two books, each excellent, too, but from very different places and times, i.e. Jospeph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness" (Africa, 1900s) and Michael Herr's 'Dispatches' (American/Vietnam War).

As a fusion of the two the film is seamless, I'd go as far as to say the result of the synthesis is more enjoyable than either book alone but better than the combined enjoyment from reading both books ....? I wouldn't like to say.

[Jagduracell]

Stephen King's books are so varied it's hard to make them all into great films, I agree with the ones mentioned above.

Shawshank Redemption
Stand by me
Misery
+Carrie
+The Green Mile

But so many bad ones, Christine, Cujo, Salem's lot, Firestarter and worst of all The Running Man.

I've always wanted to see The Long Walk made into a film though so I might be a bit weird.

Cronenberg's 'The Dead Zone' is a fantastic Stephen King adaptation...

Walken was great, but as good as the book?, I didn't think so, the build up to the finale is so much more dramatic in the book as it calls on more than just sight and sound inside his brain.

There's a book similar to it as well called The Dark Half, which I don't think was made into a film but worth a read anyway.

Loved the Dark Half and they did make it into a film which I never got round to watching. Think it was a straight to video effort to be honest.

[murf]

'Apocalypse Now' is an interesting case.
I think the film is fantastic but it is based on two books, each excellent, too, but from very different places and times, i.e. Jospeph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness" (Africa, 1900s) and Michael Herr's 'Dispatches' (American/Vietnam War).

As a fusion of the two the film is seamless, I'd go as far as to say the result of the synthesis is more enjoyable than either book alone but better than the combined enjoyment from reading both books ....? I wouldn't like to say.

I'm possibly the only person who thinks Apocalypse Now is crap.

I had read Heart Of Darkness first and it is pretty good, but I'm not sufficiently precious about it to hate the film on that basis. The revised setting (and story!) means it isn't really 'the film of the book' anyway.

[Wiz]

I've always prefered Bond and Bourne types on paper but what about the great Alec Guinness as George Smiley?

I'd quite happily make a case for the BBC's 1979 adaptation of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' being better than the book, (I preferred Forsyth's writing style) even though I secretly wanted him to come out with 'These are not the droids you're looking for'

The only other one I'd like to see done properly is Arkady Renko, Gorky Park wasn't done very well and he's a great character.

[Surprised]

The book 2001:Space Odyssey helped to to understand the film of the same name

[bigsheff]

I'm usually a book man, one of few I can think of where I favour the film is Man on fire, with denzel Washington.

[golden bear]

I'm possibly the only person who thinks Apocalypse Now is crap.

No, you're not. Made no sense to me. Director's vanity project that was simply boring.

[Wiz]

I'm possibly the only person who thinks Apocalypse Now is crap.

No, you're not. Made no sense to me. Director's vanity project that was simply boring.

Kubrik's pet project was so much better. Although from a novel, has anybody ever heard of it?

The Short Timers?

[Pouzar]

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is definitely better than the book by B. Traven. I like Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath but think John Ford's version, starring Henry Fonda is even more powerful. Kubrick's Lolita is excellent, but Nobokov's novel is even better. I vastly prefer the film Jaws to the book by Benchley and the film Deliverance to the book by Dickey, which is also very good. Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon and John Huston's film with Bogie as Sam Spade are equally brilliant. Same with Chandler's The Big Sleep and the Howard Hawks film with Bogie and Bacall. I also love both Chandler's The Long Goodbye and Altman's film version which uses Eliot Gould to hilariously deconstruct the private eye film, although they are almost totally different. Another tie.