Book vs. Movie

[peteOcha]

So as most people usually say: "Oh the book was better than the movie", what I want to know is if there was a movie you liked better than the book?

Can't think of one off the top of my head, but i'm curious to see what everyone else will post.

[Dan Hocker]

That's a tough one for me. I tend to not judge a movie by the book or vice versa. I'll have to think about it and get back to ya.

[peteOcha]

Thought of one. Well, not really a movie but a tv series. Dexter. I didn't like the books at all (well, book actually. after reading the first one i stopped). However, I absolutely love the show!

[RJK1981]

I agree with you on Dexter. I do like the books, at least the 3 I read, haven't read the 4th one yet, though it is on my shelf, but love the show. The only issue I really have with the books is that the author tends to repeat some things that don't need to be. I suppose it is good in the sense that you can read the books out of order and be told about Dexter, but it gets old if you read them in order. I actually prefer the outcome of the first book in regards to a particular characters fate as far as whether that character lives or dies (won't mention names). Don't recall disliking anything else in particular at the moment though

[ozmosis7]

I think a lot of it depends on the bankroll behind a movie. Green Mile and Shawshank were good for me because of that bankroll. And because they were good, I was able to separate them form the book, as they were different. Same with The Postman, although it would have been interesting if they followed the book a bit more.

[RJK1981]

Bankroll can definitely play a part, but that can be good and bad. The DaVinci Code would be an example of that for me as I felt that bankroll was wasted on actors, though politics also got in the way with that one as well. Tom Hanks had no chemistry to me with the female lead, not to mention all the things changed for the movie. I might have actually enjoyed the movie if I hadn't read the book though. Still haven't seen Angels & Demons, which I thought was the better book between the 2.

[srboone]

That's a tough one for me. I tend to not judge a movie by the book or vice versa. I'll have to think about it and get back to ya.

I agree with Dan. Novelists and screen writers operate under much different constraints. Two of my favorite quotes about movies are:

1) Alfred Hitchcock: "Drama is real life with the boring parts taken out."

2) Howard Hawks: "It's easy to make a great movie. All you need are 3 good scenes and no silly scenes."

Most books I've read would fail both of these tests. I know a lot of King's would. But it would take the enjoyment out of them.

My favorite King book is The Shining, my favorite movie based on King's work is...The Shining. I think both are masterpieces of their media. Is one better than the other? They both scared the <bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep> outta me!

IT contains a lot of material that would fail the Hitch and Hawks tests, but that I wouldn't want changed. The miniseries was a compromise between the book and the constraints of it medium. While I mourned the loss of Richie Toziers all-dead Rock-n-Roll show, I accepted it as necessary--for the most part, it worked.

But, if I must, I would rather watch "Jaws" again,than read it again.

[mlouisdixon]

I honestly preferred the film Dead Zone over the novel. Jurassic Park was a better film than a novel. Dead Ringers was better than the novel Twins.
I'm sure I could come up with a few others.

Here's a good question: Are there any films you feel you must read the novel as well to fully appreciate? For instance, 2001 A Space Odyssey seemed to demand that the two were a set. I think I recall that they were created simultaneously.

MLD

[srboone]

Haven't read Twins--been meaning to, tho. Very good movie.

2001 is my favorite movie; I've never read the novel, but i did read "The Sentinel"-the short story 2001 was based on years later; it really didn't add anything to my enjoyment of the movie. I can't imagine 2001 the novel being necessary to my understanding of the film....

Good call on the Dead Zone.

The Jurassic Park films are interesting because, openning sequence of JP2 is actually the openning scene in the book Jurassic Park. And the aviary sequence which is the climax of JP3 is actually a chapter in the book Jurassic Park. I never read The Lost World, so I don't know after that.

[RJK1981]

From what I have been told about Jurassic Park the first 2 movies are backwards compared to how the books are ordered. This isn't really coming from me though as I have never read either of those books. I barely saw any of JP3, ended up falling asleep shortly into it, luckily it was free to go see it, lol. Didn't fall asleep from boredom though, was just extremely tired.

[bsaenz24]

Since I haven't read Silence of the Lambs since it came out, I can't be positive, but I believe I liked the movie as much as or close to as much as the book.

[RJK1981]

Since I haven't read Silence of the Lambs since it came out, I can't be positive, but I believe I liked the movie as much as or close to as much as the book.

I'm with you on that one, though it's been a long time since reading the book or seeing the movie. Need to revisit both of them at some point

[bsaenz24]

I'm with you on that one, though it's been a long time since reading the book or seeing the movie. Need to revisit both of them at some point

I watched the movie about a month ago. Still a great movie!!!

[jmcraven]

I distinctly recall leaving a movie and thinking that it was better than the book, but for the life of me I can't recall what it was... I'll think on it.

One scene, though, that stands out to me was from Shawshank- the scene where the warden is in Andy's cell after he comes up "missing" is better in the movie, IMO.

[jmcraven]

Since I haven't read Silence of the Lambs since it came out, I can't be positive, but I believe I liked the movie as much as or close to as much as the book.

That's interesting. I saw the movie first, loved it. Read the book (the first time) as part of a college English class focused on the SOTL, and since reading the book I have not been able to sit through the movie in it's entirety again.

I think a lot of this is due to the lack of backstory on Jack Crawford in the movie vs the book, PLUS Scott Glenn as Crawford was just a bad fit, IMO.