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.
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.
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.
CD Email: danhocker@cemeterydance.com
Non-Work related social media and what not:
Buy my stuff! - https://www.etsy.com/shop/HockersWoodWorks
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!
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
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.
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.
I agree with Dan. Novelists and screen writers operate under much different constraints. Two of my favorite quotes about movies are:Originally Posted by Dan Hocker
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.
Last edited by srboone; 06-13-2011 at 11:49 PM.
"I'm a vegan. "
---Kirby Bliss Blanton , The Green Inferno (2013)
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
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.
"I'm a vegan. "
---Kirby Bliss Blanton , The Green Inferno (2013)
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.
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
I watched the movie about a month ago. Still a great movie!!!
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.
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.
Last edited by jmcraven; 06-15-2011 at 04:29 AM.
I usually like the books better than the movie based off of a book. I think it interferes with the creativity process, once I see a movie the character image I'd created based off of the books description is trashed.
I'm sure I am in the minority, but I like Stephen Kings movies better than his books. He's a little too descriptive for me. but I love the movies!!!
I actually have a friend who feels that way as well about King. I personally love him being descriptive, allows me to get to know the characters more, but can understand that some might want less
I got to thinking about the 2001 film vs novel idea and decided to do a bit of research. I thought I'd read something about this back in high school. Here is an exerpt of the Wikipedia article:
__________________________________________________ ______
Parallel development of film and novelization
The collaborators originally planned to develop a novel first, free of the constraints of a normal script, and then to write the screenplay; they envisaged that the final writing credits would be "Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" to reflect their preeminence in their respective fields.[27] In practice, however, the cinematic ideas required for the screenplay developed parallel to the novel, with cross-fertilization between the two. In a 1970 interview with Joseph Gelmis, Kubrick explained it this way:
"There are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film...I think that the divergences between the two works are interesting."[28]
In the end, the screenplay credits were shared while the novel, released shortly after the film, was attributed to Clarke alone, but Clarke wrote later that "the nearest approximation to the complicated truth" is that the screenplay should be credited to "Kubrick and Clarke" and the novel to "Clarke and Kubrick".[29]
__________________________________________________ __________
MLD
Another interesting point about 2001, the book. Based on the early treatment, the book takes place in orbit around Saturn. The cost for the special effects of Saturn ended up being prohibitive as compared to using Jupiter, so Kubrick went with Jupiter, even though the book kept the Saturn setting. Many years later, when the theory of water under the surface the moon of Europa came out, Clarke used that idea as the leaping point of 2010, in essence making a sequel to the movie, not his own novel.
One thing about the book that was so helpful was Clarke's pointing out that the aliens created the monoliths as a means of stimulating intellectual growth in underdeveloped species. Kubrick made the point with the apes, but a lot of people lost that idea with Dave's trip. Plus I love the passage of the book that describes the aliens and their plan.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote