Films adaptions better than the book

[MrTeatime]

The Shining.

[fjtorres]

I dunno...
I've found comparing works in two different mediums can be tricky.

Movies are short-form narratives (at best comparable to short stories) mostly visual in focus. Novels are entirely different narratives built out of an entirely different toolkit, often aiming at more specialized and specific audiences than movies, which usually aim to be mass-market entertainment.

To me, movie adaptations of novels are akin to the CLASSICS ILLUSTRATED comics; enjoyable in their own right but not really representative of the quality of the work that inspired it. And its not quite fair to compare the visions of two different people working in different media even if one work is a derivative of another.

Bladerunner is an excellent movie but it is Ridley's Scott vision on the screen, not Philip K. Dick's. Dick inspired Scott, but what makes it great as a movie is what Scott brought to the work; his designs, the moods he evokes, the performances he coaxed out of the actors. Movies, let's not forget, are *collaborative* efforts. The actors, the designers, the soundtrack setting the mood and guiding the emotions are all tools the writer doesn't have to work with. Conversely, the writer has a collaborator in the person of the reader who directly translates the written work in purely personal terms. As a result, the impact of an evocative bit of quality wordsmithing can't always be translated to the screen.

Contrast the very first page of PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, whimsically and concisely presenting Harry's Dickensian upbringing, to the extended introductory scene that draws the viewer into the coming clash of worlds. One works out from Harry's room under the stairs, into the coming world of magic; the other works its way *in* from the viewer's world: *our* world.

What makes movies good, bad, or indifferent--as movies--is not to be found in the book that inspired them just as what makes a novel great often fails to translate from one medium to the other. For every successful, pleasing adaptation of a book there are easily a dozen failues and a hundred that barely get past the option stage. We're really talking about rarities here.

One movie I am eagerly awaiting is the upcoming adaptation of A PRINCESS OF MARS.
The adaptation comes from a team with an impressive pedigree and abundant resources and the trailer--when deconstructed and analyzed--offers hope of a pleasing experience. Yet it also warns not to expect a slavish translation: there are no moss-covered dead seas, but rather dust-covered desserts. John Carter speaks with a generic movie western accent, not the appropriate civil war era Virginia accent. The Tharns of the latter novels will be making an early appearance (obviously to set up the sequels). And the heroine, properly cast as a mature woman, is clearly going to be more active and adventurous than the haughty Princess of the novel.
Anybody going in expecting direct translation of the novel may be disappointed to find an *adaptation* to a different medium, a different audience, and a different era. Anybody enjoying the movie may find the novel to be somewhat...odd...

One trend that I am finding heartening is that with the recent evolution of *television* series, we're starting to see more novels and novel series adapted to TV. And the resulting product, typically 10-15 hours long, does come closer to translating (rather than adapting) the novels to video. There are still accomodations made (some amusing, others less so) but the longer-form medium does offer up the narrative "space" to bring in more of the tools and complexities of the better novels.

That is a trend I hope continues.

[xg4bx]

i'm a nerd yet i think the icons of "nerd culture" are mind-numbingly overrated. that includes star wars, star trek and yes, LotR (especially the book).

my reaction was much the same as hugo dyson's- "oh god, not another f-ing elf!" tom bombadil almost got the book thrown across the room.

like i said, the movies cut to the chase and got rid of the nonsense. oooh, another poem. how interest....zzzzzzzzz.


on the converse cutting to the chase can go too far and insult the source material i.e. Dune.

[AlexGrama]

I must admit, I always skip the poems while reading LoTR.

[Phogg]

The Princess Bride.
There was a lot of depressing stuff in the book.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I dunno...
I've found comparing works in two different mediums can be tricky...

I quite agree, and I'll offer another good example of the dichotomy between the two arts:

2001: A Space Odyssey was based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story. When Stanley Kubrick decided to make it a movie, he and Clarke collaborated on the expanded story. The result, I feel, are two different versions of the same story, a full novel by Clarke, and a film by Kubrick. Both are strong in their medium, but the differences between them are largely the differences between print and film media, and not really subject to a straight comparison.

Then there's Jurassic Park, by Michael Crichton: As well-executed as the original book was, better overall than the film, at the same time there is nothing in the book that presents the awe and beauty of many of the scenes in the film. I loved the book, but I cried when I saw the first long shot of dinos grazing by the lake. There really is no direct comparison, IMO.

[bill_mchale]

I am going to go with the Godfather. The book was ok, but there were just some scenes in the book that fully utilized the power of the visual medium. The baptism scene and the contrasts it presents is one that will stick in my head forever.

--
Bill

[heySkippy]

I think The Godfather and Jaws are the gold standard examples of so-so books turned into stellar movies.

Many of the other examples in this thread could be credibly argued one way or the other, but I don't think we'll see anyone posting that they though either of those books was better than the movie.

[Catlady]

I agree with the assessments of Jaws and Princess Bride being better in the movie versions--especially Jaws--but disagree on The Godfather, which was a terrific book that became a terrific movie.

Three Days of the Condor was a wonderful Robert Redford film, better than the James Grady novel Six Days of the Condor. I also enjoyed another Redford vehicle, The Hot Rock, much more than the Westlake book.

Even though I love Cornell Woolrich, Hitchcock's Rear Window is much better than the Woolrich story it was based on. And Hitchcock's Psycho is a vast improvement on the Robert Bloch novel.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Phogg

The Princess Bride.
There was a lot of depressing stuff in the book.

My favorite movie of all time! It could be because I met my husband due to that movie. I agree the book just wasn't that great then they came out with the goods part version. I still take the movie any day.

[Penforhire]

Good points about Jurassic Park and the 13th Warrior. I wouldn't say the movies were definitively "better" for me but both brought something more/different to the plate as noted by both posters.

It does seem rare to have any movie stand up to a film adaptation. Part of it is pure length. A long movie is something over two hours. Very roughly, a standard book reads in something over six hours. A film doesn't have time for the various character-building nuances and scenes of a good book.

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I quite agree, and I'll offer another good example of the dichotomy between the two arts:

2001: A Space Odyssey was based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story. When Stanley Kubrick decided to make it a movie, he and Clarke collaborated on the expanded story. The result, I feel, are two different versions of the same story, a full novel by Clarke, and a film by Kubrick. Both are strong in their medium, but the differences between them are largely the differences between print and film media, and not really subject to a straight comparison.

Then there's Jurassic Park, by Michael Crichton: As well-executed as the original book was, better overall than the film, at the same time there is nothing in the book that presents the awe and beauty of many of the scenes in the film. I loved the book, but I cried when I saw the first long shot of dinos grazing by the lake. There really is no direct comparison, IMO.

YES YES amd YES!!!! About Jurassic Park. My favorite scene in any movie ever. You pull back and it just all seemed so "real". Likr holy $&%# dinosaurs are real!! And coupled with the score, I still tear up.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

The theatrical releases have really bad pacing, the extended versions confirm as much since they're vastly superior. I mean it's not even close.

I'd say Fight Club was clearly better as a movie although I loved the book. Coraline for me worked better as a movie, again no slight to the book.

[sonofpendragon]

The Thirty Nine Steps, all bar one film version are different yet better than the books. This is because (and like the football score announcer if this classic is on your list of still to read - look away now). . .

In the book, the 39 steps turn out to be. . . 39 steps! It is a sort of an extra assurance that the baddies will find their comrades on the jetty.

Ok, nowt wrong with them just being steps, but when you watch the films first and see the writers come up with all sorts of fantastic variations, then to then read about a mossy old stinky set of stone steps on a jetty is an anti-climax.

[church mouse]

I wonder if it matters whether one sees the film before reading the book?

I saw the Swedish film Let The Right One In before reading an English translation of the book. The book was merely ok, but the film was my film of that year.

Is it sacrilege to venture that, much as I love the book, the Bogart "A Maltese Falcon" is better? (Saw the film on TV as a kid long before I got my hands on the book)