Book ver Movie or series

[Luffy]

The list below has been compiled from this page:-

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/...he_BOOK?page=1


One that can swing either way is Gone with the Wind. Others that are more clear cut include:-

The Notebook
Fight Club
Forrest Gump
Jurassic Park
The Silence of the Lambs
Howl's Moving Castle
Brokeback Mountain
The Last of the Mohicans
The Bourne Identity
A Clockwork Orange
The Children of Men
Casino Royale
The Bridges of Madison County
Schindler's List
The Da Vinci Code
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Hours
No Country for Old Men
Trainspotting
The Virgin Suicides
How to Train Your Dragon
Dead Poets Society
Catch Me If You Can
MASH

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by curtw

If you're not familiar with the story, you should watch "Predestination" before reading "All You Zombies."

Jaws the movie is much better than the book.

Von Ryan's Express, they're pretty close, but the movie's ending is much more memorable.

A Scanner Darkly, the movie is as close to a literal adaptation as it's possible to get

Interesting, I liked the book of Von Ryan's Express better because of the ending. Different strokes.

I thought that the books for Jaws and the Godfather (mentioned by someone earlier) were quite good. I suspect that in general, a movie tends to be more impactful when both the book and movie are good.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by barryem

I read "Dr Zhivago" and then saw the movie and, while I liked the book I think the movie was far superior.

I sure can't agree with "The Maltese Falcon". I loved that book. I might agree that the movie was nearly as good.

I have a hard time comparing movies with books. They rarely have that much in common and when they do that's usually a strong mark against the movie. They're different art forms and different also in that a book is the creation of a single mind and a movie is a collaboration.

Anybody remember Allan Sherman? He had a line in his song "Peter and the Commissar" that covers this situation pretty well:
"There's a saying that is true as well as witty
that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee"

With that in mind I'm not sure I can agree about "Carrie" either. It was an excellent movie but I think the book was even better.

This is a good idea for a thread. I'm glad it was suggested.

Barry

The BBC TV series Dracula is better then the book. I've read the book and found the book to be hard to read. It's the way it was written.

A lot of old books are better on screen because they are hard to read. Jane Austen books are better on screen. I cannot stand to read her books.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Luffy

Casino Royale

The first version of Casino Royale was a farce. In no way was it even remotely better then the book.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The first version of Casino Royale was a farce. In no way was it even remotely better then the book.

The one with Daniel Craig then... sounds like a title from a Friends's episode, but yeah.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The first version of Casino Royale was a farce. In no way was it even remotely better then the book.

The soundtrack alone makes it the best Bond movie by far. At least, it's the only one other than "Live and Let Die" that I consider entertaining enough to be worth re-watching.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Apart from "Crazy Rich Asians", most of the suggestions are old. Are there no good recent movies based on books, or are they not known here?

I know nothing about recent movies, but then I realized I know very little about recent books anyway.

Originally Posted by Luffy

MASH

I thought of MASH; the problem is that none of them stand the test of time. The movie is arguably better than the book, although the scene with Sally Kellerman taking a shower just isn’t funny now. However, the tv show is deeply offensive, and I thought so at the time. It’s highly sanctimonious while at the same time making running jokes about sexual harassment, homosexuality and cross-dressing. I might be able to excuse the jokes as of their time if it weren’t for the show’s constant preaching and patting itself on the back for its high moral stand. Yeah, right.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A lot of old books are better on screen because they are hard to read.

I feel bad for you.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by John F

Yeah, that's the movie. I saw it a lot of times when I was younger, and a couple of times since, but it sticks in my mind. Whereas I read I Am Legend recently, and I've already forgotten a lot of it.

Come to think of it, I probably thought the recent I Am Legend movie was better than the book.

[ducks his head in shame]

Oh wow. From goofy to garbage. Remind me never to take movie suggestions from you

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A lot of old books are better on screen because they are hard to read. Jane Austen books are better on screen. I cannot stand to read her books.

I really wanted to read Ivanhoe but the further back in time you go the more turgid the English becomes. Take for example this sentence from that book:

In defiance of conventual rules, and the edicts of popes and councils, the sleeves of this dignitary were lined and turned up with rich furs, his mantle secured at the throat with a golden clasp, and the whole dress proper to his order as much refined upon and ornamented, as that of a quaker beauty of the present day, who, while she retains the garb and costume of her sect continues to give to its simplicity, by the choice of materials and the mode of disposing them, a certain air of coquettish attraction, savouring but too much of the vanities of the world.

The phrase "a tough row to hoe" was never more appropriate.

I never did understand the section in Strunk and White's The Elements of Style about passive writing but after trying to re-read some of these old books I decided that that's what the problem was with them; nonstop passive writing. But my confusion with passive writing was due to Strunk and White's bad examples; see https://thecriticalreader.com/bad-advice-about-the-passive-voice-from-strunk-and-white/

So now I'll just call it turgid writing.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The BBC TV series Dracula is better then the book. I've read the book and found the book to be hard to read. It's the way it was written.

A lot of old books are better on screen because they are hard to read. Jane Austen books are better on screen. I cannot stand to read her books.

I like older books. I've only read one by Jane Austen, "Pride and Prejudice" and I've seen a number of TV and movie versions of that and liked them all but I still think the book was better. I didn't find it at all hard to read.

I didn't see the Dracula BBC series and I haven't read the book so I can't compare those.

Barry

[barryem]

I read "Ivanhoe" a few decades ago. I don't recall any problems reading it. I didn't find that paragraph you quoted difficult to understand although it is a very long sentence with a lot of clauses and that requires a bit of focus. I see no problem with having to focus as I read.

I recently read A J Cronin's "Hatter's Castle", written in Scotland in 1931 and full of Scots slang, which is very unlike the American slang I'm accustomed to. It took some effort and required a lot of googling to learn the meaning of some of the words but it was an excellent book and well worth reading. I don't want a steady stream of that sort of thing but I'm glad I'm not too lazy to enjoy some of it.

Most of the books I read are more modern and use more local language that takes little effort to read and I enjoy that but sometimes I want to do a bit more work to enjoy a book.

Barry

[hobnail]

I envy you. There are many books that a lot of people enjoy but that make me yawn and start falling asleep. I wish I could read them.

[Pulpmeister]

There were two reasons why Houston's movie of "The Maltese Falcon" was so good: casting (Bogey and Sidney Greenstreet specially); and the fact that the dialogue and action were all direct from the book. What helped was that the book itself is quite short. Houston started with a different script, but quickly jettisoned it and used the book, cutting out just one book character and one scene (the cut character was Gutman's daughter). There've been three movie versions of "The Maltese Falcon", but nobody remembers the other two.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I really wanted to read Ivanhoe but the further back in time you go the more turgid the English becomes. Take for example this sentence from that book:
The phrase "a tough row to hoe" was never more appropriate.

I never did understand the section in Strunk and White's The Elements of Style about passive writing but after trying to re-read some of these old books I decided that that's what the problem was with them; nonstop passive writing. But my confusion with passive writing was due to Strunk and White's bad examples; see https://thecriticalreader.com/bad-advice-about-the-passive-voice-from-strunk-and-white/

So now I'll just call it turgid writing.

That passage is hard to read and even harder to enjoy. That's why the movie versions are better. It's because of the (as I call it) old fashioned writing. If it is passive voice, then forget writing in passive voice if you want a book that's readable.

It's not the story that's a problem. It's the way it's written. Dracula (for example) is dry and dull. It's told in letters and journal entries and is not scar at all. The book is dull.

Shakespeare is also an issue due to the writing and "Ye Old English" used back then. If that's the King's English, give me American English any time.