Book vs Movie thread

[frahse]

Originally Posted by MickiTee

Frank Herbert's Dune illustrates this exactly. David Lynch's film is a terrible adaptation of a superb book. Some years later there was an excellent TV mini series.

I consider the first Dune movie to be a masterpiece. The opening scenes with the 3rd stage Navigator are among the greatest I have ever seen.

The following movies, series, were "potboilers."

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The Magician (Lev Grossman)

The tv series just finished its first season and it's pretty good.

The book is terrible, and should not be read. It has no plot or story. Instead, it is a collection of Chekov's rifles; things happen, but they don't affect what happened before or after and are not referenced again later in the book.

The series "The Magicians" made my TV watch list, and at any period of time, only 3 or 4 do. I am pleased to see that it was a trilogy and will continue.

Right now only Game of Thrones, The Hunters, The Americans and a great (serious) reality series Alone are on that list.

[John F]

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

Saw the movie and than read the ebook.

I enjoyed both, but I liked the book more. I thought the different ending of the movie was a good choice for a popcorn flick.

The book provided a lot more background and more detail on the (over the top, compared to the current time) romance side. I also chuckled at some of the off color humor (for a "period piece").

[gmw]

Originally Posted by John F

Different Seasons by Stephen King (3/16) | The Shawshank Redemption (?80s?) - preferred the movie : Apt Pupil (haven't seen the movie) : Stand by Me - preferred the movie

Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me (the novellas were actually called "Rita Hayworth And Shawshank Redemption" and "The Body") are both wonderful novellas, and the movies made from these are among the best adaptations I have ever seen.

The casting for Shawshank Redemption wasn't an exact fit to the book, but it was a ideal fit for the movie. The casting for Stand by Me seemed, to me, just about perfect all around.

I really couldn't say which I preferred between the books and the movies in these two instances, both have their attractions. I am happy to revisit either the novellas or the movies just about any time.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by John F

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (10/14) | (???)

I loved the 1962 movie, with Gregory Peck - he was a perfect Atticus Finch! ... A wonderfully done movie, but even so, I still think the book is the better option to get the most from this story.

[gmw]

The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins

For the first two of the series I definitely prefer the books. ... But I didn't like the third book very much, I think the two movies made from it were a distinct improvement.

[gmw]

James Bond books - Ian Fleming

I haven't seen the more recent movies with Daniel Craig, but thoroughly enjoyed the tongue-in-cheek fun of the earlier movies. ... But there seems no point comparing those movies to the books, for most the only place the two met was in the title.

[Catlady]

Gone with the Wind is terrific as both novel and movie. The Princess Bride was a fun book that was made into an even better movie. I'd also give a slight edge to the movie version of The Godfather over the book.

The movie version of Psycho is light-years better than the book, thanks to the genius of Alfred Hitchcock. Ditto for Jaws--Steven Spielberg made it outstanding. Three Days of the Condor is also much better as a movie.

[John K]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Three Days of the Condor is also much better as a movie.

I read Six Days of the Condor earlier this month and agree Three Days is much better. James Grady did a good job especially for a first novel but it's darn near impossible to compete with the stage presence of Max von Sydow.

Markus Zusak might have done it with the character of Death in The Book Thief.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by John K

I read Six Days of the Condor earlier this month and agree Three Days is much better. James Grady did a good job especially for a first novel but it's darn near impossible to compete with the stage presence of Max von Sydow.

Markus Zusak might have done it with the character of Death in The Book Thief.

Interesting, the book was sold to Hollywood and the movie project was started before the book was actually published.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by John K

I read Six Days of the Condor earlier this month and agree Three Days is much better. James Grady did a good job especially for a first novel but it's darn near impossible to compete with the stage presence of Max von Sydow.

Markus Zusak might have done it with the character of Death in The Book Thief.

Well, don't forget the rest of the cast: Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Cliff Robertson, John Houseman. They were all excellent too.

[BookCat]

I recently read Fahrenheit 451 and have the DVD of the movie. As per normal (because I never remember plots) I wrote a review of the book which is basically a comparison of book and film. Here's the gist of it:

This is one of those instances where the film is better than the book. Although there are some beautifully poetic passages and strong writing - especially in which the rhythm varies according to the pace of the action - there are also some parts which are so tedious that I was tempted to give up but wanted to know the difference in the plot progression and character development as compared to the movie.

The characters are less clearly drawn but more complex in the book; naturally we see more of Montag's internal life, but the others seem to be mere ciphers, vehicles for Bradbury to express Montag's struggle. In the film I feel we know the others more fully.

(SPOILER ALERT) Clarisse survives in the film, which I prefer to her vaguely mentioned death in the book. The term Book People is used in the film and their function for the future is more clear, but less deeply defined - the book's ambition for them is far more profound. Nevertheless, I prefer the movie's more positive ending.
War is more of a feature of the novel, with the constant mention of jets flying overhead. At the end, the novel depicts full-scale annihilation of the city watched by the book-loving vagabonds who represent the future. The war is hardly mentioned in the film.

The reasons why reading has become neglected -> frowned upon -> banned seems more top down in the film, but in the book there's a passage which explains that the public just wanted quicker, easier, less deep or disturbing entertainment - the movement was bottom up. This give the book less of a Nazi-style book-burning theme and speaks to today's generation of video-gamers. Maybe Bradbury was reacting to the beginning of the television age, especially with the 'walls' being a development of t.v. which partly exists now with huge plasma screens.

Am I guilty of prefering the non-book society in finding the book deeper but less easily accessible and less pleasant to digest than the film? Maybe.

Sorry to subject MR to one of my reviews, but would be interesting to hear other's opinions on Fahrenheit 451 book vs movie.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by BookCat

I recently read Fahrenheit 451 and have the DVD of the movie. As per normal (because I never remember plots) I wrote a review of the book which is basically a comparison of book and film. Here's the gist of it:

This is one of those instances where the film is better than the book. Although there are some beautifully poetic passages and strong writing - especially in which the rhythm varies according to the pace of the action - there are also some parts which are so tedious that I was tempted to give up but wanted to know the difference in the plot progression and character development as compared to the movie.

The characters are less clearly drawn but more complex in the book; naturally we see more of Montag's internal life, but the others seem to be mere ciphers, vehicles for Bradbury to express Montag's struggle. In the film I feel we know the others more fully.

(SPOILER ALERT) Clarisse survives in the film, which I prefer to her vaguely mentioned death in the book. The term Book People is used in the film and their function for the future is more clear, but less deeply defined - the book's ambition for them is far more profound. Nevertheless, I prefer the movie's more positive ending.
War is more of a feature of the novel, with the constant mention of jets flying overhead. At the end, the novel depicts full-scale annihilation of the city watched by the book-loving vagabonds who represent the future. The war is hardly mentioned in the film.

The reasons why reading has become neglected -> frowned upon -> banned seems more top down in the film, but in the book there's a passage which explains that the public just wanted quicker, easier, less deep or disturbing entertainment - the movement was bottom up. This give the book less of a Nazi-style book-burning theme and speaks to today's generation of video-gamers. Maybe Bradbury was reacting to the beginning of the television age, especially with the 'walls' being a development of t.v. which partly exists now with huge plasma screens.

Am I guilty of prefering the non-book society in finding the book deeper but less easily accessible and less pleasant to digest than the film? Maybe.

Sorry to subject MR to one of my reviews, but would be interesting to hear other's opinions on Fahrenheit 451 book vs movie.

Or an LCD or an LED screen. All of which are huge now.

[Fbone]

I read the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon and recently saw the Broadway show. The show was much better. The lead actor was very good and the unique set really brought the workings of the autistic mind.

[David Welch]

Some throwbacks, Robert E. Howard's stories, both Conan and Solomon Kane. The stories are better, but the original Conan movie captured the spirit well, despite not being based on any specific stories. Solomon Kane movie took a similar route, but did a surprisingly good job capturing the serious tone of the character.