Films adaptions better than the book

[Sil_liS]

Most of the titles on this thread I didn't consume in book form because I wasn't aware that the books existed. So thanks to the OP for posting this.

The ones that I did read are The Shining, The Princess Bride, LotR and yes, the Twilight series. For me The Shining was better as a book because it is more exciting, The Princess Bride was better as a book because the humor was better, LotR was better as a book because movies can't seem to express the passing of time in the right way. I read the Twilight series because I've seen the movie and I decided that the book can't be as bad because of one line (I'm paraphrasing): her name is Italian so she must like pasta. The book is like the diary of a self-involved teenager, but the movie is like a vampire parody that is taking itself seriously.

[AlexGrama]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I avoided seeing the movies for the longest time. But I broke down, I watched them and they may very well be the greatest thing ever. Not as a telling of Tolkien's epic story, oh no. But as costume porn.

Costume porn?

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

LotR is probably a very good example why comparing movie to book won't always work. You can like one and not the other or both or none. If the book is better then it does not automatically make the movie bad.

Good point and quite true. But on the other hand, assuming the movie won't be as good as the book does seem a safe enough bet!

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by AlexGrama

Costume porn?

Did you look at the costumes? The detail, oh the detail, and the dun designs, I still need to at some point make myself a sheildmaiden of Rohan costume. Paisley shift with 9 rows of pintucks, the epically full sleeves held in place and with the bottoms held up by braided cord around the upper arm, brown vest with the rows of tiny embroidered leaves done in gold and over that the brown quilted corset with the same little gold leaves, several rows of them along the top.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by AlexGrama

I'm still asking myself why do I see Lord of the Rings on this list. You can't compare the depth of the book with the movie. Don't get me wrong, the movie was great but the book was more than that.

I loved the ents scene in the movie. However, when I read it in the book, I kept turning the page and thought, we are still here?

My husband loves Tolkien, and his brother is even more of a Tolkien geek, but I just couldn't get into it. But for me, I am not really into fantasy, and I didn't really find the desire to learn the languages Tolkien created appealing. (Although I was suitably impressed that he actually created unique languages for his characters to speak in from time to time). Every time someone broke into poetry reading or reciting in the book I couldn't wait for it to be over.

I've read the entire series, my husband and I together, and I have no desire for a re-read.

EDIT: well, that last sentence is not entirely true. A re-read is possible, but I like good long breaks between. I've read the whole thing twice, so I don't even dislike the books.

[mr ploppy]

The 1950s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I loved the book, right up until about the last chapter. That made me want to hunt the writer down and punch him in the face.

[Pulpmeister]

The Maltese Falcon.

Just about anybody who knows anything about movies has heard of it, even if they haven't seen it. A surprising number of moviegoers don't realise it was a book first (although everybody on this forum will know that).

The movie deleted one character (Gutman's daughter) and one major scene. Almost every word of dialogue was direct from the book (rare in movies).

I like both, but I think the movie is a bit better.

[AlexGrama]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I loved the ents scene in the movie. However, when I read it in the book, I kept turning the page and thought, we are still here?

My husband loves Tolkien, and his brother is even more of a Tolkien geek, but I just couldn't get into it. But for me, I am not really into fantasy, and I didn't really find the desire to learn the languages Tolkien created appealing. (Although I was suitably impressed that he actually created unique languages for his characters to speak in from time to time). Every time someone broke into poetry reading or reciting in the book I couldn't wait for it to be over.

I've read the entire series, my husband and I together, and I have no desire for a re-read.

EDIT: well, that last sentence is not entirely true. A re-read is possible, but I like good long breaks between. I've read the whole thing twice, so I don't even dislike the books.

Quite true about the Ents scene in the book and also a 2-chapter-boring-example is Tom Bombadil. Very annoying. But, as a whole, marvelous piece of work.

P.S. Try and read the poems. Some of them are nice.

"Gil-galad was an Elven-king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
The last whose realm was fair and free
Between the mountains and the sea.
His sword was long, his lance was keen.
His shining helm afar was seen.
The countless stars of heaven's field
Were mirrored in his silver shield.
But long ago he rode away,
And where he dwelleth none can say.
For into darkness fell his star;
In Mordor, where the shadows are."

[spindlegirl]

I know... my relationship to poetry is weird. I could not live without "The Road Not Taken" or "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening", but poetry as a whole genre takes me a while to warm up to.

Of course, when I was a teenager I wrote lots of "poetry" because I was oh so deep and had transcended traditional thinking.

The poem quoted above is beautiful.

[Andrew H.]

I like "The Ten Commandments" better than the book. :-)

While I think that LotR in book form is better, I do see where people who like the movie better are coming from. Tolkien is inconsistent (maybe there's a better word) as a stylist. I.e., some parts of LotR are tight and very well written (many of the battle scenes; the scouring of the shire; the unexpected party; most bits with Gandalf; most bits with Gollum); but other parts would benefit from a good editing - the section on the Ents, for example - but also a lot of the Sam and Frodo scenes after they've left Rivendell. (And the class differences between Frodo and Sam seem dated and out of place in the book). Also, I think Merry and Pippin are supposed to be comic relief but then develop into more serious characters...but I don't think they are actually that funny to begin with - and then their transformation into serious characters isn't that convincing either.

I'm not into Tom Bombadil, but I don't think that's an editing or writing issue - I don't really care for the characters or the plot...but I think they are pretty much what Tolkien wanted.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I think it does. I am a Pride and Prejudice snob, and I hate the film adaptations that totally rewrite the character of Eliza Bennet...

I read the book About a Boy before I saw the movie and didn't like the movie as much as the book.

However I saw High Fidelity first and I am more critical of the book... So yeah, I think whichever I was exposed to first makes me critical of the other.

I agree, even if the book is a novelization of the movie. An example of this is "Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan." I read the movie novelization before seeing the movie itself, and as great as the movie is the novel was even better. The author added much detail to the story (such as an explanation for why Saavik had such a reaction to Peter Preston's death, and Saavik's backstory). Since then, I've avoided reading a movie novelization until I've seen the movie.

Another book to movie I'd like to mention is "Watchmen." I found the movie more enjoyable than the original graphic novel. The most of the changes made to the story for the movie were an improvement to me and worked more logically. Plus, the actors brought much to the characters.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The 1950s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I loved the book, right up until about the last chapter. That made me want to hunt the writer down and punch him in the face.

Heh. I just finished this book on Audible two days ago. Epic rant about the book and the ending.

[elemenoP]

I saw/read it many years ago (and I was young), but how about Out of Africa? I remember falling in love with the movie, and then trying to read the book and getting bogged down in too many details about how to run a plantation in Africa. I would like to try both again. As I understand it, the movie takes details/story from several of her books, not just the eponymous one.

And, I'm definitely not saying the movie is BETTER than the book, but I recommend seeing The English Patient before reading the book. Some people found the book confusing and hard to follow, but if you've seen the movie and already know the story, you can just lose yourself in Ondaatje's beautiful writing and enjoy. That was my experience, anyway.

eP

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Tolkien is inconsistent (maybe there's a better word) as a stylist. I.e., some parts of LotR are tight and very well written (many of the battle scenes; the scouring of the shire; the unexpected party; most bits with Gandalf; most bits with Gollum); but other parts would benefit from a good editing - the section on the Ents, for example - but also a lot of the Sam and Frodo scenes after they've left Rivendell.

I agree. Tolkien seemed more concerned with style and make-believe than actually telling a story. I can understand that some people like that level of detail and immersion, but I don't. I like character and plot. I don't have any interest in 4-page descriptions of a hill or to be reminded every time that Gimli is mentioned that he is the son of Gloin.

When reading the books I often found myself just wanting a scene to end because I had already got the gist of what Tolkien was saying.

The movies have the story, they are brilliantly realised.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

The movies have the story, they are brilliantly realised.