Novels verse their Film Adaptations.

[DuffMan]

Back in college I took a course titled Literature and Film which basically consisted of reading books then watching the movie. Between that class and other books I have read I don't think I have ever come across a movie that was actually better than the book? Some have come close for me (Lord of the Rings comes to mind) but nothing that I would say is better. Has anyone seen any movies that they thought was better than the novel?

[Lucky Jim]

The worse the book, the easier it is to exceed it with a film. So, for instance, Bridges of Madison County is better as a film than as a book.

I think the movie The Ice Storm is far better than the (mediocre) book. That movie is pitch-perfect.

The movie The Last Picture Show is, in my mind, better than the (pretty good) book.

[The Wedge]

Fight Club.
Its technically a TV show, but Dexter.

[NewMarketSean]

The Godfather movie(s) are far better than the book(s).

[DurbBird]

I think the books are generally much better than the film adaptations of them. Most of the subplots, the backstories, many of the interesting minor characters, and most of the subtlety disappears in the movie because the movie is limited to 2 hours or thereabouts. For example, the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, based on Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe, by necessity left out most of the subplots involving the Black community of Troutville. The movie Cold Comfort Farm leaves out many of the insane, delightful characters such as Elfine and Adam Lambsbreath.

The Harry Potter flicks had to measure up to the standards of millions of kids who had memorized the books. I went to a showing of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and found it more enjoyable to listen to the mutterings of the kids than to watch the movie. "That's not how it happened." "Hermione didn't do that in the book!" "Harry was supposed to say . . . ." "They got it out of order."

[JamesI]

The Prestige was better as a movie than a book (though the book was also good).

[The Wedge]

I think the books are generally much better than the film adaptations of them. Most of the subplots, the backstories, many of the interesting minor characters, and most of the subtlety disappears in the movie because the movie is limited to 2 hours or thereabouts. For example, the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, based on Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe, by necessity left out most of the subplots involving the Black community of Troutville. The movie Cold Comfort Farm leaves out many of the insane, delightful characters such as Elfine and Adam Lambsbreath.

The Harry Potter flicks had to measure up to the standards of millions of kids who had memorized the books. I went to a showing of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and found it more enjoyable to listen to the mutterings of the kids than to watch the movie. "That's not how it happened." "Hermione didn't do that in the book!" "Harry was supposed to say . . . ." "They got it out of order."

You forgot "They didn't even explain who made the Marauders Map!" which is even more annoying in the next two movies where characters are referred to as those nicknames (including in OOTP when Harry uses Padfoot as code). It's not so much that they leave out stuff in those movies its WHAT they leave out. Its no wonder the last movie might have to be a two-parter.

[Nigel Tufnel]

The movie Die Hard is definitely better than the book. Eddie and the Cruisers is also. L.A. Confidential might be.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The Godfather movie(s) are far better than the book(s).

Well, when the films are two of the greatest in the history of cinema, it would be hard to call the book better :laughlol:

The book is really good, though.

[SteveA]

M*A*S*H

Jurassic Park -- not that Chrichton's book was bad, but the special effects were state of the art at the time and made the movie something special.

[orangedive]

The movie Die Hard is definitely better than the book. Eddie and the Cruisers is also. L.A. Confidential might be.

There's a Die Hard book???

That's totally awesome.

[Nigel Tufnel]

There's a Die Hard book???

That's totally awesome.

Yep, by Roderick Thorp. I think it's out of print, but you could probably find it on eBay or something. It's just an OK book - I think the part about the cop trapped in the building with terrorists is the same, but I think the newscasters played a much bigger part in the book. But it's been a while since I read it, so I don't remember many of the details.

[NewMarketSean]

Well, when the films are two of the greatest in the history of cinema, it would be hard to call the book better :laughlol:

The book is really good, though.

The book tells a good story. It is not Puzo's best writing. This is coming from someone who loves Puzo and adores the book and the films.

[Lt Melmo]

Back in college I took a course titled Literature and Film which basically consisted of reading books then watching the movie. Between that class and other books I have read I don't think I have ever come across a movie that was actually better than the book? Some have come close for me (Lord of the Rings comes to mind) but nothing that I would say is better. Has anyone seen any movies that they thought was better than the novel?
Did you go to College Park?

[Lt Melmo]

You forgot "They didn't even explain who made the Marauders Map!" which is even more annoying in the next two movies where characters are referred to as those nicknames (including in OOTP when Harry uses Padfoot as code). It's not so much that they leave out stuff in those movies its WHAT they leave out. Its no wonder the last movie might have to be a two-parter.
4 and 5 should've been two-parters too, though the kids would've been in their thirties by the time the series finished.

In general, I've come to this theory: novels don't naturally adapt into movies. A novel essentially tries to encapsulate the entire world with its thematic content, and it's only possible to adequately convert a bit of that content into a two-three hour film. A short story is much better suited for film adaptations, because they basically contain the same amount of juice.

Novels are best adapted into television, which is a huge shame because it never happens: the necessity of profit in television doesn't allow it. This is the main reason I like True Blood: they took a book series and stretched each novel out into a season, and despite any of its shortcomings, you can't complain about the sheer amount of stuff they can fit in and its pacing and the fact that, overall, it feels like a pulpy vampire novel. I think this is also one of the reasons The Wire is so loved: it's one of the only shows that really treated each season as a Great American Novel. And I think that once that trend catches on, it will no longer be considered the "greatest show ever" as much as it would be considered the beginning of a golden age in television drama. Hopefully.

[DuffMan]

Did you go to College Park?

No, I went to Salisbury.

[Lt Melmo]

No, I went to Salisbury.
Ah, there's an extremely similar class here called Fiction Into Film. I went to the first class but never made it off the waiting list... I wasn't really disappointed, as the professor basically sounded like an angry LOTR anti-movie fanboy except with everything, and spent the entire class talking about how horrible the majority of adaptations are. And then he said that the upcoming Benjamin Button film "gets it all wrong," which just made me sad because I've been looking forward to it.

[TakebackOPACY]

Ah, there's an extremely similar class here called Fiction Into Film. I went to the first class but never made it off the waiting list... I wasn't really disappointed, as the professor basically sounded like an angry LOTR anti-movie fanboy except with everything, and spent the entire class talking about how horrible the majority of adaptations are. And then he said that the upcoming Benjamin Button film "gets it all wrong," which just made me sad because I've been looking forward to it.

Aren't most viewers intelligent enough to know that the movie is going to be different? (Rhetorical question; no need to respond.) I suppose I feel I have the ability to get over it and enjoy the movie on it's own merits. It's a COMPLETELY different medium in every way.

Two questions for anyone who wants to chime in:
1. If there are any graphic novel fans - how do the films stand up? (Particularly, the Frank Miller novels)
2. I just purchased the book, Into the Wild but probably won't read it for a while. I own the movie and was slightly disappointed (probably because my expectations were too high). I had the overwhelming feeling that the book is probably much better, and that the movie just fell a little short in trying too hard to have the impact that the book has. I hope I'm right. Any thoughts?

[sakata_catching]

The worse the book, the easier it is to exceed it with a film.

This is a pretty handy, and accurate, correlative.

It also fairly sums up why I'm dreading the upcoming release of Revolutionary Road. The Richard Yates novel is one of my favorites, but I have a disquieting feeling that Sam Mendes is going to hamfist it into American Beauty: 1958, which would just be a travesty.

[Lucky Jim]

This is a pretty handy, and accurate, correlative.

It also fairly sums up why I'm dreading the upcoming release of Revolutionary Road. The Richard Yates novel is one of my favorites, but I have a disquieting feeling that Sam Mendes is going to hamfist it into American Beauty: 1958, which would just be a travesty.

Yep, nothing like having folks come in and tell us just how miserable the suburbs are - especially when it's someone like Todd Solendz (don't get me started) or Mendes (I mean, really?)

That's what - to me - makes The Ice Storm so good: sure, people are hypocrites, people betray others, they're small-minded and make bad decisions, but Lee's take on this was sweeipingly humane and blackly funny. Honestly, the best movie about the suburbs that I've ever seen.

I mean, except for Adventures in Babysitting.

[Objectivity]

I just saw this thread. I try to keep an open mind with movies based on books, but when it starts going bad I always try to remember that the movie doesn't change a single word in the book I love.

I think the important part of an adaptation is that it keeps the essense of the book, even if the content is changed.

In this regard, the Harry Potter movies are successful because they keep the spirit. There are things lacking, but they complement each other.

The worst movie I ever saw that was nothing compared to the book was Patriot Games. They took a thriller and turned it into an action movie. My wife always brings up Unnecessary Measures (with Hugh Grant and Gene Hackman) she said the only thing it had in common with the book was the name.

[The Wedge]

Extreme Measures. And there was another similarity...doctors performing illegal experiments on unwilling subjects to find answers to uncurable conditions and a young up and coming doctor gets caught up in the middle. It took the most basic outline of the plot and ran with it.

[Lt Melmo]

Ah, there's an extremely similar class here called Fiction Into Film. I went to the first class but never made it off the waiting list... I wasn't really disappointed, as the professor basically sounded like an angry LOTR anti-movie fanboy except with everything, and spent the entire class talking about how horrible the majority of adaptations are. And then he said that the upcoming Benjamin Button film "gets it all wrong," which just made me sad because I've been looking forward to it.
Hahaha, after seeing Button, I agree with him 1000% and I'll probably try to take the class next semester.

[Objectivity]

Hahaha, after seeing Button, I agree with him 1000% and I'll probably try to take the class next semester.

I haven't read the book or seen the movie (yet for either).

If the movie gets it all wrong, it can still be a good movie. It will just be different from the book; and different isn't bad.

Another example I can think of that I should have mentioned is A River Runs Through It. Great Book. Great movie. But the movie has significant differences that appear minor only because the adaption is so well done.

I also think there's a difference between adaption a book and adapting a short story. With a book, you have to simplify for the screen. For a short story you have to enhance.

What were people's thoughts about Forrest Gump? The movie was a modern fairy tale about a man with limited abilities finding success because of his outlook on life. The book was about a man who fails his way to success. Totally different, but ultimately successful.

[NewMarketSean]

I just read the synopsis of the story on Wikipedia, so I'm no expert, but it seems the movie took the basic premise and some of the ideas presented in the story and expanded upon them, changed the gender and names of some characters, etc...

I'd like to read the story some day but I think I will prefer the movie based on what I know about the story now...

[Lt Melmo]

I haven't read the book or seen the movie (yet for either).

If the movie gets it all wrong, it can still be a good movie. It will just be different from the book; and different isn't bad.

Another example I can think of that I should have mentioned is A River Runs Through It. Great Book. Great movie. But the movie has significant differences that appear minor only because the adaption is so well done.

I also think there's a difference between adaption a book and adapting a short story. With a book, you have to simplify for the screen. For a short story you have to enhance.

What were people's thoughts about Forrest Gump? The movie was a modern fairy tale about a man with limited abilities finding success because of his outlook on life. The book was about a man who fails his way to success. Totally different, but ultimately successful.
I know. Trust me, I've been saying this forever. I agree with you 100%. This is what I said about the film. (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1594816&postcount=40)

Basically, the things that they DID change made it so the entire premise of the film (man ages backwards) is entirely compromised and serves absolutely no purpose. It compromised the film, not the short story. What they did was take a piece of satirical magical realism and then take out the satire. You're left with the skin of the story, but not the bones. This would be fine if the film could come up with its own bones, but it doesn't. They took a story about a man who was born old and grew younger and turned it into a story about a guy who was basically born with a skin condition. It was like a mix of "Forrest Gump" and "Jack." There was no point in calling it "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

[Objectivity]

I know. Trust me, I've been saying this forever. I agree with you 100%. This is what I said about the film. (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1594816&postcount=40)

Basically, the things that they DID change made it so the entire premise of the film (man ages backwards) is entirely compromised and serves absolutely no purpose. It compromised the film, not the short story. What they did was take a piece of satirical magical realism and then take out the satire. You're left with the skin of the story, but not the bones. This would be fine if the film could come up with its own bones, but it doesn't. They took a story about a man who was born old and grew younger and turned it into a story about a guy who was basically born with a skin condition. It was like a mix of "Forrest Gump" and "Jack." There was no point in calling it "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

I haven't read the story or seen the movie yet, so consider that in what I'm saying here.

It sounds like the story sparked the idea that became the movie, but the movie itself has nothing to do with the book. Almost like the person who reads about an inmate on death row who is innocent and writes a fictitious book based on that idea.

I wonder if they were obligated to tie it to the short story for legal reasons. I don't think it's in the public domain yet, and Fincher has talked about this story for years, so he couldn't claim to have come up with it on his own.

Ironically, considering your review, the book Forrest Gump is equally unlike the movie.

[OrangeJerseys]

I'm looking forward to seeing "Blindness". The novel by Jose Saramago is amazing. It's one of my favorite reads.

The sequel book "Seeing" is too.

[DuffMan]

I recently watched The Prestige again the other day (great movie) by the way, then I happen to read up about it on IMDB and read about some of the differences from the book, and based on what I read I don't think I would like the book as well as the movie.


Just finished reading No Country for Old Men and then watched the movie. I thought the movie did a decent job of following the book, although there were changes, but what movie doesn't make changes. I wasn't overly impressed with the movie, but I didn't think the book was that great as well either.

[JamesI]

I recently watched The Prestige again the other day (great movie) by the way, then I happen to read up about it on IMDB and read about some of the differences from the book, and based on what I read I don't think I would like the book as well as the movie.


I prefered the movie, my wife prefered the book.

[scOtt]

I don't venture in here much... I would agree with Duffman's assessment on LOTR. Those movie were almost creepy to me, at how well they captured the EXACT mind-picture I had on reading the books. And I can't wait for the making of The Hobbit. :D

Another to me is The Shining. Even still, those movies, to me, just approach the value of the book. Like a mathematical limit.

One movie I think that actually surpasses the book is the short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron. I'm guessing because it was expanded from a short story to a full movie (by HBO only) Really great stuff tho! I paid an INSANE amount of money for an original copy of the VHS. Money well spent. Eugene Levy is amazing BTW as "the president" in it.

[sakata_catching]

It also fairly sums up why I'm dreading the upcoming release of Revolutionary Road. The Richard Yates novel is one of my favorites, but I have a disquieting feeling that Sam Mendes is going to hamfist it into American Beauty: 1958, which would just be a travesty.


Yep, nothing like having folks come in and tell us just how miserable the suburbs are - especially when it's someone like Todd Solendz (don't get me started) or Mendes (I mean, really?)

Actually, I'm pleased to report that Revolutionary Road was much better than anticipated. The screenplay stuck scrupulously with the novel (sometimes, too much so — Yates' dialogue, often translated verbatim from the book, isn't the most naturalistic in the world), and Mendes directs it with a good (for him) degree of restraint.

If you hated Titanic as much as I did, it's very gratifying to see Kate and Leo reunited under these circumstances. (As has been pointed out in virtually every review, the icebergs in RR are all metaphorical.) They're both very good, but Michael Shannon steals every scene he's in as their realtor's mentally imbalanced son.

I recommend it. But I recommend Yates' novel first and foremost.

[cindyluvsbrady]

The Horse Whisperer

[blakesta]

Black Hawk Down was a Terrific novel.

It's movie counterpart actually does a relatively good job of telling the actual story. Props to Ridley Scott.

[Lt Melmo]

Salman Rushdie chimes in. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/28/salman-rushdie-novels-film-adaptations)

It's meandering as all get out and it seems entirely improvised... like The Guardian gave him a prompt and gave him a day to write his response ("You're Indian! Write something about Slumdog Millionaire!"). By the end of it he's talking about society and American politics and that last sentence is a comically sad punctuation that reminded me of every ranting paper I wrote in 11th grade. :) But there are still some good passages:


What are the things we think of as essential in our lives? The answers could be: our children, a daily walk in the park, a good stiff drink, the reading of books, a job, a vacation, a baseball team, a cigarette, or love. And yet life has a way of making us rethink. Our children move away from home, we move away from our favourite park, the doctor forbids us to drink or smoke, we lose our eyesight, we get fired, there's no time or money to take a vacation, our baseball team sucks, our heart is broken. At such times our picture of the world hangs crookedly on the wall. Then, if we can manage it, we adapt. And what this shows us is that essence is something deeper than any of that, it's the thing that gets us through. The 12 separate varieties of finches that Charles Darwin found on the Galápagos Islands had all made local adaptations, but when the ornithologist John Gould examined Darwin's specimens in 1837, he could see that these were not different birds, but 12 variations of the same bird. In spite of random mutation and natural selection, their finchness, their essence, was intact.

As individuals, as communities, as nations, we are the constant adapters of ourselves, and must constantly ask ourselves the question wherein does our finchness lie: what are the things we cannot ever give up unless we wish to cease to be ourselves?
A nice, convincing way of saying something pretty obvious to the subject.

And he sums up perfectly my feelings on Benjamin Button:

In 1921, F Scott Fitzgerald wrote an odd little story called "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", about the birth, to "young Mr and Mrs Roger Button", of a male baby who is born as a 70-year-old man and who then lives backwards, getting younger all the time, until at the end of his life, baby-sized and shrinking slowly in his white crib, he is sucked away into nothingness. In 2008, this little squib of a tale was turned by Brad Pitt and the director David Fincher into a $200m film.

However, the difference between the story and the movie is unusually great. In Fitzgerald's story, Benjamin is born as a full-sized septuagenarian male. It is never explained how Mrs Button managed to give birth to such a large baby without being torn in half. Indeed, Mrs Button never gets a look-in. In the story, Benjamin's life is lived largely in the private sphere, apart from an excursion to fight in the Spanish-American war, while in the movie he becomes involved in so many of the public events of his time that the picture might almost have been called Zelig in Reverse, or perhaps Forrest Gump Goes Backwards. (The screenwriter of Forrest Gump, Eric Roth, who adapted that screenplay from the novel by Winston Groom, is also responsible for Benjamin Button [sic]

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two works is that, other than sharing the idea of a man who lives backwards in time, their stories are entirely different; the film is not really an adaptation of the book, but almost entirely Roth's creation. And while Roth and Fincher's film is essentially a bravura special-effects performance helped by two fine acting performances, by Pitt and Cate Blanchett, it doesn't finally have anything in particular to say. Fitzgerald's story is at least a comedy of snobbery and embarrassment which, while maintaining a deliberately frothy and light tone, enjoyably satirises the social attitudes of late 19th and early 20th-century Baltimore.

Everyone accepts that stories and films are different things, and that the source material must be modified, even radically modified, to be effective in the new medium. The only interesting questions are "how?" and "how much?" However, when the original is virtually discarded, it's difficult to know if the result can be called an adaptation at all.

I haven't read Rushdie; is this column a good sample of his writing style?