Why the Book Is Always Better

[Triangulon]

I have to agree. I don't think films do the books justice. Thats not to say I dont enjoy films, I did enjo LOTR and I love Bladerunner. However, still not justice. It may be a bit of a difficult comment to back-up but I don't think a film adaptation of a book I like will ever meet my expectations.

To take Guy Gavriel Kay as an example. I really do believe that there are no actors who could accurately portray the emotion invested in characters such as Caius Crispus,Ammar Ibn Khairan and Dianora.

 

[FistsOfTinsel]

I think the article misses an important point: Books that get made into movies are chosen because they are exceptional; the likelihood that lightning will strike twice (that you'll get a director/acting combo that is equal to the notable literary work) is pretty low.

But it has happened, generally when an extremely talented director adopts rather mediocre source material. The best examples are "Jaws", "The Godfather" and "The Shining" - all movies that rank among the director's greatest works. Personally I found the movie "American Psycho" much better than the book - it captured the wit and duality in that was buried under the books pornagraphic passages on sex, violence and consumerism.

I could also make a case for (and get horribly flamed for) "Starship Troopers" - a greatly underrated and delightfully subversive film that goes in a completely different direction than Heinlein's work. Heinlein fans hate it with a fiery passion, and rightly so, since it is almost an assault on the ideas he presented, but as a critique on the appeal of fascism (and how modern media shapes American's view of the world), it's brilliant.

 

[thublihnk]

So many discussions like these dismiss Film so easily, decrying it's lack of subtlety when any director worth their salt can be just as subtle as any writer. Each medium has it's strengths, and it's unfair to make this one-sided comparison about book-to-movie adaptations, when the almost guaranteed mediocrity of movie-to-book adaptations is largely ignored.

 

[ThirdPrize]

Book->Film->(Comics->)Games. Each is trying to paint an imaginary picture with a progressively cruder set of tools. You can just about do an action adventure story as a game, as they are more about thrills and car chases than characters.

 

[Something Amyss]

Isn't this the same author who pointed out Harry Potter will get kids to read and prevent adults from having to?

For some reason the combination of the latter portion, along with "the book is always better" sticks in my craw.

 

[Ekonk]

The first two Harry Potter movies are terrible. The first fails exactly because it tries to stay too close to the book; the bad acting of the protagonists doesn't help, either.

Now, a good film from a Harry Potter book is the third one, directed by Alfonso Cuarón. I liked HP7 part 1, but the better HP film is still the third.

I like all HP movies in varying degrees, with 5 the lowest, and 3 the highest. It was so deliciously dark, that one.

 

[tautologico]

I think the article misses an important point: Books that get made into movies are chosen because they are exceptional; the likelihood that lightning will strike twice (that you'll get a director/acting combo that is equal to the notable literary work) is pretty low.

But it has happened, generally when an extremely talented director adopts rather mediocre source material. The best examples are "Jaws", "The Godfather" and "The Shining" - all movies that rank among the director's greatest works. Personally I found the movie "American Psycho" much better than the book - it captured the wit and duality in that was buried under the books pornagraphic passages on sex, violence and consumerism.

I could also make a case for (and get horribly flamed for) "Starship Troopers" - a greatly underrated and delightfully subversive film that goes in a completely different direction than Heinlein's work. Heinlein fans hate it with a fiery passion, and rightly so, since it is almost an assault on the ideas he presented, but as a critique on the appeal of fascism (and how modern media shapes American's view of the world), it's brilliant.

Interview with the Vampire. Not a fantastic movie, but far more bearable than the rambling, disjointed writing of Anne Rice.

 

[Varya]

One of the biggest problems with movies based on books are often, in my opinion, that they try to MUCH to be like the book. Yeah, you heard me, it's not that they are too far from the source material, but to close. Movies and books are different mediums and when trying to adapt one to the other, you can't keep what distinct them. Yes, this means that plot-threads and dialog get a good chopping but that's all good. If you instead of trying to apologize for it embrace it and instead focus on doing what books can't, you'll end up with a better result. For an example, I really liked HP6 because they went brutal on the script and boiled down the story to it's core, and we got a movie that was very different from the book, but it was a good movie and it fit in with the other movies.
Movies should try and be a stand alone work and not just "living up" to the book. That it could never do because a good book is written as a book, and trying to do that in another medium is doomed to fail. No, let the movie be a movie, and try to be better than the book, surpass it by being something that is not the book it was based on.

 

[tunderball]

I prefer the Lord of the Rings films to the books any day of the week. Don't get me wrong the books are fantastic and Tolkien is surrely nothing short of genius for creating the world and the fantasy archetypes that we know today. But as a story it does get lost in places and the characters story arc is barely none existant.

Almost every character has his goals set out from the moment the Fellowship leaves Rivendell and they then spend the rest of the story achieving these goals. To use Aragorn as the ultimate example, in the books he always intends to return to Gondor and become the King, however in the films he is unsure of the destiny laid of before him and only then goes on to fulfill this destiny because of the need created by the evil forces actions throughout the story.

Not everybody will agree with me, and I do honestly see the point of it not being MY Middle Earth, but as a story I believe the plot of the films is a touch more refined.

 

[David_G]

I think the article misses an important point: Books that get made into movies are chosen because they are exceptional; the likelihood that lightning will strike twice (that you'll get a director/acting combo that is equal to the notable literary work) is pretty low.

But it has happened, generally when an extremely talented director adopts rather mediocre source material. The best examples are "Jaws", "The Godfather" and "The Shining" - all movies that rank among the director's greatest works. Personally I found the movie "American Psycho" much better than the book - it captured the wit and duality in that was buried under the books pornagraphic passages on sex, violence and consumerism.

I could also make a case for (and get horribly flamed for) "Starship Troopers" - a greatly underrated and delightfully subversive film that goes in a completely different direction than Heinlein's work. Heinlein fans hate it with a fiery passion, and rightly so, since it is almost an assault on the ideas he presented, but as a critique on the appeal of fascism (and how modern media shapes American's view of the world), it's brilliant.

Interview with the Vampire. Not a fantastic movie, but far more bearable than the rambling, disjointed writing of Anne Rice.

Also, Fight Club. In the book, the ending wasn't that good. Or maybe I just liked the acting of Brad Pitt and Edward Norton.

 

[Heraklitus]

I think most people say "the book is better" because it happens to be the one book they've read in the last decade and they revel in finally being able to be the smug one.

Seriously.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Sometimes I don't think people realize just how much can be in a book. The audiobook for even the shortest Harry Potter is 7 CDs (clocks in at about 8 hours). Granted the overall effext depends on the scene and how it's written. Lord of the Rings had a lot cut for being unnecessary (Fellowship was so dry if I didn't know what was coming I'd have never made it), pared down for time (council of elrond is 45 minutes of dialogue alone), while others (the battles) may be expanded for effect. Still, it's a reminder that perfect renditions aren't going to fit in the standard movie paradigm as movie goers don't want to listen to Dumbledore talk for nearly an hour after the climactic battle at the end of Order of the Pheonix. (for the record, that book is a full 23 CDs or nearly 27 hours long.)

It means that no matter what, something is going to be lost in translation.

 

[Phuctifyno]

The real question is, does this mean we shouldn't try to adapt books to films, or films to games, or medium X to medium Y at all? My knee jerk reaction is yes, but I'm not certain.

Now this would mean eliminating over 80% of entertainment media output.

It's important to keep in mind that (whether it be adaptation, sequel, or reboot) when quality is lost while expanding an intellectual property, it doesn't erase or diminish quality of the original (prequels come closer to doing this - but I don't find it too hard to pretend they never happened). The worlds are fiction, and only have as much connection as you allow them.






I mean really... Yoda needs a light saber? Fuck you, George.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Mmmmmmmm films are a short time sensitive medium that has to share screen time with flashing bright explosions to keep the dimer half of the audience distracted from any semblance of depth,wit or story(kinda like modern games). What more do you need to know?

 

[Falseprophet]

I think--and I speak as a book-lover and librarian, but also a film-lover and librarian who selects films for the library--a lot of confirmation bias is at work here. We as a culture remember when classic or beloved books (Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter) with years of analysis and/or a large fandom behind them, are adapted as films and don't live up to readers' expectations. Our memory's faulty when it comes to all the mediocre or trash books that were made into good or even great films.

My theory is that a bad or mediocre book is more likely to be a better adaptation, since readers are not as emotionally invested and the director is able to make sweeping changes without pissing off too many people. And generic genre fiction tends to be mostly visceral anyway--perfect for adapting to a visual medium like film.

The novel of The Godfather is fairly trashy crime fiction, but was adapted into one of the greatest films of all time.

Does anyone remember the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit? According to Amazon it seems to be out of print. Yet the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a modern comedy classic.

Did you know Shaft was based on a novel? How many people discuss the original novels of Psycho and First Blood instead of their far more famous film adaptations?

There are more listed here [http://www.weirdworm.com/10-movies-you-didnt-know-were-adaptations/].

Also, Fight Club. In the book, the ending wasn't that good. Or maybe I just liked the acting of Brad Pitt and Edward Norton.

A case in point: Chuck Palahniuk has stated he actually likes Fincher's film version better than his book. While there were some interesting things in the book that didn't transition to the film, for the most part Fincher made better choices.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

I think the problem with some adaptations from books to movies in particular is that they aren?t brutal enough with what they cut. They leave things in but they leave them in unexplained or underdeveloped. Either of these things is probably the worst thing you can do to an overarching idea or theme.

All I know is watch the movie first. You have a better chance of enjoying them both.

 

[Baneat]

Not always, ridiculously often, but not always.
Clockwork Orange?
Shawshank Redemption?(Not sure if this was a book, Stephen King or something? I dunno, don't really read modern fiction).
Fight Club

All these films stopped trying to emulate their books and as a result succeeded them, pure derivatives are always worse than what they're derived from.

 

[defiante1]

Disagree in the case of Lord of the Rings. That book had huge sections that rambled on forever about nonsense I didnt care about. Two Towers is so tedious its unreal, entwives this, mumble mumble entwives that. The helms deep fight is only two pages before it goes back to humdrum dullard.

Also cant forget the Tom Bombadil from the first book, a painfully dull section. I think the films got the point of the books and essense of the story much better, but without the disney childrens sections or the woeful nostalgia.

So I dont think this is always so clear cut, sometimes its just purists who wont accept that the things they imagine cant ever be put into film exactly the way they want. Usually isnt anything wrong with some adaptations but merely fans "didnt imagine it quite like that, so its rubbish." type attitude.

Biggest cause for films being worse than books though is film makers trying to reinvent a classic and missing the point. Most alice in wonder lands suffer from this, also the massive dissapointment "I am Legend" Which couldnt of landed further from the mark if it tried.

 

[Hosker]

That seems pretty much spot on. I prefer books to films overall, but there is one example of me finding the film better than the book: Memoirs of a Geisha. I really enjoyed the film but the book dragged without much interesting happening; the film cut out quite a bit so it's a lot more enjoyable on a whole.