Books -v- Films: Grudge Match

johnny_ultimate · 23-05-2007 4:21pm #1

Em well not really, just thought it was a catchy title.
Anyway, was against this before, but recently read the two books of films I enjoyed. Usually, I will try and read the books beforehand, but lately Fight Club and the Prestige have been read and proved to be very different experiences. The Prestige was a superb book, extremely different (and much darker) to the equally excellent film. Fight Club on the other hand, was a bit of a drag being almost completely identical to the film (with only one or two more controversial moments being excised from Fincher's film).
So, whats your view - can you read a book after watching the film, and which books have proven to be worth reading post- motion picture?

c - 13 · 23-05-2007 4:36pm

Books are almost always better than the films, even for the best remakes theres no substitute for the human imagination whilst reading.
Also with a film there are time constraints and the film makers must keep the viewer entertained for the duration of the film.

Some examples -
Hannibal/Red Dragon
Read both of these books before seeing the films and god was I dissapointed. Hannibal was a much darker book than the film made it out to be, and there was so much material cut from the book, even the ending was completely different, some of the carachters completely cut out and basically the whole film felt like a rushed cut & paste operation to me. I dont want to see Red Dragon now for the same reasons

Stephen King's - IT
Again cut to pieces in order to put it in its cinematic format, we dont see as much of the bonding betweeen the children as we did in the book, therefore we dont really care as much what happens, again this leads back to the length restraints for films and the differences between carachter development in film/book medium.

Of course thats not to say I didnt enjoy some remakes, I just preferred the books. Probably the best attempt at a remake IMHO was -

Lord Of The Rings
It seemed to capture the essence of the books in a way that other remakes couldnt quite manage. They seemed to capture the carachters well (although omitting some more minor carachters/scenes in the process).

Instant Karma · 23-05-2007 4:52pm

I don't think it really matters in most cases. I've read books both before and after seeing their movie adaptation. On every occasion I have enjoyed the book more, except for Jaws which I only read about 2 years ago and it was an enjoyable read and had a few notable differences from the movie.

Dont be at yourself · 23-05-2007 4:55pm

I gotta agree, though I'd much prefer to watch a film than read a book.

My favourite books are Catch-22, 1984 and Hitchhiker's Guide. I've not seen 1984, but the other two films didnt really come close to the books. There are probably exceptions though - I'm not a Stephen King fan, and can't imagine th e Shawshank Redemption book topping the film.

They say short-stories are better suited to film adaptations, as was the case with Blade Runner etc.

Eoin · 23-05-2007 5:51pm

johnny_ultimate wrote:

Em well not really, just thought it was a catchy title.
Anyway, was against this before, but recently read the two books of films I enjoyed. Usually, I will try and read the books beforehand, but lately Fight Club and the Prestige have been read and proved to be very different experiences. The Prestige was a superb book, extremely different (and much darker) to the equally excellent film. Fight Club on the other hand, was a bit of a drag being almost completely identical to the film (with only one or two more controversial moments being excised from Fincher's film).
So, whats your view - can you read a book after watching the film, and which books have proven to be worth reading post- motion picture?

I read fight club after seeing the film, and I much preferred the film. Pitt's character was a lot better than the slightly nerdy one that came across for me in the book. I don't think I would have enjoyed the book at all if I had read it first actually, the writing style isn't really for me.

American Pyscho was another one I read afterwards, and just about preferred the book (apart from the even more confusing ending), because the insight into the character was deeper, as is normally the case.

I read "The Abyss" after seeing the film, and didn't cop on till afterwards that it was written after the film. The book was excellent as it added a backstory for the main characters.

c - 13 wrote:

Books are almost always better than the films, even for the best remakes theres no substitute for the human imagination whilst reading.

Well said. And, you have a much better chance of reading a book without f00king Nick Cage appearing in it, unlike every other new film out.

mike65 · 23-05-2007 6:00pm

If you like the film, don't read the book, if you liked the book don't watch the film!

Damnation Alley - great pulp sci-fi biker adventure turned into clunky low-budget action flick in which everything bar the basic story had been changed.

Mike.

Karl Hungus · 23-05-2007 8:27pm

They're two different mediums, and two different experienciences.

Sometimes I think it best to think of films as visual companions to the books though.

Valmont · 23-05-2007 9:33pm

I find that if you read a book and really like it, you shouldn't expect the same experience from a movie, movies and books by their very nature are completey different, so I like to try and look at it differently. They can complement each other perfectly sometimes like American Psycho, Cruel Intentions and Les Liasons Dangereuses.

However it can go horribly horribly wrong, Lord of the Rings being the perfect example (in my opinion). Every time I try to remember the joy of reading the books when I was younger, Elijah Wood's super annoying face pops into my head and Orlando Blooms terrible one- liners. Oh well:p

cashback · 25-05-2007 1:27am

Valmont wrote:

However it can go horribly horribly wrong, Lord of the Rings being the perfect example (in my opinion). Every time I try to remember the joy of reading the books when I was younger, Elijah Wood's super annoying face pops into my head and Orlando Blooms terrible one- liners. Oh well:p

Which is why I wanted to read LOTR before I saw the films. Never got round to it though so i doubt i'll ever read the books.

Brow · 25-05-2007 11:42am

Some particular ones that stand out for me are the whole Thomas Harris/Hannibal collection. Each book has been vastly superior than the film outcome, and yes, i'm including 'Silence' in that remark. Granted I havnt seen Hannibal Rising but its from past experiences that made me decline ruyshing to see the film.

Another book a lot better than the film is 'The Shining'. The film was a real letdown IMO.

I've stayed away from the 'Da Vinci Code' too...

Peyton Manning · 26-05-2007 2:40am

Books Ive read that have been better than the movie:

Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
The Da Vinci Code
Bravo Two Zero

There are a lot of books I want to read before seeing the film, i.e. The Last King of Scotland, Constant Gardener etc.

Ay Cee · 27-05-2007 12:14pm

Just watched The Last King Of Scotland and it was so different to the book I was hovering on turning it off.

_Kaiser_ · 27-05-2007 12:30pm

The Sum of All Fears - great book. Totally awful movie. The whole timeline is changed and they have Ben Afleck in it! :mad:

Wacker · 28-05-2007 12:44pm

I think it can be a bit silly to compare books to films. People always say about the like of Silence of the Lambs or the Godfather, etc. "Good film, but the book is way better," but they discount the fact that they spent about ten hours reading the books and two hours on the film (three on the Godfather). Of course they are going to get more out of the books when they put so much more in.
What you really need to do is to compare the differences. The Godfather book is, for example, crammed to the gills full of information on Lucy Mancini's vagina. Crude as that is, it is also true. Can anyone who really cares about that raise their hand? No hands? Thought not. There are quite a few moments in the development of Michael Corleone that the film changes, and they are largely far superior, in my opinion.
In the Silence of the Lambs book, Lecter's cell has bars and some sort of wiring, if I remember correctly. Putting him behind perspex was a far better idea, and there are many more examples.
I know I am only using two examples, but it breaks down like this: the books of Silence of the Lambs are both good, but not great. The Silence of the Lambs and Godfather movies are masterclasses in film making, in my opinion. Other books and films should be compared in a similair manner.

Earthhorse · 28-05-2007 1:32pm

When asked what he thought about what Hollywood had done to his books Raymond Chandler replied, "Hollywood haven't done anything to my books. My books are over there on the shelf."

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

I'm not a Stephen King fan, and can't imagine th e Shawshank Redemption book topping the film.

They say short-stories are better suited to film adaptations, as was the case with Blade Runner etc.

Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption is actually a novella which is somewhere between being a short story and a full length book.

Blade Runner is based on the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? though this was based partly on an idea Dick had explored in an earlier short story. Most of Dick's works (Minority Report, Paycheck, Total Recall, Screamers) have been adapted from short stories, though only the latter two succeed in maintaining any of the flavour of his writing.

Jonesy3110 · 29-05-2007 2:19pm

Most people will agree that books are better than movies, but if you see a crappy movie its not going to compel you to pick up the book! But because it’s so easy to watch a movie I think that if you read a crappy book it’s easier to watch the movie, so you might find out that you hate the book, love the movie. So read the book first always imo :P

I hate the people who made Timeline by Michael Crighton into a movie. That is one of my favourite books EVER but the movie is terrible. If anyone saw that movie they would never want to read the book because you thought the movie was rubbish and it takes hours (even days) to read a book, but if you thought the book was crap then it’s more likely that you’ll sit through the movie because it’s easy to sit through a movie even though you already think it’s going to suck.

The Godfathers are the only movies that lasts longer than the book :P I think the whole thing runs for about 7 hours!

gucci · 29-05-2007 3:51pm

not sure of how many i have read that have been movies but the best adaption of a book, or actually series of books (it was released as a 6 part periodical book i think) was the green mile.
da vinci code was always going to be muck because everyone had read it and formed an opinion on it

Bounty Hunter · 30-05-2007 1:33am

ive always wonderd if nobody had read the DaVinci Code would the movie be considerd a cinematic masterpiece.

as someone has already mentioned short stories make great movies because then themovie is elaborating on a great story which is the core to the movie. Blade Runner was mention but The Shawshank redemption is a classic exampleof this.

Books -v- Films: Grudge Match

Comments