Is the book better then the film?

[JamesParsons]

Hi there,

I am just compelling a report for my media production course at university.

The report is based around the argument ; is the book better then the film?

I am looking to get a varied opinion in this matter and why you have chosen a certain answer.

It is a question that has been around for years and with more and more films now being adapted from novels I thought it was appropriate to do this for my course.

If you have some time, please answer the questions below:

Are you a avid reader or avid film watcher?


how many books or films do you read or watch in month?



Roughly, in the last 5 years, how many films have you seen that have been adapted from books?


Did you read the book first or go and see the film?


What did you prefer?



why?



Has seeing the film or reading the book made you want to go and read/see it’s other version?




thank you for taking the time to have a read.

All the best.

Jp

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

Lort of the rings and The trail

The book Lort of the rings was to slow, war action was a bit boring and the last book had 2 climax endings. The movies where better.

The trail of Kafka is a book lost in details, conversations and the feeling of not having power or having control. It is a bit boring.....
The movie is somting very difrent. Its a sureal nichtmare....its perfect.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Film adaptations of novels has been going on, well, since there has been movies. The problem with adaptations is, in many cases, the lack of what is going on in the heads of the characters. Another problem is simply time constraints. Back in the 80's some novel adaptations became TV mini-series such as "Roots", "The Winds of War", "War and Remembrance" and "Shogun" and were quite successful.

Sometimes the adaptation seems to have nothing to do with the original novel. "The Robe" is an example that, in my opinion, was done badly; all it has in common with the novel are the setting, character names and the basic concept of the story line while missing the meaning of the novel entirely. On the other end of the scale is "Contact" which, although being quite different from the novel, held strongly to the concept and the feel of the Sagan novel.

There are, of course, the more modern examples like the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Twilight novels, which follow fairly closely, but are highly condensed. The purists will always argue about important information being left out, or which situations were changed, etc.

I am just compelling a report for my media production course at university.

BTW, the word is "compiling", not compelling.

com·pile   [kuhm-pahyl]
verb (used with object), -piled, -pil·ing.
1.
to put together (documents, selections, or other materials) in one book or work.
2.
to make (a book, writing, or the like) of materials from various sources: to compile an anthology of plays; to compile a graph showing changes in profit.
3.
to gather together: to compile data

com·pel   [kuhm-pel] verb, -pelled, -pel·ling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2.
to secure or bring about by force.
3.
to force to submit; subdue.
4.
to overpower.

 

[JoshL]

Are you a avid reader or avid film watcher?

Yes to both.

how many books or films do you read or watch in month?

Maybe 5 books and 10 movies per month, give or take.

Roughly, in the last 5 years, how many films have you seen that have been adapted from books?

Yeesh. Lots. Let's estimate 2 out of every 10 films I see (probably much higher than that). That's 24 per year, 120 for the last 5.

Did you read the book first or go and see the film?

Both. Sometimes I'll see a film, and then go find the book. Sometimes I'll go see a film adapted by something I've read. When I was young, I used to love reading novelizations of films I had seen as well.

What did you prefer?

This is not a black and white, yes or no question. Books are always more detailed. Some stories, however, work better as films. Often, if I like a story, I'll like both interpretations.

why?

Again, case by case. If I never read The Shining again, I'd be okay, but it's one of my favorite films. Slaughterhouse Five, I thought, worked better as a film than a novel. I re-read Lord of the Rings every couple years...but I love the movies just as much. I read Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and wasn't that crazy about it...but thought I would LOVE it as a film (haven't seen the original yet, but it's on my netflix queue). A Scanner Darkly was a great adaptation of a great novel. Blade Runner has only a passing resemblance to the source story, but they're both fantastic bits of sci-fi.

Generally speaking, a short story is easier to adapt into a film. And personally, I like it best when the film is its own entity, rather than just trying to be a beat for beat imitation.

Has seeing the film or reading the book made you want to go and read/see it’s other version?

Usually, yes. If I've read the book first, I am always interested in seeing a different interpretation of the story. If I've seen the film first, I often want to delve deeper into the story. I am more likely to see a film based on a book I wasn't crazy about than read the book after seeing a film I wasn't crazy about, mostly because watching a film is a much smaller investement of time.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Saying a book is better than a movie is like saying tuna tartar is better than a hot bath. It's like saying dogs are better than ice cream. Football is better than a perfectly-made cocktail. An afternoon nap is better than Haribo gummi bears.

Those are all very different things! Any comparison between them is null and void, because what makes one of them good might make the other one stink. The comparison is pointless.

Consider "Jurassic Park". Excellent book. Excellent movie. Plot-wise, they are WAY different from each other. As they needed to be.

The book is never better than the movie, or vice versa. The comparison is completely invalid.

That being said, it actually is true that dogs are better than ice cream. Just sayin.

 

[mad_hatter]

...is the book better then the film?

Yes. In all cases.

Never have I seen a movie that was better than the book. Sure, great movies can be made from great books (take ‘The Shining’, for example), but never are they better.

Alcove’s points above are entirely true; so much detail is left out of movies that are based on books, mainly due to lack of running time. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy runs at around 12 hours and it’s still not complete! Not that the missing details detract from the movie; if you’ve not read the book of ‘Let The Right One In’, you wouldn’t know that so much detail is missing. Still, you’ve just had the pleasure of watching one of the greatest horror movies to be made in a decade.

The best book to film translations I’ve seen, and read, would have to be ‘Fight Club’, a very short book, so almost all details have been transferred to the screen, and ‘The Silence of the Lambs’.



To answer your questions…

“Are you a avid reader or avid film watcher?” – Yes and yes.

“How many books or films do you read or watch in month?” – Maybe 2/3 books and 15/20 films.

“Roughly, in the last 5 years, how many films have you seen that have been adapted from books?” – Don’t know… Hazard a guess…? Maybe 100? 150? I really don’t know.

“Did you read the book first or go and see the film?” – Both.

“What did you prefer?” – The book. Always the book.

“Why?” – See above…

“Has seeing the film or reading the book made you want to go and read/see it’s other version?” – Yes. I’m always interested to see what’s been left out of a film, or what a studio has done with the source material.

Consider "Jurassic Park". Excellent book. Excellent movie. Plot-wise, they are WAY different from each other. As they needed to be...

What makes you say this, Cracker? Why did they need to be? Not that I disagree with you, just curious as to your reasoning. In my mind, as the book came first, the movie needed to be (to be true to the source material) about 5 hours longer and probably required a higher rating. For obvious reasons, this wouldn’t have been practical. The movie ‘Jurassic Park’ is one of my all time favourites (I was 10 when it was released, and I absolutely loved it!), but, in my opinion, the book’s better. More ‘stuff’ happens in the book. Really, I think I would have just liked to see John Hammond torn apart by the “compies”…

 

[NickClapper]

Hi there,
1.)Are you a avid reader or avid film watcher?

2.)how many books or films do you read or watch in month?

3.)Roughly, in the last 5 years, how many films have you seen that have been adapted from books?

4.) Did you read the book first or go and see the film?

5.)What did you prefer?

6.)why?

7.)Has seeing the film or reading the book made you want to go and read/see it’s other version?

1.) Both.

2.) I probably see 2 or 3 films a month (at the moment, usually much higher) and read about 20 books (excluding critical works).

3.) No idea, I think you need to do the research on this one.

4.) Usually if I see the film first I won't read the book because part of the joy of reading a book (for me at least) is having the plot unravel before you. I will almost always go to see the film version of a book I've read.

5.) Really depends. Not sure it's as black and white as 'books are always better than films' although that probably works better as a rule than the reverse. There are an awful lot of shitty books, as many as there are films, so it depends whether we're talking about stuff that's been printed or proper literature.

6.) See above.

7.) See above above.

 

[JoshL]

The best book to film translations I’ve seen, and read, would have to be ‘Fight Club’, a very short book, so almost all details have been transferred to the screen, and ‘The Silence of the Lambs’.

I had meant to bring this one up. Palahniuk himself thinks the film is better, and I agree with him. The book has a great story and idea, but it's not written particularly well. It's Palahniuk's first and it shows (compare it to, say, Haunted). The film, however, is fantastic.

Another interesting translation is American Psycho. The book is written to be mind-bogglingly mundane. It's dry, boring and intentionally so. Which is great, conceptually, and I do love it, but I've rewatched the film more than I've re-read the book. It's a superficial take on it, but it's a hell of a lot more entertaining. The differences make them distinct works, which is a valid goal with an adaptation, I think.

Oh, and I'll take a cocktail over football any day (not a sports person), and dance about architecture every chance I get!

 

[mad_hatter]

Another interesting translation is American Psycho...

Intresting, yes. For me, both the book and film are good works. The film works really well, Christian Bale is brilliant. The book, however, is quite a tedious read... In the film, Batemans obsession with his clothes and music is funny, in the book (after an entire chapter about Phil Collins and Genesis, or a 5 page rant on his collegues suit) it's annoying. The decision to cut this from the movie was a good one. It's also a very disgusting book; you couldn't put half of those words on screen... not without seeing your movie torn to shreds by the censors. But, those negatives are the same reasons that I would consider it a better book than movie; it's more powerful. The movie, despite being as good as it is, boils down to being a pretty standard splatter flick. The book is something entirely different...

 

[directorik]

I agree with CF - how can something so different be “better”? What
is better - a steak or a piece of pie?

Are you a avid reader or avid film watcher?

Both.

how many books or films do you read or watch in month?

Books - 2 or 3
Movies 10 to 15

Roughly, in the last 5 years, how many films have you seen that have been adapted from books?

In the last five years? Tough one. Maybe 30. 40? How many movies
based on books were made since 2006? I saw most of them.

Did you read the book first or go and see the film?

I do both. Sometimes I only see the film. Sometimes I only
read the book.

What did you prefer?

why?

They are so different I do not prefer either. I love (or hate)
both for different reasons. Take the Stieg Larsson books as an
example. I loved the books - couldn't put them down. And I
really liked the movies. The movies were very different but
very good - like steak and pie. I cannot say I prefer a good
steak over a good piece of pie.

Has seeing the film or reading the book made you want to go and read/see it’s other version?

Yes.

Reading the Larsson books made me want to see the movies.
Seeing "Drive" made me want to read the novel. Happens all
the time.

 

[harmonica44]

Lort of the rings and The trail

The book Lort of the rings was to slow, war action was a bit boring and the last book had 2 climax endings. The movies where better.

The trail of Kafka is a book lost in details, conversations and the feeling of not having power or having control. It is a bit boring.....
The movie is somting very difrent. Its a sureal nichtmare....its perfect.

The books are longer and have more, but that does not always necessarily mean better. I think a lot of fans of the books would be pleased if the filmmakers were willing to make a four hour long movie. Now we got movies like Harry Potter and Twilight that are splitting it into two movies, and the fans end up paying twice as much.

And as far as The Lord of the Rings, what's wrong with having two climax endings? I love when movies do that, you get two for the price of one.

 

[spinner]

I normally come down on the side of the book being better than the film. The book gives more depth to the story, to the characters because there are no time constraints. So you end up with a deeper experience that you you would with a film that has to combine characters and leave out entire explanations of a characters motivation.

A good example would be the Watchmen film. I had heard so much about the graphic novel. It's on many 'greatest book' lists with classics like Catcher In The Rye and To Kill A Mockingbird, I think maybe the only graphic novel to do so. So when the movie came out, it was my big movie of the year to make sure I got to see. I was so disappointed. I couldn't follow the film. There were characters who you could just tell had to have been more important than the film portrayed, situations that had to have been more involved but weren't worked out. But the effects were great. They should have gone ahead and just made it an epic film like LOTR, because we all know that if the film is handled well, people will sit through a 3 hour film.

I bought the book soon after I saw the film. I began reading it, but haven't finished it, it's a dense story and as usual I ended up putting it down for video production reasons and haven't returned to it yet. But what I read so far seems really fascinating.

The Stieg Larssen books read quickly, I've read the first two. For me, bad move. If the movie crushes down too much I'll be irritated, I started reading the books before I knew the American films were coming out. I'd like to see the Danish versions first, but who knows if I will get to.


-- spinner

 

[harmonica44]

One woman who read the Larssen trilogy told me that the movies were very unusually accurate to the books, and did the books justice. That was the one opinion of a person I can recall where movie was just as good! Haven't read it myself, though.

 

[spinner]

....she was also talking about the Danish versions. WHO KNOWS what the american-ized version will look like.



-- spinner

 

[harmonica44]

Yep the Danish ones.

 

[chilipie]

Yep the Danish ones.

*coughSwedishcough*

 

[harmonica44]

Oh right Swedish. The user said Danish so I assumed he or she knew.

 

[Psychosis Media]

I was an avid reader...i dont have much time or interest these days..and that includes comics as well!

i Have read alot of books that were turned or were rumored to be turned into movies...that was at least more then 15 yrs ago....again interest and time.

Entertainment value...apply it to whatever..it always come down to enterainment value.
Take Bladerunner or the book title Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
The book is so different and well boring...sorry but i could not read more then 25% of the book. It just didnt interest me....but the movie is great and has so many questions it posses to the watcher..it has an enterainment value to me.

On the flip side, the book Dune is a great example of how the orginal text/book is far better than the movie...including the awful scifi mini serise verision where the bad spfx ruined it...the dune book was awsome! but on a similar noet the scifi miniserise Childern of Dune was awsome!!!!! and if you havent seen it do so! they really came thru and redeamed themselves on this one!

and last but not least a title where the book and the movie were just awsome and im talking about A Clockwork Orange.......All that needs to be said is watch then read...you wont be dissapointed..but i warn you, Its a hard read because of the vernacular..but its worth it.

 

[MissingProductions]

Harry Potter books were better than the movies. Of course there were more details, and who doesn't like using their imagination to create scenes.

Movies were still bomby though.