The book is better than the movie

[Fingerprint]

The Golden Compass *rushes to take shower at typing those hideous words* should not have been done. The book The Northern Lights is quite simply a masterpiece as is the rest of the trilogy. However the film just doesn't live up to anything. Firstly is isn't a compass. Secondly the film was never going to work as the sheer scale of the project was always going to be too great, the world, the imagination, the whole concept is something that can only be put well within the confines of a book.

I agree here, but the theatrical production (basically a two part performance of all three books) did succeed in pulling it off well, they showed it can be done. That said, the film wasn't as good as the book, although I still enjoyed watching the film it wasn't anywhere near the book. Also, why the hell did they give it the (stupid) American name despite being a British production, filmed with a mainly British cast and crew, at Pinewood Studios in the UK, and based on a British novel by a British author? What was the point?

I also think that Apocalypse Now was nowhere near as good as the book. Heart of Darkness was an awesome book and Apocalypse Now was an ambitious project that could have succeeded, except Coppola basically bastardised the source material too much. I enjoyed reading Joseph Conrad's novel much more than seeing that film, although it helps that I'm quite a fan of classical literature...

I've never seen the theatrical production but I do believe it could work as generally more effort is made to stick to the books in theatre than in film. (I really hate this f*****g American spell checker!) I can only assume the name was chosen because Hollywood thinks that their audience is just a bunch of morons who have only an absolute basic understanding of the English language.

As for Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, I must admit I found the book quite heavy going as the language and dialect is of an era. But the story itself is a very good one. Apart from changing the time its set in I do feel that Apocalypse Now didn't discredit the book as much as some other adaptations have. (See above.) I think to be fair to Apocalypse Now, its a good film if you ignore the fact that its based on a (good) book. If you look at Apocalypse Now as a rip off of Heart of Darkness, rather than an adaptation then I feel the film holds it own.

 

[Trivun]

The Golden Compass *rushes to take shower at typing those hideous words* should not have been done. The book The Northern Lights is quite simply a masterpiece as is the rest of the trilogy. However the film just doesn't live up to anything. Firstly is isn't a compass. Secondly the film was never going to work as the sheer scale of the project was always going to be too great, the world, the imagination, the whole concept is something that can only be put well within the confines of a book.

I agree here, but the theatrical production (basically a two part performance of all three books) did succeed in pulling it off well, they showed it can be done. That said, the film wasn't as good as the book, although I still enjoyed watching the film it wasn't anywhere near the book. Also, why the hell did they give it the (stupid) American name despite being a British production, filmed with a mainly British cast and crew, at Pinewood Studios in the UK, and based on a British novel by a British author? What was the point?

I also think that Apocalypse Now was nowhere near as good as the book. Heart of Darkness was an awesome book and Apocalypse Now was an ambitious project that could have succeeded, except Coppola basically bastardised the source material too much. I enjoyed reading Joseph Conrad's novel much more than seeing that film, although it helps that I'm quite a fan of classical literature...

I've never seen the theatrical production but I do believe it could work as generally more effort is made to stick to the books in theatre than in film. (I really hate this f*****g American spell checker!) I can only assume the name was chosen because Hollywood thinks that their audience is just a bunch of morons who have only an absolute basic understanding of the English language.

As for Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, I must admit I found the book quite heavy going as the language and dialect is of an era. But the story itself is a very good one. Apart from changing the time its set in I do feel that Apocalypse Now didn't discredit the book as much as some other adaptations have. (See above.) I think to be fair to Apocalypse Now, its a good film if you ignore the fact that its based on a (good) book. If you look at Apocalypse Now as a rip off of Heart of Darkness, rather than an adaptation then I feel the film holds it own.

Oh yes, I definitely agree with you about Apocalypse Now. However, I studied the book two years ago as part of my English Literature AS-Level coursework and we were shown the film as a sort of 'after-school' thing in Sixth Form over the course of a week. I did feel it would be a decent film if I hadn't already studied the novel, if I was unaware of the links, but I just kept comparing the two in my mind and felt the book to be superior. That said, Conrad was writing about his own experiences and the scriptwriters of Apocalypse Now didn't have that added bonus, and there were some parts I felt completely unnecessary, like the Playboy model bit and the stealing of the surfboard (we were watching the Redux version). They made it seem a little cheap and tacky for me in parts.

 

[Fingerprint]

The Golden Compass *rushes to take shower at typing those hideous words* should not have been done. The book The Northern Lights is quite simply a masterpiece as is the rest of the trilogy. However the film just doesn't live up to anything. Firstly is isn't a compass. Secondly the film was never going to work as the sheer scale of the project was always going to be too great, the world, the imagination, the whole concept is something that can only be put well within the confines of a book.

I agree here, but the theatrical production (basically a two part performance of all three books) did succeed in pulling it off well, they showed it can be done. That said, the film wasn't as good as the book, although I still enjoyed watching the film it wasn't anywhere near the book. Also, why the hell did they give it the (stupid) American name despite being a British production, filmed with a mainly British cast and crew, at Pinewood Studios in the UK, and based on a British novel by a British author? What was the point?

I also think that Apocalypse Now was nowhere near as good as the book. Heart of Darkness was an awesome book and Apocalypse Now was an ambitious project that could have succeeded, except Coppola basically bastardised the source material too much. I enjoyed reading Joseph Conrad's novel much more than seeing that film, although it helps that I'm quite a fan of classical literature...

I've never seen the theatrical production but I do believe it could work as generally more effort is made to stick to the books in theatre than in film. (I really hate this f*****g American spell checker!) I can only assume the name was chosen because Hollywood thinks that their audience is just a bunch of morons who have only an absolute basic understanding of the English language.

As for Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, I must admit I found the book quite heavy going as the language and dialect is of an era. But the story itself is a very good one. Apart from changing the time its set in I do feel that Apocalypse Now didn't discredit the book as much as some other adaptations have. (See above.) I think to be fair to Apocalypse Now, its a good film if you ignore the fact that its based on a (good) book. If you look at Apocalypse Now as a rip off of Heart of Darkness, rather than an adaptation then I feel the film holds it own.

Oh yes, I definitely agree with you about Apocalypse Now. However, I studied the book two years ago as part of my English Literature AS-Level coursework and we were shown the film as a sort of 'after-school' thing in Sixth Form over the course of a week. I did feel it would be a decent film if I hadn't already studied the novel, if I was unaware of the links, but I just kept comparing the two in my mind and felt the book to be superior. That said, Conrad was writing about his own experiences and the scriptwriters of Apocalypse Now didn't have that added bonus, and there were some parts I felt completely unnecessary, like the Playboy model bit and the stealing of the surfboard (we were watching the Redux version). They made it seem a little cheap and tacky for me in parts.

Remember cheap tricks are Hollywood's forte (how do I get accents?). You have no idea how lucky you were studying Heart of Darkness for your AS's. I got stuck with Jane Eyre - at the time I wanted to go back in time and set fire to the manuscripts (Hell, I still do). I suppose I got a little lucky though as I got to study One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest as a second AS book. But then again it could have been worse, the original book my teacher wanted us to look at was A Passage To India - now that would've been torture.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

I must find this tin.

It's £15 on amazon. Or £14 if you don't mind it being cardboard. Looks good, I'm happy enough with the final cut though.

On topic, I have not yet come across a movie that I felt was better, or even on par with the book it was based on. However, I haven't read books like the Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, Stardust etc which possibly could be inferior to the films.

You have no idea how lucky you were studying Heart of Darkness for your AS's. I got stuck with Jane Eyre - at the time I wanted to go back in time and set fire to the manuscripts (Hell, I still do).

I preferred Jane Eyre. I found Heart of Darkness quite a drag (I had the same response to the film, but it had Flight of the Valkyries in it).

 

[skcseth]

I'm with the "everything" vote, but especially I Am Legend. The book is a lot better surprisingly enough.

 

[Trivun]

The Golden Compass *rushes to take shower at typing those hideous words* should not have been done. The book The Northern Lights is quite simply a masterpiece as is the rest of the trilogy. However the film just doesn't live up to anything. Firstly is isn't a compass. Secondly the film was never going to work as the sheer scale of the project was always going to be too great, the world, the imagination, the whole concept is something that can only be put well within the confines of a book.

I agree here, but the theatrical production (basically a two part performance of all three books) did succeed in pulling it off well, they showed it can be done. That said, the film wasn't as good as the book, although I still enjoyed watching the film it wasn't anywhere near the book. Also, why the hell did they give it the (stupid) American name despite being a British production, filmed with a mainly British cast and crew, at Pinewood Studios in the UK, and based on a British novel by a British author? What was the point?

I also think that Apocalypse Now was nowhere near as good as the book. Heart of Darkness was an awesome book and Apocalypse Now was an ambitious project that could have succeeded, except Coppola basically bastardised the source material too much. I enjoyed reading Joseph Conrad's novel much more than seeing that film, although it helps that I'm quite a fan of classical literature...

I've never seen the theatrical production but I do believe it could work as generally more effort is made to stick to the books in theatre than in film. (I really hate this f*****g American spell checker!) I can only assume the name was chosen because Hollywood thinks that their audience is just a bunch of morons who have only an absolute basic understanding of the English language.

As for Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, I must admit I found the book quite heavy going as the language and dialect is of an era. But the story itself is a very good one. Apart from changing the time its set in I do feel that Apocalypse Now didn't discredit the book as much as some other adaptations have. (See above.) I think to be fair to Apocalypse Now, its a good film if you ignore the fact that its based on a (good) book. If you look at Apocalypse Now as a rip off of Heart of Darkness, rather than an adaptation then I feel the film holds it own.

Oh yes, I definitely agree with you about Apocalypse Now. However, I studied the book two years ago as part of my English Literature AS-Level coursework and we were shown the film as a sort of 'after-school' thing in Sixth Form over the course of a week. I did feel it would be a decent film if I hadn't already studied the novel, if I was unaware of the links, but I just kept comparing the two in my mind and felt the book to be superior. That said, Conrad was writing about his own experiences and the scriptwriters of Apocalypse Now didn't have that added bonus, and there were some parts I felt completely unnecessary, like the Playboy model bit and the stealing of the surfboard (we were watching the Redux version). They made it seem a little cheap and tacky for me in parts.

Remember cheap tricks are Hollywood's forte (how do I get accents?). You have no idea how lucky you were studying Heart of Darkness for your AS's. I got stuck with Jane Eyre - at the time I wanted to go back in time and set fire to the manuscripts (Hell, I still do). I suppose I got a little lucky though as I got to study One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest as a second AS book. But then again it could have been worse, the original book my teacher wanted us to look at was A Passage To India - now that would've been torture.

Heh. I actually dropped English Literature after AS, I loved the literature part (we did the Romantics and Byron was one of my passions then), but I couldn't cope with all the essays and so on. No amount of Shakespeare could have made me stay with that subject, and I bloody love Shakespeare. Although I have to say when we went to London to see the RSC do Anthony and Cleopatra, it was a pretty crap performance. They overhyped the bawdiness of it and didn't focus enough on the rest of the play, so I didn't like it much. Ended up doing Economics, Physics and Maths based A-Levels in the end. Still, the year after I managed to weasel my way onto a trip to see Twelfth Night at the Courtyard Theatre in Stratford, one guy dropped out on the day and I'd already said I wanted to go, even though I couldn't because I didn't do the subject anymore. When he left the trip they asked me to take his place, so I went for it. I did want to see Hamlet with David Tennant but never managed to get a ticket, a friend saw it though and she said it was pretty damn good

 

[herr.Didi]

The Shawshank Redemption was one that I found better on film than paper, it was more grandiose and made me care more, as was Fight Club actually, even though Chuck Palahnuik is my favourite author. That was mainly down to the brilliant casting. Not an actor out of place.

My favorite author is Chuck Palahniuk as well, and Fight Club was the movie that made me read his work. I think I liked the movie more mainly because I saw the movie first, dunno. I read Choke but didn't see the movie yet...
And yeah, most of Stephen King's books are better than the films made after them.

 

[Fingerprint]

The Golden Compass *rushes to take shower at typing those hideous words* should not have been done. The book The Northern Lights is quite simply a masterpiece as is the rest of the trilogy. However the film just doesn't live up to anything. Firstly is isn't a compass. Secondly the film was never going to work as the sheer scale of the project was always going to be too great, the world, the imagination, the whole concept is something that can only be put well within the confines of a book.

I agree here, but the theatrical production (basically a two part performance of all three books) did succeed in pulling it off well, they showed it can be done. That said, the film wasn't as good as the book, although I still enjoyed watching the film it wasn't anywhere near the book. Also, why the hell did they give it the (stupid) American name despite being a British production, filmed with a mainly British cast and crew, at Pinewood Studios in the UK, and based on a British novel by a British author? What was the point?

I also think that Apocalypse Now was nowhere near as good as the book. Heart of Darkness was an awesome book and Apocalypse Now was an ambitious project that could have succeeded, except Coppola basically bastardised the source material too much. I enjoyed reading Joseph Conrad's novel much more than seeing that film, although it helps that I'm quite a fan of classical literature...

I've never seen the theatrical production but I do believe it could work as generally more effort is made to stick to the books in theatre than in film. (I really hate this f*****g American spell checker!) I can only assume the name was chosen because Hollywood thinks that their audience is just a bunch of morons who have only an absolute basic understanding of the English language.

As for Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, I must admit I found the book quite heavy going as the language and dialect is of an era. But the story itself is a very good one. Apart from changing the time its set in I do feel that Apocalypse Now didn't discredit the book as much as some other adaptations have. (See above.) I think to be fair to Apocalypse Now, its a good film if you ignore the fact that its based on a (good) book. If you look at Apocalypse Now as a rip off of Heart of Darkness, rather than an adaptation then I feel the film holds it own.

Oh yes, I definitely agree with you about Apocalypse Now. However, I studied the book two years ago as part of my English Literature AS-Level coursework and we were shown the film as a sort of 'after-school' thing in Sixth Form over the course of a week. I did feel it would be a decent film if I hadn't already studied the novel, if I was unaware of the links, but I just kept comparing the two in my mind and felt the book to be superior. That said, Conrad was writing about his own experiences and the scriptwriters of Apocalypse Now didn't have that added bonus, and there were some parts I felt completely unnecessary, like the Playboy model bit and the stealing of the surfboard (we were watching the Redux version). They made it seem a little cheap and tacky for me in parts.

Remember cheap tricks are Hollywood's forte (how do I get accents?). You have no idea how lucky you were studying Heart of Darkness for your AS's. I got stuck with Jane Eyre - at the time I wanted to go back in time and set fire to the manuscripts (Hell, I still do). I suppose I got a little lucky though as I got to study One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest as a second AS book. But then again it could have been worse, the original book my teacher wanted us to look at was A Passage To India - now that would've been torture.

Heh. I actually dropped English Literature after AS, I loved the literature part (we did the Romantics and Byron was one of my passions then), but I couldn't cope with all the essays and so on. No amount of Shakespeare could have made me stay with that subject, and I bloody love Shakespeare. Although I have to say when we went to London to see the RSC do Anthony and Cleopatra, it was a pretty crap performance. They overhyped the bawdiness of it and didn't focus enough on the rest of the play, so I didn't like it much. Ended up doing Economics, Physics and Maths based A-Levels in the end. Still, the year after I managed to weasel my way onto a trip to see Twelfth Night at the Courtyard Theatre in Stratford, one guy dropped out on the day and I'd already said I wanted to go, even though I couldn't because I didn't do the subject anymore. When he left the trip they asked me to take his place, so I went for it. I did want to see Hamlet with David Tennant but never managed to get a ticket, a friend saw it though and she said it was pretty damn good

I pretty much gave up on school theatre trips as the school always chose the cheapest, worse, etc. adaptations they could find. Anyway, I stuck with English lit. throughout and got a B out of it - yes, I was one of those who read the book (Frankenstein in my case) the night before the exam. XD Unfortunately we didn't do any Byron, instead we got T.S. Elliot and William Blake. Overall I think its a fair trade. I would love to go to see some really good theatre productions of Shakespeare. We looked at The Tempest and Hamlet so I'd like to see them the most. But at the moment I just never seem to have the time - yes, I know its a terrible excuse but its the only reason I can think of to justify not seeing them yet.

 

[Totaltruth]

I can think of three examples where book=movie. All three of these examples I believe each tell superb stories in their own right film/text. Being able to tell the same story through two different mediums really enriches it as a whole.

Movie > Book = Stanley Kubrick's Career

How about 2001:Space odyssey?
*SPOILER ALERT*


However great, beautiful and how much i love that movie , I also appreciated the book going all the way with the sci-fi edge of other aliens and how it is written. I felt the whole "star-child" thing was explained far better in the book, though the movie is more open to interpretation. Though you can't disregard the wonders that are the movie, the symphonic scores to the atmosphere created is a marvel to behold in cinema. In this instance I'd say Movie=Book. This is a rare case where the movie and book compliment each other.

*END SPOILER*

I'd also like to add my thoughts on the Lord of the Rings. The Film adaptions are brilliant efforts and are adapted rather faithfully to the constraints of modern cinema. The epic story they tell and lack of many similar genres in movies today are perhaps why the lord of the rings movies achieved so many accolades. Each to their own both the book and movie are both marvellous and are both deserving of equal audiences.

Trainspotting's phonetic text in the book creates a very real connection to all the characters and the film loyally maintains this through it's narration. Both the film and text each create their own atmospheres through different techniques.

 

[Ancalagon]

Movie > Book = Stanley Kubrick's Career

How about 2001:Space odyssey?

Or how about Lolita?

EDIT: Although I would have to agree that he must be the most successful director ever at adapting novels, particularly Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining.

 

[SecretTacoNinja]

Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix. That movie was baaaaaaaad.

And I'll say Watership Down as well because it had less mindfuck moments and didn't kill Blackavar in the book. I still like both though.

 

[davidboring]

My favorite author is Chuck Palahniuk as well, and Fight Club was the movie that made me read his work. I think I liked the movie more mainly because I saw the movie first, dunno. I read Choke but didn't see the movie yet...
And yeah, most of Stephen King's books are better than the films made after them.

The film is alright, but missed a lot of the nuance. Quite good casting, not amazing. Good book but I thought not as good as some of his others.

 

[klakkat]

The book is always better than the movie because the reader always pictures the book how they want it with a movie it's different everything is already set so the reader cant imagine how he would want it to be.

Not always. For one thing, movies cater more to the impatient and unimaginative demographic, which frankly is a whole hell of a lot of people, so as far as an artistic medium a movie is more likely to get its point across (though watered down, probably). The trade off, is that books can cater to a smaller demographic and still be profitable, so they can have significantly higher detail and more sophisticated ideas and techniques, which is one reason they're often better in the opinion of those that understand them, and worse to everyone else.

But one of the biggest reasons a movie can be better than the book is when the subtleties of the story rely on visual cues to the characters. These usually come off as slow or confusing in a book.

That said, every book has much greater opportunities for characterization and plot development that movies do, so good writers can generally make a book that will inevitably lose quality by being converted to a movie. So, its a trade off between visuals and intangible details (assuming they're done well).

 

[Baneat]

But I must say that Do androids dream of electric sheep is a zillion times better than the movie blade runner.

It depresses me to no end. The original film had a Phil Noir aspect where Ford would narrate over the movie. Apparently it was fantastic.

This version was never released outside of theaters.

You'll find that every single version of this film has recently been rereleased in a large set, you could probably download your favourite version, not that I liked the movie or anything lol.

 

[Hippobatman]

I've yet to find a movie which is better than the book its adapted from. I've seen som nice efforts, though, but the book is always much better.

It's only so much you can fit into the movie, while in the book you can ramble on as long as you've got paper.

EDIT: Yay, post no. 1000

 

[A Raging Emo]

The book is always alot better than the movie.

I can think of so many... Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Twilight... Thew list goes on and on and on.

 

[Lordmarkus]

I HATED the Da vinci code film. Since the book is my personel favourite I had high hopes. Damn I was disappointed.

Also, The Godfather in bookform is better than the moving one.

 

[GoldenRaz]

Harry Potter, ALL of them.
Eragon, because the movie just sucked.
Da Vinci code, missed a couple of puzzles.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Just about every book is better than the movie with the exception of There Will Be Blood, The Sicilian and the Shawshank Redemption.

This & harry potter but as harry potter already sucks, that hardly makes the films good

 

[ConnorCool]

its been said already but everything, you can get so much more description into a book.

apart from TLOTR, they are better than the books but only because the books are rather aged (but still brilliant)