-= Official "The Book" versus "The Movie" Thread

[kaphwan]

Some examples that come to mind are:

To Kill A Mockingbird: This comes down to personal preference, as the movie is an almost perfect adaptation. Harper Lee herself said that if the quality of a movie adaptation is based on it's truth to the books, that To Kill A Mockingbird would be studied for many years to come. The only missing things were the Mrs Dubose "true courage" saga, and some more establishment of Jem's deep loss of innocence and coming of age. The only technical issue was Tom Robinson's unconvincing "crippled" arm which would be impossible to simulate given the special effects technology at the time.

The Harry Potter Books: Usually good novel adaptations, the later movies have missed out huge parts of the books.... simply because the books are so exorbitantly huge. Not to say they aren't good... it's just that they're so very big, and filled with things that can't all go in the movie.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within: Isn't based on a book, but the events of any Final Fantasy are captivating and inspiring enough to print on paper and bound in leather, and with a great length as well. The story about personal sacrifice to save the world is here again, but it's way way too short, detracting from the quality in the same way it does with the Harry Potter movies.

The Five People You Meet In Heaven: I didn't know this was a movie and haven't seen it, but knowing that there is, I hope nothing was omitted from the book, as all the stories were essential to the overall message and the Five Lessons that each person teaches.

The Lord of The Rings: I haven't read any of the books in full, but if the entire movies were inspired by the books, the books must be pretty good. I've read the books, and the detail of the imagery is brilliant.

Any additions to what I've written (or even contradictions), or other examples of The Book versus The Movie are welcome.

[Crow]

The Crow - Awesome adaption from a comic book, the film is better although James O'Barr's graphic novel is amazing too

[Moses]

Sin City. 'Nuff said. I also hope V will be good.

The only books I want to see on fil would have to be the Gunslinger series. Great books, would make great flicks.

[Stay Vertical]

War of the worlds.
I didn't read the book I just thought it would be a good example.

[Pro A.]

Bourne Identity as a book runs circles around its movie counterpart. The book is a deft, brilliant psychological spy thriller with one of the greatest villains, Carlos. The movie is a solid, but thin thriller. The reverse is true with the sequel, Bourne Supremacy. The book is a solid one, but it runs out of gas about 400 pages in out of the 650 that it needs to finish the book. The movie is an adrenaline-pumping knockout with an intriguing story and one of the greatest car chases ever committed to film. So, the score is 1-1 with Ultimatum on its way within the next two years.

[Fiend]

Fight Club - Some things are changed a bit, but most of the movie's comedy comes directly from the book. I like the book's ending better, but watching buildings blow up with The Pixies playing in the background was pretty cool. They're very similar, but I like the book better.

The Shining - Stanly Kubrick made a wonderful horror film, but there were things missing. The book is very large, so it's forgivable. I think the film scared people more than the book itself, but both were very good. I have no favorite.

[Moses]

The cinematography in the Bourne movies and the fact they are all shot hand held are my favorite parts abut those films.

Another good one would be The Dead Zone and Sphere. I love Sphere. SEE IT.

[Crow]

The cinematography in the Bourne movies and the fact they are all shot hand held are my favorite parts abut those films.

Another good one would be The Dead Zone and Sphere. I love Sphere. SEE IT.

is that the underwater one with Samuel L Jackson?

[Pro A.]

Sure sounds like it.

Tom Clancy books vs. the movies:

Books up a resounding 4-Love right now. Hunt for Red October is the closest duel between the two. The movie manages to condense the book to managable proportions, but it just doesn't have the same claustrophobic, frentic feel the book did. Patriot Games is adequate on both ends, but the book has better characterizations and doesn't resort to cheap stereotypes. Clear and Present Danger, well, aside from cutting around 300 pages of really good material, the stuff they do leave in is presented as naive and pandering. Bah. Sum of all Fears, well, they had to start with a clean slate and on that level it does work, but the book is less terrifying than neo-Nazis blow up the Super Bowl. I'm sorry, but a deranged Arab making the hit (even if it is Denver) is a lot scarier and the book manages to be the last of the really good Jack Ryan books. The movie just seems hollow by comparison.

[Pats]

The movie version of Pride and Prejudice sucked.
In case anyone cares.

Oh, and I thought the Narnia movie was pretty decent.
But it can't compare to the book.
Any of the books.

I swear I don't only watch girly movies.

[Rizon]

The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy,

The book is superb compared to the film, the film is shamful in my view.
Gradually the standard of reproduction of this book has detertaited,
book > Radio > TV > Film

[kaphwan]

Along Came A Spider is one of my favourite James Patterson books, and the movie was so very good. The tension from the books, as well as the sense of danger and suspense, were recreated wonderfully and the movie itself is great. I wish that they would make movies from the others, especially London Bridges.

[Cofey]

I know I've talked about this before, but I'll mention it again: The Lord of the Rings. It literally pains me to watch those movies. I can't imagine why people rave about what a great job Jackson did transitioning the book to film. If those people had really read the book they'd be singing a different tune.

Ok, I know The Lord of the Rings novel is extremely long, and I can totally understand why he had to cut out certain parts if only to cut back the running time of the films. However, people constantly overlook the several major plot and character development flaws that Jackson presented. There is a difference between omitting something for brevity and altering the fundamental plotline of the book (e.g. Faramir, Theoden, the Palantir of Orthanc...I can go on and on).

In my opinion, the movies were great feats of cinematography - masterpieces of film. In regards to preserving the story and quality of the book however, Jackson fell way short of the mark.

[Pro A.]

I heard the same argument about Godfather and they're missing the point. You can't possibly get the story down to managable proportions for a movie unless you take a few liberties here and there to cut the story down to its very essence and the important themes. Coppola did a flawless job, ignoring the loose ends and making the movie a very internalized, brooding film about family, and it worked. One of my favorite books, L.A. Confidential, has the same issue. If they tried to do a straight adaptation, the movie would have been five hours long and a train wreck. The director was right, however, in making a radical change to the story, changing some characters and boiling it down to one or two events. The technique worked, though, and the movie is its equal, in many ways, to the book.

[Harmony]

1984
The book being amazing and then when I seen the movie I was fairly disappointed, though I semi expected. None of the characters were how they should have been in my opinion. I just pictured them all different though everybody most likely had their own hopes...

[Cofey]

I heard the same argument about Godfather and they're missing the point. You can't possibly get the story down to managable proportions for a movie unless you take a few liberties here and there to cut the story down to its very essence and the important themes. Coppola did a flawless job, ignoring the loose ends and making the movie a very internalized, brooding film about family, and it worked. One of my favorite books, L.A. Confidential, has the same issue. If they tried to do a straight adaptation, the movie would have been five hours long and a train wreck. The director was right, however, in making a radical change to the story, changing some characters and boiling it down to one or two events. The technique worked, though, and the movie is its equal, in many ways, to the book.
The bottom line is, the story presented in the movies is not the same story presented in the book. I'll admit some change is always necessary. But the extent to which Jackson changed the story is ridiculous. He could have made three equally good movies without hacking it apart so much. And when you make fundamental changes to the personality of some characters, such as Faramir and Theoden, and even Frodo to some extent (e.g. offering the Ring to the Nazgul in Osgiliath), it defeats the sole purpose for creating the characters at all. I find that unacceptable.

[MONSTER ZERO]

i hate it when people say "oh the book was better" of course the book will be better. can you imagine if the movies were exactly the same as books we would be watching one movie all fucking day. 98% of the time the book will win because you are comparing a 2 hour film to a 700 page or more book that takes more than twice as long explaining everything and going in depth to the piont the author is trying to get across. Movies are for people who are too lazy to read.

In conclusion, lolz reading makes you think and expands your imagination. book to movie doesn't do shit to your brain and makes brain hurt.:carlos: