I'd leave well alone if I were you. It's a huge debate that still rages today. My personal opinion fwiw is that the films were good as far as they went but not a patch on the books. I'd like to have seen Tom Bombadil and an ending more faithful to the book (scouring of the Shire etc). Otherwise a very good adaptation considering the size of the book and task
Films that are better than the book
- Thread starter Bollo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
No.
Tolvar
Active Member
One of the very few, movie far better than the book, examples - imho.
Hitchington
Lovely stuff
- Location
- That London
The Da Vinci Code - the film being marginally less worse than the book insofar as it takes less time to watch the film than read the book. Does that count?
Chris Norton
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Boston, Lincs
Probably the most controversial post made on any forum I have ever read. And this alone could cause a thread that will last for years.
To me this is a two edged sword, as the films are so often simply "different", and often I have a "closed mind" when they are.
The best example is the recent Jack Reacher film.
AS a film it is good, but lacks a lot of the thought processes that Reacher goes through to find out the facts, and his change of mind is more understandable in the book.
However despite a creditable performance in the film Tom Cruise annoyed me totally as Reacher is Reacher is 6'5" tall with a 50-inch chest, and weighing between 220 and 250 pounds.
A lot of the interactions in the book rely on this, and where a baddie is reluctant to attack Reacher in the book is obvious, it is not in the case of Cruise
So good books, good film, but sorry it was simply "wrong"
The best example is the recent Jack Reacher film.
AS a film it is good, but lacks a lot of the thought processes that Reacher goes through to find out the facts, and his change of mind is more understandable in the book.
However despite a creditable performance in the film Tom Cruise annoyed me totally as Reacher is Reacher is 6'5" tall with a 50-inch chest, and weighing between 220 and 250 pounds.
A lot of the interactions in the book rely on this, and where a baddie is reluctant to attack Reacher in the book is obvious, it is not in the case of Cruise
So good books, good film, but sorry it was simply "wrong"
The other point is that if it gets people reading then matching the two media is brilliant. If a book makes someone want to watch a film, or a film inspires someone to read the book, then I am happy
I dislike Harry Potter films and books equally, but have to give credit for inspiring a whole generation of kids to the magic that is reading!
I dislike Harry Potter films and books equally, but have to give credit for inspiring a whole generation of kids to the magic that is reading!
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
Life of Brian vs Gospels.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Whoever mentioned The Shawshank Redemption, I'd say that Stephen King's stories in general result in movies that often flatter their source material: The Shining, Misery etc.. We had a discussion about this elsewhere on the forum, and I think the consensus was that this is because King is a storyteller rather than any kind of literary stylist.
In response to Twickenham Cyclist, I wouldn't go as far as you. In many, the best adaptations are those that do become something entirely different, but for most film adaptations they do not escape their origins much as they'd like too. Some are too reverential and you wonder what the point of making a film version was... Bladerunner is a really good film not becuase it's 'better' than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but because it is able to make itself into something culturally new that connected it more to the written SF that was emerging at the time it was made (cyberpunk) than Dick's own world. Philip K. Dick's humour is also really hard to do on screen and Ridely Scott just ditched it and went for something very different. In contrast, Total Recall went totally gonzo with the humour - it's about all you can do if Arnie is your star - and it was only with A Scanner Darkly that someone finally made a adaptation of a Dick novel that had the combinaton of darkness and humour done right and which does something different from the book (the rotoscoping allows Linklater to 'say' things visually that are expressed through long monologues in the novel).
As for LoTR, I briefly felt like killing myself in the final film, it was so bum-numbingly dull with that complete lack of any variation in emotional intensity that characterizes Peter Jackson's direction. It's like someone shouting in your face for three hours. But then a lot of contemporary Hollywood cinema is like that...
In response to Twickenham Cyclist, I wouldn't go as far as you. In many, the best adaptations are those that do become something entirely different, but for most film adaptations they do not escape their origins much as they'd like too. Some are too reverential and you wonder what the point of making a film version was... Bladerunner is a really good film not becuase it's 'better' than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but because it is able to make itself into something culturally new that connected it more to the written SF that was emerging at the time it was made (cyberpunk) than Dick's own world. Philip K. Dick's humour is also really hard to do on screen and Ridely Scott just ditched it and went for something very different. In contrast, Total Recall went totally gonzo with the humour - it's about all you can do if Arnie is your star - and it was only with A Scanner Darkly that someone finally made a adaptation of a Dick novel that had the combinaton of darkness and humour done right and which does something different from the book (the rotoscoping allows Linklater to 'say' things visually that are expressed through long monologues in the novel).
As for LoTR, I briefly felt like killing myself in the final film, it was so bum-numbingly dull with that complete lack of any variation in emotional intensity that characterizes Peter Jackson's direction. It's like someone shouting in your face for three hours. But then a lot of contemporary Hollywood cinema is like that...
Last edited:
Apart from my original example, I was struggling to think of many. Funnily enough, the ones that did pop into my head were Bladerunner and LotR, but in the end like FM, I decided that Bladerunner was too different from the source book to make the comparison. The LotR films are ageing badly and the last one was interminable, so although I was no great lover of the books I think they win the round.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
In the spirit of this thread, I am going to read a book, the film of which I have watched twice. It wasn't that the film was brilliant, rather that it didn't make enough of an impression on me that I realised I had seen it before, until I was about 10 minutes in to a second viewing a few years later! I thought the film was okay, nothing special, but not so bad that I felt compelled to give up on it.
The film: Blood Work, starring Clint Eastwood.
The book: Blood Work (obviously!) by Michael Connelly.
I don't normally read that kind of novel, but my sister brought a big pile of books for me to read when I was very ill last year, and that is one of them. I already know all the twists in the plot, but let's if I can enjoy the book despite that. I will report back later! I will try to assess whether I would have bothered to watch the film, if I had read the book first.
The film: Blood Work, starring Clint Eastwood.
The book: Blood Work (obviously!) by Michael Connelly.
I don't normally read that kind of novel, but my sister brought a big pile of books for me to read when I was very ill last year, and that is one of them. I already know all the twists in the plot, but let's if I can enjoy the book despite that. I will report back later! I will try to assess whether I would have bothered to watch the film, if I had read the book first.
steve52
I'm back! Yippeee
- Location
- bottesford scunthorpe
if the film is better than the book, you read it wrong 
