how bout ''one flew over the cuckoo's nest'' and "a clockwork orange''? "the shining'' is a give in.
films that were better than the book (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mikeypants
- Start date
chronic
old and in the way
Interesting... two of the titles you mentioned (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Shining) were movies that I thought were really disappointing when they were new, probably because I had read the books sometime before the movies were made. I was especially disappointed with The Shining since I'm a Kubrick fan and thought he could have done much better with such rich material. I think the the film version of One Flew Over... suffered because the characterizations in the book were so strong and none of the actors (with the possible exceptions of Brad Dourif and Will Sampson) really fit the characters they were playing. A Clockwork Orange was probably about equal to the book, which is really saying something since it wasn't a book that easily lent itself to film.
Nowadays I can watch any of them and they are all good, but better than the books? Nah.
Nowadays I can watch any of them and they are all good, but better than the books? Nah.
Too lazy to edit, but The Shining was a pretty good book (at least to a 14 year old) and an absolute train wreck/dog dump of a movie. Amongst the worst movies I've ever seen. Then again, I absolutely cannot stand Jack Nicholson. Pure drivel, every time.
Cuckoo's Nest was a very good book (far better than Shining) and a better movie, but no match for the book. Nicholson is almost tolerable in this.
I think that Clockwork is a very unique situation. And I agree about your assessment. Nearly equal in quality, but for very different reasons. The book conjures visuals, so as to make the mind create the images that are furthered by the Nadsat vocabulary.
The film removes any need for that by hammering a nail into your skull whilst stove-piping you.
It's actually quite pleasurable in a hypothetical kind of way. :D
Cuckoo's Nest was a very good book (far better than Shining) and a better movie, but no match for the book. Nicholson is almost tolerable in this.
I think that Clockwork is a very unique situation. And I agree about your assessment. Nearly equal in quality, but for very different reasons. The book conjures visuals, so as to make the mind create the images that are furthered by the Nadsat vocabulary.
The film removes any need for that by hammering a nail into your skull whilst stove-piping you.
It's actually quite pleasurable in a hypothetical kind of way. :D
I like Nicholson in almost every role he's had. I really like One Flew Over .., but I have never been able to sit through The Shining after about the first 10 minutes, so I've never seen it apart from the usual bits from the trailer. I have not read either book.
IMO, movies are never as "good" as the source books, nor can they be as the authors have different objectives: books are generally written for readers and their imaginations whereas screenplays are written for watchers and listeners and need to tell the whole story in 90 minutes or so.
There are exceptions, but these are where the author writes "filmicly", intentionally or otherwise. Two that come to mind are Leaving Las Vegas, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where the books were very easily adapted to screen because they concentrate on describing action, not so much of what the characters are thinking.
IMO, movies are never as "good" as the source books, nor can they be as the authors have different objectives: books are generally written for readers and their imaginations whereas screenplays are written for watchers and listeners and need to tell the whole story in 90 minutes or so.
There are exceptions, but these are where the author writes "filmicly", intentionally or otherwise. Two that come to mind are Leaving Las Vegas, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where the books were very easily adapted to screen because they concentrate on describing action, not so much of what the characters are thinking.
I havent figured out how to "quote yet, sorry. Now that i think of it the actress in the shining was irritating, but i thought Jack was great, as well as the atmosphere. I've never heard anyone trash vintage jack before. Purple St Who do you like? Socratease, cool name but unless IMO means in most occurences i must disagree. I would think it would be easy to judge a movie as a better source of entertainment, even if it is completely different than the book.
IMO = "in my opinion"
By "source" I mean the original material: novel, short story, etc.
Whether or not a book or movie is considered entertaining (again IMO) is determined by a combination of things such as personal preferences, one's expectations and the skill of the author/makers.
Does this mean you agree?
IMO I have to agree that the book usually out does the movie every time. There is usually much more detail and nuance in the book then they can fit into the time a movie shows.
A movie adaptation has to be scaled down from the book or novel due to time.
I really love the book "The world according to Garp" and I love the movie, but there are great parts in the book that never made it on to the screen.
If Ham on Rye were to make it to the silver screen (I am still hoping) be sure that there would be moments here and there that the reader would immortalize that wouldn't make it on to the screen just based on the fact that the book itself, in all it's detail, couldn't fit into the time frame that a movie would show.
I mean I could sit through 4 or 5 hours of the movie but the Producers and the Movie studio would think otherwise.
So IMO the book will probably always be the better of the two based on time alone.
A movie adaptation has to be scaled down from the book or novel due to time.
I really love the book "The world according to Garp" and I love the movie, but there are great parts in the book that never made it on to the screen.
If Ham on Rye were to make it to the silver screen (I am still hoping) be sure that there would be moments here and there that the reader would immortalize that wouldn't make it on to the screen just based on the fact that the book itself, in all it's detail, couldn't fit into the time frame that a movie would show.
I mean I could sit through 4 or 5 hours of the movie but the Producers and the Movie studio would think otherwise.
So IMO the book will probably always be the better of the two based on time alone.
Why do you have to put IMO when it could only be your opinion? It's not just to confuse computer illiterate stoners, is it?
Agree to what? That it is "easy to judge a movie as a better source of entertainment"? As I said earlier, whether or not something can be considered "entertaining" depends on a number of factors, most of them varying according to personal preferences. What you may find entertaining I may find boring and vice versa, be it a book, a movie or a sporting event.
Yes ... and, no.
agree that in matters of opinion "never" is too strong a word i don't know how to put it but that's not it
Well, that is a matter of opinion. :p
sorry, did i mention i'm a stoner? that made sense when I thought of it, but in retrospect "in matters of opinion..." makes absolutely no sense.
I thought it would be a good thread because it's so rare that a movie turns out better than the book it was based on, but i thought people would think of 1 or 2.
I thought it would be a good thread because it's so rare that a movie turns out better than the book it was based on, but i thought people would think of 1 or 2.
"Better" is a subjective term. It's a very common thing for people to say "The movie wasn't as good as the book", but then they are two entirely different forms of expression and should be judged in that light.
Personally, I can't recall hearing people say that the movie was better than the book, but they may have, and I can't think of an instance from my own experience.
What are your criteria for "better"?
Personally, I can't recall hearing people say that the movie was better than the book, but they may have, and I can't think of an instance from my own experience.
What are your criteria for "better"?
Under the Volcano _ Malcolm Lowry.
The book was boring.
I find it a good movie: a 7 1/2 of 10.
Fine acting work by Albert Finney.
http://www.answers.com/topic/under-the-volcano-film-1
The book was boring.
I find it a good movie: a 7 1/2 of 10.
Fine acting work by Albert Finney.
http://www.answers.com/topic/under-the-volcano-film-1
The Thin Red Line, Fight Club and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I suppose 'better' would mean that I enjoyed the film more than the book. Film has the advantage of fleshing out the characters on screen, voices and quirks are added. Those films also stayed relatively faithful to the narrative.
Bukfan
"The law is wrong; I am right"
Yes, a couple of times and it's better than the movie IMO. There's interesting side-plots that never made it into the movie, such as the chapters about Johnny Fontane's sidekick, Nino, who Fontane made into a movie star and who later dies of drink in the book, and the chapters about Fontane's Hollywood life.
Then there's the chapters about the plastic surgeon, Jules, in Las Vegas who fixes up Sonny's girlfriend, Lucy Mancini's pussy.
Of course, the part about how Vito Corleone works his way up to become Godfather, we get to see in The Godfather-Part2.
That said, The Godfather is a great movie and "they" say that Part 2 is even better than Part 1, and I tend to agree. "They" say that it's one of the few examples of a sequel being better than the original movie.
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO apples are better than oranges. You don't have to peal them, they're more filling, and they don't make you as sticky. Apple and orange juice are a different story though. The better i was gettin at would be which one you found more agreeable.
The Last Picture Show is one of my favorite movies and even though the book's okay I don't think it compares. Being There was much better as a movie, also.
& the Spice Girls movie Spice World was much better than the book I've heard it was based on, Crime & Punishment by Doesteyevsky.
& the Spice Girls movie Spice World was much better than the book I've heard it was based on, Crime & Punishment by Doesteyevsky.
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
RJ is right about Fear and Loathing. I didn't read the other two books but it would make sense that they would be better than the books.
In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas the bar scenes were perfect. The carpet pattern growing was right on the money- I was probably doing some of the same acid at that same time 1970 and 71. It needed top notch special effects to make it right.
LOL!
I thought the movie was okay, and as faithful to the book as it could be in practical terms, but the book made me laugh out loud a number of times -- once on a train where the other passengers gave me very odd looks.
However, the images conjured up by some passages of Thompson's writing would have been nigh on impossible to portray on screen, so I guess I enjoyed the book better.
Ambreen
Sordide Sentimental
LOL too !
There are at least very few films that I prefer to the books. Four come at my mind :
Grave of the fireflies, Isao Takahata
It's a Japanese animation film, the most harrowing thing about World War 2's atrocities I've ever seen. It turns out to be the adaptation of a short story from Akiyuki Nosaka which is not as intense and poetic as the film. I have only been able to see it one time, such it's a traumatic experience.
Barry Lyndon, Stanley Kubrick
The english patient, Anthony Minghella
Juliette Binoche when receiving the Oscar : "It must be a French dream" :D
Je vais bien, ne t'en fais pas, Philippe Lioret
A film about a girl whose twin brother dies when she is on holidays. When she comes back, her parents are unable to tell her the truth and talk about an argument after which he ran off the house. The girl feels bad, becomes anorexic and then recovers, tries to discover what happened during her absence and to find her brother (whom she believes to be alive from the beginning to the end). The book is trivial, not to say insignificant, whereas the film is very deep and moving. It revealed the actress Mélanie Laurent, who is now famous and will appear in Tarantino's new film, Unglorious Basterds.
There are films I watched with the same pleasure as the one I felt while reading the books they were adapted from :
The dangerous liaisons, Stephen Frears
I had doubts before watching it, wondering if an English man could correctly adapt such a monument of French 18th century literature. Finally, I discovered a masterpiece. Nothing to do with Milos Forman's disaster named Valmont.
The portrait of a lady, Jane Campion
Sense & sensibility, Ang Lee
A room with a view, James Ivory
Maurice, James Ivory
Howards End, James Ivory
Death in Venice, Luchino Visconti
Deux anglaises et le continent, François Truffaut
Jules & Jim, François Truffaut
Lady Chatterley, Pascale Ferran
Trainspotting, Danny Boyle
Last edited by a moderator:
yes, i read the godfather. i am also a huge fan of the movie.
i try not to see movies made from books ive read cause quite frankly there is no way they can compare with my imagination. aside fromt he fact that you cna be sitting in the cinema and something will happen or someone will appear on the screen and you think who the fuck is that? or thats not what happened in the book
as for one flew over the cuckoos nest... i thought the book was great... i really enjoyed it. but jack nicholson is just too darn distracting for me. hes always jack. perhaps not in his earliest roles 'before' he was 'jack' but now i just cant separate the actor from the role.
mjp
Founding member
Oh yeah, that movie was much better than the book! Only a profoundly retarded deaf mute could think that book can hold a candle to the cinematic masterpiece that was the Fear and Loathing film. The film is so great it makes the book look like a sad, impotent afterthought. I've often wondered why the film is not part of the curriculum required for every English degree.
Obviously the literary bigwigs flexed their muscle and kept it off the Academy Award ballots and lobbied against Gilliam at Cannes. Well, fuck them! They wouldn't know genius if it crawled up their ass and illuminated them from within. Those flag burning, TV dinner zombies only seek to destroy what is beautiful...what they don't understand...
Most of the time the book is always better but with the Godfather the book and film are equally as epic in my opinion. I guess the fact that Coppola worked so closely with Puzo makes them so compatable with each other. Seeing the film first with it's stunning visuals, brilliant performances, score ect. acts as a taster so when you come to the book it's exciting to delve a lot deeper into such a massively rich story. Usually I think it's much better to read the book before seeing the film, but not in the case of The Godfather.
There is one case -- not a movie, but a TV series -- where seeing the dramatized version made me go and read the book. The case in question was the excellent 1982 BBC mini series "Barchester Chronicles", based on Trollope's Barchester Towers, starring a swag of British A-listers including Donald Pleasence, Nigel Hawthorne, Susan Hampshire and Alan Rickman.
Barchester Towers was a prescribed novel in high school English and I couldn't stand it. At exam time I relied on the equivalent of Cliff Notes.
However, years later, having watched the BBC series I grabbed a copy of BT and read it from end to end, because the characters now had faces and voices with accents that came alive for me in the text.
(... and I have just now added the DVD to my Amazon wish list.)
Back to A Clockwork Orange for a bit. Unfortunately, I saw the movie before I read the book, so I can't comment without bias as to how I would have imagined the book to play across my eyes, as it were. But to me, there's something so very appropriate about the pseudo-cheezy portrayal of the near future in Kubrick's rendition that is very satisfying to me. I think Kubrick also captured the "trivialization of violence" (as preceived by Alex and droogs) very well by his choice of music and the occasional dose of black humour (Look here, Sonny, that happens to be a very important work of art!, said all posh).
When I finally read the book, I would say that it was at least as good as the film, which in this one case, was a tall order for me. The NADSAT is brilliant as well, and faithfully delivered in the film.
Book: 10/10
Film: 10/10
When I finally read the book, I would say that it was at least as good as the film, which in this one case, was a tall order for me. The NADSAT is brilliant as well, and faithfully delivered in the film.
Book: 10/10
Film: 10/10
Bukfan
"The law is wrong; I am right"
I think the book is better than the film - not that the film wasn't good, of course. There's a lot of stuff in the book that did'nt make it into the film. For that reason alone the book is better, plus you get a better understanding of the characters.
Btw, the second Godfather film was better than the first. That's rare, usually the sequels to a film don't match up to the original film...
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I love the flash back sequences with De Niro as the young Vito and how it contrasts against the modern day family. i.e the rise of the family, and the graudal/painful corruption after Vito's death. Reading the book afterwards really helps tie everything together, which is why I can't really say one is better than the other. They are completely different formats anyway.
I agree think as a film on it's own it is better than Part I, but I generally try and see both I&II as the same film. III - want a pathetic waste. I just pretend it was never made.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trainspotting the movie was kind of boring because there was no Scottish slang in the German translation - whatever happened to authenticity?
The Dutch are doing it right, they can spend the whole movie reading subtitles listening to the real voices without actually seeing too much of the film :cool: .
The Dutch are doing it right, they can spend the whole movie reading subtitles listening to the real voices without actually seeing too much of the film :cool: .
Ambreen
Sordide Sentimental
Translation usually kills the movie. I personaly watch them (when it's possible) in their original language, whatever this latter is. I like hearing words, sentences that have no meaning for me ; some foreign languages sounds really beautiful, others funny.
I remember having seen masterpieces like Johnny got his gun and La Strada in french...they lost everything, just looked like jokes.
I remember having seen masterpieces like Johnny got his gun and La Strada in french...they lost everything, just looked like jokes.
