one of my catchphrases is
"the book's always better" whenever we go to see any sort of film.

but it's ALWAYS true! anyone who saw captain corelli's mandolin would never bother to read what is a truly outstanding book. and harry potter? some of the best books ever? what is that "acting" all about? and they cut out the best bits...

and don't get me started on things where they change the ending and the title like "animal husbandry" (dumbed down to "animal attraction" and given a wholly unrealistic crappy happy ending) or anne of green gables (call that red hair?)...

i can feel my heart about to burst...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 12:58, 28 replies)

.
Its irritating if you read the book first. They missed such massive chunks out of the Kite Runner, I felt like the audience was missing out.
( browser still relating boring anecdotes into a void on, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:01, closed)

Swipe, as ever, I agree
Trainspotting



I rest my case.
(Rakky (forgot her password) The muffin maverick, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:12, closed)

I agree, in general
But to be fair, most books go into much more detail, partly due to having to describe in words the visual and aural elements of the plot, so a film that followed the book verbatim would either not make sense or go on for ages. Writing a screenplay requires a great deal of skill to turn a good book into a good film.

Sometimes it works. Sometimes (Northern Lights/Golden Compass being a prime example) it doesn't. Finishing a film a chapter early is a bit naughty, to say the least.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:23, closed)

Catch-22
Case in point
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:30, closed)

I agree
Jurassic Park
10,000 Acres
Lord of the Rings
...etc.
(chase, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:36, closed)

exceptions?
Apocalypse Now - Heart of Darkness
(frankspencer, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:37, closed)

Ahem . . .
Shawshank Redemption?
(MrC. Having the most boring username on b3ta since 2004, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 13:55, closed)

Only exception
I can think of is 'To Kill a Mockingbird' where the film is every bit as good as the film IMHO.

But then, you can't really go wrong with Gregory Peck can you?
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:04, closed)

It's tricky
I'm dreading/excited about the forthcoming adaption of The Time Travelers Wife. I love that book so much that I will HAVE to go and see the film, even if I know it won't be like I imagine it to be in my head.
Some books just shouldn't be touched. That's why I pointblank refused to go and see Atonement. I'd rather eat the book, lightly toasted with a sprinkling of shit on top, than see Keira Pout Knightly attempt to act scenes from it.
(Lucy Van Pelt embracing ginlovers, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:08, closed)

On the other hand
any film adaptation of anything written by Dickens has to be better than slogging through one of his books.

and don't get me started on "The Scarlet Letter"!
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:12, closed)

And
Jaws. Read the book eventually last year. Way too concerned with the marital discord of the Brodies in my opinion. Not a bad book by any means, but the film was much better, in my opinion.

Where do the Bond books / films fit in? I've seen every Bond movie, read just about all of Fleming's books, and with very few exceptions they are totally different beasts. I like them both.

Also *switches geek chip on* much as I love the original run of Doctor Who, some of the subsequent book versions of individual TV stories were better than what appeared on screen. Then again, they weren't hampered by the odd dodgy set design, special effects and acting. *Geek chip off*

Ahem.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:12, closed)

stephen king
somehow his books get made into films without losing anything

Shawshank Redemption, Stand by me, the Apt Pupil...

plus, he bought the truck that ran him over and smashed it up with a bat.

usually though, most films of books are crappy.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:13, closed)

Not to mention
The Green Mile. Oh, and Silence of the Lambs has got to be up there. Considering that most people won't sit through a 7 hour film to make sure all the details are there, they did a pretty good job.
( Madam Marlboro wonders if you've found her yet, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:25, closed)

Bond
The books have always been superior. They're a bit dated now, but that kind of makes them period pieces. Plus, the textual Bond never went through the smirking Roger Moore stage.

Edit: Agree on Jaws. The book was a disappointment. Just shows you what a good director can do. Another example is Elmore Leonard's books - almost all made into films, but only one was any good: Out of Sight with Lopez and Clooney
(frankspencer, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:32, closed)

hannibal
the book... he hypnotises clarice and they "fall in love"

the film... she recaptures him, he cuts his hand off to get away...


wtf ???
(maxumus HEY!.... diddly dee, de de de de de de, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 14:33, closed)

yay
i have started a good debate!

there are exceptions, funnily enough i was going to say "shawshank" but my team meeting was about to start.

also i agree with the spenny (frank) on the conrad thing.

cocktail is another example where both are very good (if by good you mean cheesy and romantic, which sometimes i do!) but really different. the film is a light romcom; the book is very dark and depressing indeed.

sleeping with the enemy - the book is much much cleverer than the film but it was still pretty good.

but in general, film versions suck. i am the gimp at the front whispering "this didn't happen in the book" and "he should have said this" and "whatever happened to her"...
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 15:32, closed)

My humble opinion
ok, so by and large, your entietly correct. I hate people who say "I'll wait for the film" what, is 300 pages of the da vinchi code too big a struggle (i like the book, trashy, innaccurate but kept me guessing). Most movies of books I love fall short, Potter as a prime example. outhers make me feel ill, Eragon was so bad i couldent sleep. got half way through and the plot was literaly raped. Im a geek, Eragon was a favorite book of mine, the sequal, eldest was a great follow up, i was excited to find that instead of a trilogy, its going to be 4 books long. the idea of anouther film makes me feel sick, like i want too cry. im 21.

that said, lord of the rings was a struggle to read. at least two chapters of paint drying before on that was actualy exciting. the films took the best bits, and added some good sections themselves. ok, it strays far from the origional text but god it was worth it.
(Mong goose, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 15:59, closed)

.
Certainly the Rambo books have a depth that doesn't always translate to screen very effectively.
( browser still relating boring anecdotes into a void on, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 16:01, closed)

franspencer
I treat the Bond books and films as separate entities. However, it's entertaining spotting which bits of the books crop up in an entirely different film. E.g. In the book Live and Let Die Bond and Solitaire are keel hauled in shark infested waters, and Felix Leiter is mutilated by a shark. Two scenes that crop up in For Your Eyes Only and Licence to Kill respectively.

Having said that, I find the film version of You Only Live Twice superior to the book, which was a couple of hundred pages of Bond poncing around in a castle in Japan.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 12 Mar 2008, 16:24, closed)

Bond never ponced
And the detail of the suicide garden in that book was never translated to the film. It's only we real fans that know the title of the new film "Quantum of Solace" is actually from a short story in which Bond listens to a diplomat tell the story of an stewardess who cheats on her man.
(frankspencer, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 16:55, closed)

^
True. I was being a tad flippant. The books are mostly a damned good read - a product of their time, but no worse for that.

Still prefer the film version of YOLT though... Although I'm reworking my way through the books thanks to the matching set in retro covers I got for christmas, so perhaps I'll re-evaluate. It's been about 7 years since I last read it. Times and tastes change...
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 12 Mar 2008, 17:20, closed)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Is the only film I've ever seen that was every bit as top quality as the book...
Jack Nicholson played McMurphy exactly as the character had been portrayed in the book.
And Nurse Ratchet? Can't remember the actress' name (I think she got an Oscar for that film) but, by Christ, she oozed every bit of menace - I wanted to slit her eyelids with a blunt, rusty razor blade in the film; just as I had with the book.

And you're spot on about Captain Corelli's Mandolin - the film was a travesty of the book!
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 17:53, closed)

They murdered Captain Corelli's Mandolin when they made the movie :(
Memoirs of a Geisha wasn't perfect either, and they're my two favourite books ever. The book of Breakfast at Tiffany's is a lot darker than the movie, but conversely the TV adaptation of Sugar Rush is way better than the book! I also must be honest, I really don't see the Harry Potter appeal - perhaps being surrounded by rabid fangirls who write horrible slash has jaded me, but the books are Really Not That Great.
( Maladicta, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 18:01, closed)

Ya know, the last two Harry Potter films really weren't that bad.
For that matter, the first one was pretty good, when you come down to it... but by the third film, Ron had been reduced to Shaggy without Scooby, Draco Malfoy went from swaggering and sneering to whimpering and pissing himself in less time than it took Emma Watson's eyebrows to fly off her head, and the less said about the CGI centaur the better.

But in the last two movies they've given the characters some depth again. Yes, they cut out about two thirds of each book- but christ, if they didn't they'd be nine hour epics! Considering the sheer volume of the source material, I thought they did fairly well with the movies.

That said, yes, the books were better.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 12 Mar 2008, 18:01, closed)

I didn't see the point of the Harry Potter films.
You couldn't make them like the books, they weren't improving on them or doing something different, so why bother? Even so, given the amount of money they had to spend, and the willingness of people to be involved, how did they end up so bad?

Incidentally, the makers of 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' were wise not to name Father Christmas. I was so anxious that they were going to call him 'Santa Clause' I was getting all hot and shaky. I think I'd actually have walked out of the cinema.
(Skittlemcfluff ......................, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 19:39, closed)

I was in Cephallonia
When they were making Corelli's Mandolin. Penepole Crux looked like a little boy in the flesh - too thin and utterly sexless.
(frankspencer, Wed 12 Mar 2008, 21:38, closed)

I fucking Robot
Will Smith makes good entertaining froth, but if you must make a film about a rogue robot who's ass gets kicked by a mean non-pink male detectivey type with personal issues who's the best man for the job and his ass is on the line and the chief wants him sacked, don't base the title on a white lady robotist who finds a rogue robot through cold logic and doesn't use any kind of firearm. What's next?

"The Wizard Of Oz!!"

The Wizard is a tough Brooklyn drugs lord!

Dorothy is a Rookie, fresh outta Kansas Police School!

She wants to bring him down!!

Lt John Tinman was double crossed by the Wizard years ago, now he's on the wrong side of the law!

Sgt John Scarecrow has been after Wizard's ass for years!

John Lion is the new kid on the block!!

Yellowbrick Road is his turf, there ain't nobody gonna stop him!!

"This ain't Kansas no more!!"

Fade to black.






Thanks, I feel better now.
(tinypod will never learn. Ever., Thu 13 Mar 2008, 0:26, closed)

@Tourettes


Cuckoo's Nest: a tricky one I think. Both excellent but so, so different - I saw the film first which is probably the best way with something like that - but the book is so much better. Seeing the story from Chief Bromden's viewpoint turns the whole thing on its head and inside out. I do agree though that it would have been impossible (probably) to do it better. That film/book has given me several phrases that I like to use, knowing they will go totally unnoticed by everyone else - my favourite being "Well I TRIED dammit!" or "Juicyfruit".

Che (considering changing his signature to : Bull Goose B3tan)
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Thu 13 Mar 2008, 9:30, closed)