Books vs adaptations

[Parra]

A post in the GoT thread got me thinking. The post was along the lines of "are the books better than the TV series"?

The answer would usually a universal "yes" and this holds true for GoT , as good as the TV series is.

But what about examples where the adaptation beats the book hands-down? What examples have you got?

First couple that came to mind for me were:

The Godfather
Jaws

The movies are clearly superior - to the point that it is hard to see the inspiration and vision that the film makers received from those novels.

A couple that are line ball:

To Kill a Mockingbird - book is still superior
Band of Brothers TV series - Steven Ambrose' book & the TV series are both worthy of praise. Can't split them.


Any other examples where the film/TV adaptation wins?

 

[roostersrule2]

Children of Men.

The cinematography in that movie is amazing, it's one of the best parts about it. Obviously the book doesn't have that so it's probably why I prefer it.

Shawshank.

The book is very good, the movie is a masterpiece.

 

[Parra]

I think Rita Hayworth & The Shawshank Redemption was only a short story. Obviously inspired a movie that a lot of people love.

 

[mackdadday]

First of all, TGOT books whiz all over the series and its a crime the series is going to break out on it's own..though i do like the show.

Benjamin Button was a very short story and the film exceeded it.

Fight Club's film was arguably better than the book.

The worst case of the opposite i can think of is the Eragon film which was excrutiatingly awful.

 

[elyod138]

The Running Man book is a million times better than the movie, a faithful adaptation would be a great film.

 

[LESStar58]

The Running Man book is a million times better than the movie, a faithful adaptation would be a great film.

This. On so many levels this!

 

[LESStar58]

First couple that came to mind for me were:

The Godfather
Jaws

Big calls on both counts but of course the opinions we have will differ and these two both make for robust conversation. Excellent examples.

I saw the Godfather 1 and 2 and then read the book and so obviously I got surprised by how much of part 2 was in the book. So they had enough material in one book to get two movies out of it thought Copolla had already said that 2 was a largely original script but had borrowed the historical aspects i.e. the young Vito component to tell the story in dual timelines and consequently part 2 was one of the best sequels albeit films of all time. Part one was already epic enough and there's no way they could have let the script get that much fatter by including all of the extended stuff of Michael in Italy etc. I may have to read the book again to provide some more examples but iirc Michael in Italy took up a large chunk.

Jaws was the same. The book was very good but was too fat with sub plots like the mayor and the mafia and Hooper having an affair with Ellen Brody plus there were some extra shark attacks. Plus the fact that the shark didn't work and Spielberg not being held in that high at the time and they had to simplify the film to make it work. It's hard for me to say what's better because the film was affected by the necessity of the times.

As far as my own nominations go; the film version of American Psycho was woeful. I loved the book but let's face it... how do you do the rat scene on film? But beyond that, the book is first and foremost a black comedy and a satire (the sex and violence in the book is brutal but it is just a distraction from the guts and theme of the book) that just did not translate to a film version.

Having said that though, Bale was an awesome Patrick Bateman but the essence of the book was just not able to be captured in film format. The written word just works so much better.

Also; Less Than Zero sucked but James Spader was a f**king bad ass. Also, there's a reason that the Informers went straight to dvd. I loved the book but the movie was dreadful. But as with American Psycho.... how could they have pulled off the "killing boy in bathtub" scene? In short, they didn't. They pussied out and its one of the most pivotal scenes in the novel. The only decent adaptation of a Bret Easton Ellis novel was Rules of Attraction but it was still not a patch on the book.

 

[Big Pete]

I can't say I've read enough books, but from my experience, the book is generally better. That's because there's far more material and there really isn't any convention they have to stick to.

There's been plenty of great movies that are based on books. There Will Be Blood, Fight Club, Jurassic Park etc. where I've never bothered with the book, and I've never felt compelled to go and read it.

Then there are times where I've made the mistake of reading something right before the adaptation comes out. A good example was Silver Linings Playbook. Everybody and their girlfriends LOVED this movie. "Oh Em Gee, how good is Lawrence? Who knew that Bradley Cooper could act?" I must admit I thought the trailer looked interesting, but reading the book, I hated the changes they had to make to compensate the actors. I could go into it, but I know I'd only be talking to 2% of you all, but the entire tone of the movie was different (from a drama with some funny moments, to a full blown comedy) and the characters were changed to compensate the actors (the dad went from this bitter old man who can barely talk outside of watching the football...to Robert De Niro).

The movie was still OK, but I reckon it could have been great.

Then there is Scott Pilgrim. :| I should love this movie, and there's still parts I enjoy, but dear god they butchered parts of this.

Then again, I've never been a huge Cera fan. George Michael was great in Arrested Development, I didn't need him popping up all over the place.

 

[vvvrulz]

The Running Man book is a million times better than the movie, a faithful adaptation would be a great film.

To be fair though, I don't think the movie bothered trying to be faithful to it's source material. It mashed it up with all the Arnie Movie goodness, I'm a huge fan of the movie.

A faithful adaptation *would* of course be great too.

On the subject, I thought Watchmen was a fantastic adaptation despite all the vitriol.
Although are we counting graphic novels? I am given it's an independent piece rather than a Marvel/DC type chain.

Mememto exceeds it's short story, The Prestige is based on a novel too but haven't read that.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Forrest Gump. The book is ridiculous.

 

[Eelementary]

"The Green Mile"

The book dragged on, but the film wrapped up neatly.

 

[Parra]

Another plug for an adaptatiob of a Steven King story being superior.

I agree with the Brett Easton Ellis adaptations. I can't see why they even bothered trying with American Psycho or Less Than Zero.

Good call on Fight Club though. I cant say that it is superior to the novel, another line ball for me.

 

[Eelementary]

I love King's work, but "The Green Mile" just dragged on and on.

The film, however, was great.

 

[t-ba]

Jurassic Park springs to mind. A clockwork orange as well. Fight Club as well imo.

Mad props to Peter Jackson for cutting Tom Bambodil out of the LoTR trilogy as well. Still not better than the book mind.

What about movies that make better sense for having read the book. Cloud Atlas is a steaming pile of dung if you do not know the source material, but is far better (not as good as the book still) for having read the book.

 

[elyod138]

As far as my own nominations go; the film version of American Psycho was woeful. I loved the book but let's face it... how do you do the rat scene on film? But beyond that, the book is first and foremost a black comedy and a satire (the sex and violence in the book is brutal but it is just a distraction from the guts and theme of the book) that just did not translate to a film version.

I'm the opposite, I thought the film did a great job trimming the book down and produced a pretty slick dark satire. It's one of the funniest movies I've seen. The book could get long winded at times IMO. The chapter with the penguins and the little boy was so good though, I wish Bale got to act that out, it would have been hilarious and macabre.

 

[elyod138]

The Jurassic Park book is a lot different to the movie.

The movie is a great blockbuster adventure with some horror elements but it only captures the superficial elements of the book. The book is a horrific thought provoking techno-thriller.

I'm not being critical of the movie, I saw it in the cinema again a couple of years ago, it's great for what it is and it holds up well.

I highly recommend the book.

 

[tumbidragon]

Interview with a Vampire film>>Book. It's been a while since I've read the book, but I could never get into it. On the contrary, if I happen across the movie I will always watch it through to the end.

 

[roostersrule2]

Even if the book version is better I quite like film adaptations.

I find it really difficult to read novels at times, I just don't have the attention span.

Movies come in handy at this point.

Also I love the film version of American Psycho, I've wanted to read the novel but just haven't yet.

 

[Frankus]

The Descendants. I enjoyed the book but thought the film was far better.

I thought the Swedish film version of Stieg Larsson's Millenium series/Girl with the Dragon tattoo were better than the books. The books were each 100-150 pages too long for my liking and the films were almost perfect.

On the flip side some absolutely butchered adaptations - Paranoia written by Joseph Finder, and the Mortal Instruments by Cassandra Clare.

 

[LESStar58]

I'm the opposite, I thought the film did a great job trimming the book down and produced a pretty slick dark satire. It's one of the funniest movies I've seen. The book could get long winded at times IMO. The chapter with the penguins and the little boy was so good though, I wish Bale got to act that out, it would have been hilarious and macabre.

Oh shit! I totally forgot about the scene at the zoo!