Bad Book - Better Movie?

[Almost Vintage]

"Frankenstein" -- the movie is much more powerful than the book (unless you're really into travelogues).

"Dracula" on the other hand, is a far superior novel than film (pick a version).

I don't know...I'm quite partial to Nosferatu (1922).


Wicked. I'm going to assume (something one should never do, I know!) that the movie (2012) will be better than the book since the play certainly is. This book bored me to tears. I never even finished it.

 

[rue]

I don't know...I'm quite partial to Nosferatu (1922).


Wicked. I'm going to assume (something one should never do, I know!) that the movie (2012) will be better than the book since the play certainly is. This book bored me to tears. I never even finished it.

The book was pretty good I think (not a favorite by any means), but the second one was so boring to get through, that I never got past the first 20 pages. I never did see the play, although my mother did and said it was excellent.

 

[Puzzicato]

I have read the book in original and in my opinion it was nice (I like all Lem's books), however I cannot compare it to the film because I have not watched it.

Best regards, Dr

Thanks Dr!

I am always a bit hesitant to criticize books that aren't originally in English, because it might not be the author's fault!

 

[Blackthorn]

Three Days of the Condor was a far better movie than the book, Six Days of the Condor. When I finally found the book, the author had written an intro for the latest edition, agreeing.

 

[Puzzicato]

Can we include TV as well? Dexter the TV series is MUCH better than the books!

 

[Almost Vintage]

The book was pretty good I think (not a favorite by any means), but the second one was so boring to get through, that I never got past the first 20 pages. I never did see the play, although my mother did and said it was excellent.

Maybe I'll go back and give it another try! My mom gave me Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, and I have to confess I've not even cracked it open.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Count me as another who liked the Broadway musical adaptation of Wicked MUCH more than the novel.

But I wouldn't expect a movie version as soon as next year: the show is one of the biggest moneymakers in theater history, with its half-dozen (or more?) simultaneous productions running in various places. They will surely milk these for a few more years before the inevitable film version!

I did read that Selma Hayak has optioned the NOVEL for a TV miniseries, but that's different.

 

[Undertow]

...I also thought Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series was much better in the movies. I tried very hard to read his books, but for me Shakespeare is an easier read...

I suspect this sentiment is what drove so many fans to these films. The books are plodding and often confusing with action spaced apart quite a bit. It's very much an epic which requires hours of reading.

I loved the books - I've read the series (and the Hobbit) 3 times through, along with some of the related novels and essays/drafts. I absolutely loved the books, and absolutely detested the films. Hated I mean. Entirely repulsed. So you and I are on opposite sides of the room on this one.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I'm in the middle: I like both the books and the films. (*) I recognize that the films are streamlined action-adventure adaptations that crank up the action, horror, and melodrama to eleven. The books are much slower and more detailed, and vastly deeper. Both are amazing achievements within their respective media. Look at it this way: the films have brought a wider readership to the books... and not every one of those readers have found them too slow or difficult...

( * I suspect that for many, one's reaction is based on which you encounter first. I had read the books twice - twenty years apart, and found them a totally different experiece each time - before the films came out. I was very impressed with how the films managed to keep most of the incidents and underlying themes of these "unfilmable" books in place, even with all the changes. But I suspect that many folks who see the films first - especially those who saw them as kids and have grown up as part of today's semi-illiterate instant-accessibility generation - will find the books "too difficult".)

 

[rue]

I hope you're not referring to me dear Doctor lol

I could understand them, I just thought they were very drawn out and I wanted the story to move faster. I kept falling asleep while reading [huh]

 

[Doctor Strange]

No offense meant to you, rue!

I was just saying that I can see both sides. The movies are great. The books are great. But they're more DIFFERENT than you might expect, and it seems that people split three ways. Some prefer the movies, some prefer the books, and some (like me) dig both. I recognize that not only are they different media, but entirely different storytelling methodologies. But it's a great tale either way...

 

[rue]

No offense taken. I was mostly just teasing

You're right, the books are a completely different animal, so to speak.

 

[Yeps]

I suspect this sentiment is what drove so many fans to these films. The books are plodding and often confusing with action spaced apart quite a bit. It's very much an epic which requires hours of reading.

I loved the books - I've read the series (and the Hobbit) 3 times through, along with some of the related novels and essays/drafts. I absolutely loved the books, and absolutely detested the films. Hated I mean. Entirely repulsed. So you and I are on opposite sides of the room on this one.

I love the books, and have read the trilogy more times than I remember (I lost count at 12)*. I only read The Hobbit two times, I think, when I was younger. It just doesn't do much for me compared to the epic grandeur of the trilogy. It is a kids story.

I love the movies, and have watched all of them, extended editions and all, more times than I can keep track of. They are simply brilliantly designed and executed, in my opinion, although with a few blaring gaffs, aside from the things they left out. Besides that, they have one of the best scores ever written.


*Speaking of which, it has been a while, I should pick it up again.

 

[Almost Vintage]

Count me as another who liked the Broadway musical adaptation of Wicked MUCH more than the novel.

But I wouldn't expect a movie version as soon as next year: the show is one of the biggest moneymakers in theater history, with its half-dozen (or more?) simultaneous productions running in various places. They will surely milk these for a few more years before the inevitable film version!

I did read that Selma Hayak has optioned the NOVEL for a TV miniseries, but that's different.

According to IMDB, it's to be released next year, but who knows for sure!

 

[Doctor Strange]

Yeah, but there's no cast, producer, or director listed. Not even in the associated discussion forums (it's all still fans doing "Who would YOU cast?")...

It doesn't look like an active project. There's no mention of it in the LONG Wikipedia article about the show. There's also no mention of a film adaptation at these mega-Wicked pages:

http://www.musicalschwartz.com/wicked.htm

 

[AlSailor]

I know the following two are probably controversial, but I volunteer:

Doctor Zhivago (1965) as directed by David Lean, better than the book. The story just seems livelier on the screen, and the screenwriter made several changes to the plot for the better. My favorite change is that in the movie Zhivago has a heart-attack on the street when he sees his lost love Lara and collapses before he can get her attention.

Anna Karenina is another movie that is better than the book. Any movie version of Anna Karenina is better than the book. I think the plot can be summarized nicely in a two-hour movie, in book-form it's excessive.

My cousin, who is a Russian literature teacher in Moscow, Russia, almost had a fit when I mentioned the movie Doctor Zhivago (1965) to her as an introduction of Boris Pasternak to the American public. She characterized it as a "terrible, terrible movie."

I read the book only (in Russian), so cannot compare it to the movie.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

Okay, since I caught it on the telly last night - The Road to Wellville. Could not get through the book, as I found the authour's tone, well, just plain mean-spirited, whilst the film was buoyant and kind of sweet and lightly humourous (as sweet as one can be when high colonics are the main action!)). And of course the book didn't have Anthony Hopkins to give it life.

 

[Mr Vim]

L.A. confidential.

I thought the movie far superior to the book, it was streamlined, fast paced and everything I wanted in a noir LA crime story. The book was disturbing with the serial killer, and the plot seemed more drawn out.

 

[TM]

the film "Straw Dogs" is superior to the underlying novel "The Siege of Trencher's Farm"
Tony

 

[DanielJones]

Open Range was a much better film than it was a book. The Illusionist took a 15 page short story and made a great film and love story out of Eisenheim the Illusionist.
Hamburger Hill was a way better film than it was a book. I think Appaloosa was on par with the book for the most part. Some elements were better on film while some others were better described in the written word. But they did nail the dialogue for sure.

Cheers!

Dan