Of books and films.......?

14 Apr 2005

Why is it that most people feel that the book is always better than the film?
They have made now Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and I'm in two minds about it - I absolutely loved the book and am dreading seeing the film - although I'm really curious.
I've seen a clip and what I hate so far is Marvin! In my mind it looks so much better than like the Pillsbury Dough Boy they made it look like in the film sad

I personally think that the mind has free reign when reading a book, and we see only through our own mind's eye how and what the writer aims for, bringing our own personal bias into it and interpretation...... confused

:
Having said that, have any of you ever seen a film that in your opinion was better than the book? How was it better?

14 Apr 2005

half the reason is that the film never lives up to the books standards and also its not often possable to put the detail in the film that the book.

14 Apr 2005

awol;
To me Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was best as the original radio show, but the TV series was cult viewing at uni! (McC shows his true age). I still laugh at the books though.
Master and Commander seemed OK as a film (I bought it cheap in Singapore last year and discovered it was in Mandarin but after I sorted that out it was OK).
Its the remakes that get me - The Italian Job, Thomas Crown Affair etc. Nothing beats the original.

14 Apr 2005

having watched communion and then read the book, i was un-decided to which i loved best. mr c walken plays the part so well in the film, one of my all time favorites, but the book is equally as riverting.

14 Apr 2005

Normally prefer books to film versions, like to use my very active imagination and make my own interpretation, but some thngs are still just wonderful on film too. Lord of the Rings and The Green Mile being two good examples.

14 Apr 2005

Quote by McCloggie
Its the remakes that get me - The Italian Job, Thomas Crown Affair etc. Nothing beats the original.

I agree with you about the Italian Job remake, it wasn't anywhere near as good as the original. However, if you forget that it has any connection with the original and watch it as a film in its own right, it's watchable.
I found the Peirce Brosnan remake of TCA did stand up reasonably well against the original.
Of course, it should be illegal to remake any film that has achieved cult status.

15 Apr 2005

Taxi another great example of a great film ruined by a remake (the french original version is brilliant). HHGG - I will have to see it, but same, am scared it'll ruin my fond memories of it. Loved the Radio show, TV series is cult but not as good, and books of course are great.
There are movies that have been turned into books (remember doing a study of movie->book story and book->movie story at school) and they can work out alright, but differences in medium and commitment when watching/reading mean they require very different skills to become worthy in their respective area. And sometimes a bit of a rewrite (narrative etc..)
Thinking around, I reckon book->movie usually works quite well if given to a decent producer/director and given enough freedom without straying too far. Sometimes movie can be better than the book if it cuts out unneccessary boring bits (LotR in my opinion) or it just ends up being easier to portray story threads

15 Apr 2005

The only instance I can think of where the film was better than the book is Fight Club...
my partner offers up that detective / noir movies are often better than the book - and now he's rattling off examples: The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Hitchcock's Rebecca, The Postman Always Rings Twice...
( dunno

this is kinda his area so I'll defer to him on it...)

15 Apr 2005

HHGTG will never live up to anyones expectiation for the simple reason that no amount of quality acting or special effects will be better than ones own imagination
As for some of the other comments (the maltese flacon etc) I can realte to the point but the style is completely different
what gets my goat tho is remaking an already classic file....
for example
The alamo
Italian Job
Alfie
Why try and improve on something thats already perfect? what next they gonna remake cassablanca or breakfast at tiffanys?

15 Apr 2005

Quote by notorious_T_I_G
...
what gets my goat tho is remaking an already classic file....
for example
The alamo
Italian Job
Alfie
Why try and improve on something thats already perfect? what next they gonna remake cassablanca or breakfast at tiffanys?

completely agree!! I hate when the do that. Latest, and possibly one of the best examples of remaking - and destroying - an older film: Taxi w/ Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon. shudder.

15 Apr 2005

The only time i can think of a film that lived up to expectations of a book was "of mice and men"
It didn't win an oscar for crying out loud although nominated!

15 Apr 2005

Quote by mistress_sassy
Normally prefer books to film versions, like to use my very active imagination and make my own interpretation, but some thngs are still just wonderful on film too. Lord of the Rings and The Green Mile being two good examples.

im sorry but the lotr was a load of tosh on film he couldent get half the story right for a start

15 Apr 2005

Quote by flapjackboy
Of course, it should be illegal to remake any film that has achieved cult status.

I absolutely agree...
apart from all the films already mentioned above what really gets me is how Hollywood remakes foreign films and, in my opinion, makes a terrible job of it... for example The Ring, the original Japanese version still haunst me, truly fantastic, whilst the American version relied too much on extremely loud noise and visual effects.
Another terrible film was The Asassin a remake of the much superior French film Nikita.

15 Apr 2005

the only film that in my opinion that hollywood made that is as good as the original is the seven samuria, called the magnifcent seven in hollywood both are top quality films.
Although the lord of the rings trilogy were excellent films i don't think they do the books any favours. Bits, characters were missing which although didn't spoil the film would have added to them.

15 Apr 2005

Quote by mbmailler
Normally prefer books to film versions, like to use my very active imagination and make my own interpretation, but some thngs are still just wonderful on film too. Lord of the Rings and The Green Mile being two good examples.

im sorry but the lotr was a load of tosh on film he couldent get half the story right for a start
Totally agree on that,where the feck did that bloody love story come from,its the wrong bloody character for a start mad

Buffy is one of the only examples i can think of.I know its a series that came from a film but the film was absolute tosh and the series was bloody fantastic,shame it had to end :cry:

15 Apr 2005

Book and films are two different mediums, books being "internal" and films being visual (and aural). Books use the reader's imagination to generate the images / feelings, while film puts all that up on the screen visually. Both mediums are fantastic for telling particualr stories, but books can't be translated directly to film without being changed (translated) into visual images.
What good screenwriters go is be able to change the story, but keep the same overall feeling, and themes of a book, in a visual way.

Quote by ockysweeties
The only instance I can think of where the film was better than the book is Fight Club...

The style of the writer Chuck Palahniuk is a very visual one, which allows for a more literal film translation. All / most of the images generated in the book can be seen in the film, although the ending was changed in the film, for a more VISUAL conclusion, and i couldn't think of a better one, but in the book although a complete different ending, it works in an INTERNAL fashion, and in my opinion couldn't be beaten.
Films like lord of the rings work in both mediums, as the writers of the films have manged to keep the essence of the story, and tell it visually. To do this they had to change characters, add touches, and remove storylines, and bring things forward from the backstory. Such as the love story between 2 main characters, which was only briefly mentioned in the book. Most of us have been in love at some time, so can emotionally relate to it, so it works, and detracts nothing from the epic main story. in fact it adds to it, as it highlights what can be lost if the "good guys" lose.
To enjoy a film, of a book you adore, you would have to enter the film with an open mind, and be ready to get to know the characters again... not easy, especially if the film, taken on its own, is shite!
With the Hitchikers guide, its impossible to translate the book to the screen, as the humour works by generating ludicrous images in us, which we find so funny. If those images were put on a screen, it would be daft... So.... hopefully the film makers have kept the same "douglas Adams" humour, but told in a visual medium. The whole saga has been told in several differant mediums, so hopefully can be translated once more

15 Apr 2005

I've always preferred books to films - for the same reasons mentioned by one or two others. I prefer to use my imagination and feel that films take away from that. Tool has nagged me to watche Silence of The Lambs. I won't because I loved the book so much I just know I wouldn't enjoy the film!

15 Apr 2005

Does anybody else think that 'Hollywood' has got a lot to answer for....
It seems to me they try to brainwash their audience (which just happens to be most of the globe) with American'isms (for lack of a better term)
I get hugely irraitated with the way they portray themselves as heroes in War films where the British actually are the true victors....... I think Hollywood has got lost up its own backside somewhere along the line.
Give me a good read anyday....... The DaVinci Code was my latest, and now I hear Fox have bought the rights...... time will tell if this is another example of what you guys are chatting about......
Just my 2cents.....

15 Apr 2005

Quote by mistress_sassy
Normally prefer books to film versions, like to use my very active imagination and make my own interpretation, but some thngs are still just wonderful on film too. Lord of the Rings and The Green Mile being two good examples.

I agree with you on LOTR 100%. The books were classics but the film surpassed them by a mile.
Never read The Green Mile but might have to now just to check.

15 Apr 2005

Quote by austin69
Does anybody else think that 'Hollywood' has got a lot to answer for....

Hollywood is only a buisness, who wouldn't make movies "that" way, if there wasn't a market for them. The american domestic market (worth more to hollywood, usually, than the rest of the world combined) WANT to see american actors in american made films. so its not hollywood's fault, just that they need to make a profit. Just blame the audience. Not all americans like those films however, which is why there is a lot of independant films made. But they have a smaller market, so have smaller budgets / advertising.
I'm not keen on seeing british, and indeed other countries sucess stories / acheivements been told as though the US has acheived them (U-571, saving private ryan etc, etc) but if they are well made, i'll still see them, and enjoy them.
And if we want to see the british saving private ryan, then why don't we make it?? all it would take is increasing lottery funding. it would make a change to the period drama / cock-er-ney crime dramas

15 Apr 2005

I think that british films have done us proud over the last few years, from all accounts we have a lot of films that have been well received in the States.
Dont get me going on where this countries money should be spent tho, I get soooooo mad. mad

More funding for British films, documentries and dramas etc, may go some way towards increasing the amount of (self?)respect in society and getting yobs and chavs off our streets..... I also heard a great article on the radio yesterday about just castrating the little bas****, they've got my vote ..........

15 Apr 2005

OK sorry, kinda killed that thread.............. apologies awol..... lol

16 Apr 2005

Quote by austin69
OK sorry, kinda killed that thread.............. apologies awol..... lol

no worries austin69, all threads have to die some time ;)
PJ1: I liked your posts and agreed with much of what you said.
Maybe my last contribution to this thread (as it's obviouly dying) is my last rant about books and films (notwithstanding PJ1's comments)... it's to do with Troy the film based (the key word here is "based") on the Iliad.
I know we're not dealing with history here - it's myth and legend, which means fiction. But it would have been nice to see the film sticking a little bit more closely to the book. For example Troy does not have much reference to the greek gods. Why? .....since Homer's epic is full of the dual battle between gods and heroes! I suppose the answer is "lets not confuse the audience".....lets make it simple to "entertain".
Oh and they completely swept the homosexual theme of The Illiad under the carpet too... oh no we couldn't have Brad Pitt crying over the death of his friend/lover Patroclus... better make him his cousin just in case...wouldn't want to upset his female fanbase or the sensitive disposition of American audiences :shock:
I suppose in the end it doesn't matter so much that Troy (the film) does not reflect the book as much as it has a lot of entertaining value if you take the film on its own and forget about the book. Unfortunately once I read a book I can't keep making comparisons... oh well.

17 Apr 2005

I would say Firefox by Craig Thomas.
The film from early 80's with Clint Eastwood playing the lead role about stealing a Prototype MIG fighter. It was strange i read the book then all of a sudden a couple of weeks later it was in the cinema.
"Think Russian"

17 Apr 2005

One of my favvvvvvvvvvv books The World According to Garp is also a film I believe but I dunno whether I want to watch or not!!!!!!!!!!
Wasn't keen on what they made of Cider House Rules.
Anyone seen Garp the film???
Cathy x

17 Apr 2005

I have to agree that the books are far better than the film
I have read star wars episode 1,2,3 in book form and have seen eps 1 and 2 in cinema and i can tell you in relating to the books i felt empathy towards the charcters, the films are good dont get me wrong but not as good as the books.
MikeC

17 Apr 2005

Not exactly a film but I loved the BBCs version of Pride and Prejudice, it captured the characters so well........of course, they had the benefit of 6 hour long episodes unlike the films! The book version of John Carpenters Vampires was way way better! (Ok, it's no Iliad, but I liked it lol

)
Troy was terrible, awol is spot on and if the film is to be believed, the face that launched a 1000 ships was a right mardy one!

17 Apr 2005

The Green Mile, Trainspotting and The Shining films all lived up to the books, if you ask me. More often than not, I have read the book long before seeing the film so I'm always critical before the opening credits haev even started. I'm just waiting for them to fuck up or change the plot/characters so I can rip it to pieces.
An example is in the second Bridget Jones film where Bridget gets to meet Colin Firth. Since her boyfriend in the film is played by the real colin Firth, I wondered how the hell they were going to deal with it. They simply cut out that part of the story entirely which was shite cos it was a really important event for the character. Nott hat it matters. cos I don't think the film was much cop anyway.
My favourite book of all time is 1984 but I've never seen the film. I'm a bit scared to in case it's crap. Any thoughts on this?
Kinkyluton got me Of Mice and Men which is really good (no, our school didn't do this .. we did Lord of the Flies .. not rings, Flies!) so I'll have to watch the film version soon too.

17 Apr 2005

Being 25 i grew up with the tv series of HHGTTG and of course now the radio series, books and my own towel (don't ask).
Was dreading the film, but douglas adams was producing it (till he died) and the cast does seem rather good...
warrick davies (willow) as marvin
alan rickman voicing marvin
stephen fry the book
martin freeman arthur
mos def ford
oh and some hotty young totty as trillian
just hope they don't try and compress all the books into one film, but say have room for a sequel.
and wtf is up with remaking willy wonka with pissing johnny depp?!

17 Apr 2005

I don't think books are necesarily better than films. What people have said about using your imagination more with books is true but I think the main reason is that people like what they are familiar with. People who have read a book and formed all the images don't necessarily like someone else coming along later (and film usually follows book) and 'imposing their images. So films have to have something really special to emulate the book.
That's probably really killed the thread now!!