I find as a general rule the books are better than the movies. Its just because with the books you can get into a characters head more so then the movies could ever convey.
Except for those cheesy monologue type things of their thoughts but I’ve never seen that in a movie… just in the spoofs of detective shows…
Even the books based on the movies (not the movies based on the books) I find are better. But then if the movie is the total pits then the book isn’t really goona be better either. (For the books based on the movies)
divemaster: Did you read the book before or after you saw the movie?
Having read the book first, I went into the movie with completely different expectations. The book was raucous and raw, the movie was feel-good treacle. And killing off Jenny and Forrest’s mother was unforgiveable.
Byzantine, were you saying “The Stand” movie was as good as or better than the book? I wasn’t clear on that.
I thought the movie was excellent, compared to the movie versions of some of SK’s books. “The Stand” is one of my favorite books, and I was more than happy with the movie, but of course, it wasn’t compressed into 90 minutes, like most movies.
I think most books-into-movies would be better as mini-series, since you really can’t tell the story in an hour and a half or two hours.
One example where I thought the movie was better than the book, “Jaws.” The book included all kinds of soap opera stuff that wasn’t necessary. The movie focused on the drama between the people and the monster.
Cujo The book was much better. King went inside the dog’s head and explored Cujo’s POV. Especially his relationship with the boy. Jaws I agree, the movie is a classic. I loved the “Beer can crushing” scene. Misery Both the book and the movie were good. The movie was, in fact, excellent. Thanks in large part to Kathy Bates. Up in Smoke What can I say? Was there a book? The Godfather Even the sequels were ok. All based on one book.
I’d say it’s a toss-up. With a movie, it all depends on the director and the producers. A book depends on the author and, to a lesser extent, on the editors.
I have never seen a movie that’s better than the book, except maybe Jaws. And that’s a close one.
There are some movies that are AS good. I think Gone With the Wind and The Stand and Shawshank Redeption falls under those categories
“Hollywood Confidential”…while the film was fine on its’ own merits, it didn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the complexity of James Ellroy’s novel. I counted at least a couple of sub-plots that weren’t even broached in the movie.
Part of the reason that the book is usually better is that a movie doesn’t really correspond to a book in length. Usually it’s closer to a short story.
Another problem is that the most downbeat parts of the book are often left out. That was the problem with L.A. Confidential, for instance. It’s also the problem, I think, with Shaft. I think the book is better than the 1971 movie which is in turn better than the new movie.
Well, just to throw in a little bit here, there is one book I read that I thought turned out into a pretty good movie. The book was Cabal by Clive Barker and the movie was Nightbreed, which had David Cronenberg in it. They were both quite good, and what one didn’t quite have, the other made up for it. BTW, I’d be very surprised if anyone has even ever heard of this movie, because it was mainly a Canadian film. Anyway, bye for now!
While books are always better than the films that they spawn, two efforts spring to mind that came damn close to proving themselves equal: The film adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird and recently, Fight Club. Both stayed true to the source material and benefitted from an excellent adapted screenplay, as well as superb acting and directing. 2001: A Space Odessey could kinda be included on the list, except the book and movie were produced simultaneously so it really doesn’t count.