Well, sure, but you can’t get everyone to agree with Earth is round.
I just don’t know why the general consensus is resistant to going that way, because it seems obvious to me the movie is often superior. There are a LOT of examples. Of course, there are also many examples where the movie goes in a different direction in such a way that comparing them in terms of quality is nearly impossible; the book is good for a book, the movie is good for a movie.
It depends… if it’s a book I absolutely loved, then I’m usually kind of ambivalent about seeing a movie/TV show/miniseries based on it, due to the rather high chance of disappointment.
In general though, the important thing for me seems to be whether they keep the essential spirit of a work. Take for example, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. The movie basically combined the first book and the tenth(?- don’t recall exactly) books along with some other pieces from the rest of the books. Was it an accurate retelling of any of it? No. But did it actually capture the fundamental essence of the Aubrey-Maturin novels? Absolutely. And that made it fine with me.
Same thing with Hunt for Red October- it wasn’t entirely accurate to the book, but it was very much the story of Ramius, Ryan, Greer, etc… and captured them very well.
I don’t make a point of seeing a movie based on a book I’ve read – or of Reading the book that was the foundation for a movie I’ve seen. But sometimes I’ll go out of curiosity. Or I hope the book will answer questions the movie raised.
As many people have pointed out, most adaptations are disappointments. This is especially true of my favorite 19th century authors (Poe, Twain, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells) and most science fiction and thriller novels.
I agree with most of the above about faithfulness. I’ll add
The Andromeda Strain – Aside from changing the sex of one character, the movie was exceptionally faithful to the book.
The Man Who Could Work Miracles – the best adaptation of H.G. Wells by anyone. Including H.G. wells himself
Terror of Frankenstein (1977) – the first and still one of the few versions to actually follow the book
Day of the Jackal
The Flight of the Phoenix (1965 version)
The Thing (Carpenter’s 1982 version, except for the ambiguous ending)
Did a good job, even if not really faithful
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954 Disney/Fleischer version) – possibly the single best Verne adaptation, despite the many changes made
John Carter – changed things around quite a bit, but kept in a surprising amount of the original Burroughs.
Movies that practically had nothing to do with the book
The Osterman Weekend
Ice Station Zebra
Nightfall (both versions)
The way Rowling approached the Harry Potter books, they were practically screenplays waiting to happen. I read the books first but was not disappointed at all by the films.
I see bump beat me to it, but, a film I very much wanted to like was Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World. I enjoyed reading Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey - Maturin series immensely, but approached the film with more than a little trepidation, knowing it would be a herculean task to do them justice on film given the limitations of a 2.5 hour movie format. Perhaps it was because I braced myself so firmly beforehand, that I wasn’t disappointed by the movie.
I don’t make a point of seeing movies based on books I like, but will see them if reviews are promising. They’re usually a better bet than movie remakes.
It sometimes happens that a movie isn’t any better than the book or short story it’s based on, but adds a different and interesting dimension or plot twist (Bridge On The River Kwai, The Loneliness Of The Long Distance Runner). The movie “Gorky Park” was in my opinion a lot better than the overly long and convoluted novel on which it was based.
Just remembered Cloud Atlas. I loved the book (I’m a huge David Mitchell fan). I was really curious to see the movie, because I wasn’t sure how it could be done. It was o.k. Not up to the book though.
Heresy!
I read that book before the movie was made, and was very excited when I heard that they were making a movie of it, mostly because I wanted to see dinosaurs.
I left the theater highly disappointed.
I had much lower expectations when I went to see Congo in theaters, but the movie didn’t even live up to that.
That was the last time I saw a movie because I read the book. Though I’ve seen movie adaptations of books since.
^ ^ This. I think the only movies I’ve ever seen that were as good as the books were The Sand Pebbles (book by Richard McKenna) and The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming (book The Off-Islanders by Nathaniel Benchley).
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think the movie is an all time classic and the book just was an OK book. I think Spielberg actually cleaned up some of the plot holes in the book. And as I stated, I read the book first also.
World War Z was a much better book. I think they just wanted the title when they bought the rights.
Interesting, I loved the book but have been wary of the movie for the same reason (plus - he’s doing some fun genre stuff in the way he writes some chapters, and it wasn’t clear how it would translate). I may still give it a watch.
It’s unfair to hold a movie to the book’s standard. For The Hunt for Red October the book was excellent. The movie was good, but in no way can hold a candle against the book. But I still like the movie.
The book would take — what? — maybe 20 hours to read. The movie is 2 hours. I’m stating the obvious, but it’s unfair to compare them against each other.
I saw the movie first. I love both.
The real heresy is actually above you. The movie of TKaM is a pale shadow of a very good book 
.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
That was a typo. TKaM is a great book and movie.
The “not so great” was from the next line, Amityville Horror.
I fixed it.
I have sought out books before and after seeing movies based on them. The results have varied:
Ashenden, or The British Agent by W. Somerset Maugham was an awesome book. I saw Hitchcock’s movie Secret Agent (1936) many years before reading it and didn’t think much of it. After reading the book, I saw it again: it was clear Hitchcock had totally botched the adaptation, including the casting of Peter Lorre (with shoe polish and curly hair) as a character known in the book as “the hairless Mexican.”
The Monk by Matthew Lewis – Read it first and was blown away. I’ve seen two of the three movie versions and neither came close to the impact of the book.
Nightmare Alley by William Gresham – Saw movie, read book, saw new movie. Though I much prefer the 1947 adaptation with Tyrone Power over the newer one with “Rocket” Raccoon, neither version really does the actual “nightmare alley” section of the book justice.
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Saw movie (1949) and thought it was awful in several entertaining ways. Sought out book: unreadable.
Out of the Past (Build My Gallows High) by Geoffrey Homes (Daniel Mainwaring). A classic film noir (1947) written by the author of the novel. Finally caught up with the book years later and it was terrible – the femme fatale is named Mumsie McGonigle! Hard to believe the movie came together so well.
Kiss Me Deadly by Mickey Spillane. Great film (1955) improves tremendously on dreary book, even managing to subvert the values of its protagonist Mike Hammer.
The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan. Among other things, Hitchcock’s 1935 film version replaced the literal 39 steps of the title and added Mr. Memory. A good film, perhaps, rather than a good adaptation.
Agree with everything.
Such a fun movie…for certain definitions of the word fun. And weird. I really liked it.
I haven’t read the book. Any good? I’ve liked both adaptations I’ve seen. I liked the 1935 version (I’m a Robert Donat fan), and it was great seeing Peggy Ashcroft young. There was a 2008 TV version that I liked a lot, but it had a different ending. What was the ending of the book?
The book was certainly readable, but not as entertaining as the '35 movie. IIRC, the novel ends with the hero walking up 39 steps to the bad guy’s house. What happens after that is, I would say, generally unmemorable (as in, I don’t remember).
Robert Donat was usually excellent. Have you seen The Adventures of Tartu (1943)? It’s one of his more obscure efforts, yet quite entertaining spyjinks in a non-demanding way.
I’ll occasionally will seek out books after seeing the movie of them. I read McTeague after watching Greed, for instance.
Most impressive to me was reading The Magnificent Ambersons. Welles did a credible job of adaptation (ignoring the studio’s terrible ending), but he had to cut much of the of the book. What sticks out most is that in the book, the Ambersons were like royalty, so much so that there was an Amberson Avenue.
Later, as Georgie’s life is falling apart, he discovers it’s been renamed “Tenth Avenue,” a sign (out of many) that time passed the Ambersons by.