Question comes up all the time. I was reminded of it in thread on Lonesome Dove. In most cases, for me, there is no contest; it is almost always the book. Perhaps that is because more often than not, the book is what I encountered first, and I have my own vision of the story. In other cases, it is because the movie made changes I didn't like. In virtually all cases, the book seems richer because the author can tell you things no actor can convey, especially when it concerns things the character is thinking.

In fact, when it comes down to it, there is only one instance that comes to mind where I can easily say that I liked the movie at least as well as the book, and maybe better: To Have and Have Not. Bogart and Bacall, with Walter Brennan leading a great supporting cast. This compared to the Hemingway novel of the same name. Understand, I love Hemingway; he is among my favorite writers, but this was not his best work.

So that's my candidate for movie better than the book. What's yours?

I always find that most movies are a disappointment if I have read the book first. I think this is because, when reading the book, I form an impression of the characters in my mind, their appearance, voices/dialect, behaviors and so on. The film seldom matches my imagination.

The one film I can name off the top of my head that was almost exactly as I envisaged from the book, on almost all counts, was : Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World.


.

Everyone talks about how confusing the plot of The Big Sleep is. Read the book. Most of the book involves topics Hollywood would not put on screen. The book is much better than the movie. I think thats true for the Ian Fleming written James Bond books too.

The one thing I did not like about the original True Grit was the ending was nothing like the book, which I read after seeing the movie several times. The remake came much closer to the ending in the book.

Book usually wins in movie vs. book. Maybe almost always.

Exception: L.A. Confidential, one of my absolute favorite movies inspired me to read the book, which was good... But DAMN, it was convoluted and packed with side stories and characters (just too much). The screenwriter who converted the book to the masterpiece movie we got did a truly superb job, keeping about one-fourth of the story and half of the major characters.

quote:

I almost always find that most movies are a disappointment

Just this...

Reading a book generally takes me 4-7 days. Watching a movie generally takes 1.5-2 hours. Book wins.

I very seldom watch movies, either on TV or in a theater, but of the movies I have watched it's been the movie that has prompted me to read the book, i.e., liked the movie, bought the book. As a result, I read the book with the images of the movie characters in my mind and as usually happens I wind up liking the movie and the book.

I saw The Book of Mormon musical and liked it better than the book.

The Shawshank Redemption is one where the movie gets it right.

Well, I thought the movie version of Last of the Mohicans was at least as good as the book.

So much so (cause I never believed that possible), I invited my [now ex and deceased] my mother-in-law and we watched it together. She's claimed it was a toss up between the two when we watched it an; as a very highly educated and hardheaded English teacher with an emphasis on "Classical American Writings" (think Harvard English Master's from the late 50's - early 60's when that degree meant something ), she claimed to not know which she would've preferred now/then.

I miss Genie Evans.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Everyone talks about how confusing the plot of The Big Sleep is. Read the book. Most of the book involves topics Hollywood would not put on screen. The book is much better than the movie. I think thats true for the Ian Fleming written James Bond books too.

The Big Sleep is probably a great example; who the hell can follow that plot? It has to be more accessible in the book. That's one I should read.

Goldfinger is the only James Bond I have read, and I was all of ten years old. I wouldn't have been much of a judge of literary merit. But Pussy Galore, in the movie, caught my attention! I've seen all the movies. That would be a good thing to try, since I already like the movies. See if they hold up when I read the novels second.

I tend to think the book is always better. It’s probably a sliding scale thing, depending on how good your imagination and ability to visualize is. I can re-read books I read when I was a kid, and it’s like stepping back into the exact same scenes I conjured up the first time.

I can think of one example where the movies come darn close to being as good as the books, and that’s Peter Jackson’s The Lord of The Rings trilogy. I’m sure I’ll get some heated disagreement about that, but I stand by it. Not as good as the books, mind you, but they come awfully close.

I think for me it runs about 90% of the time the book is better.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Well, I thought the movie version of Last of the Mohicans was at least as good as the book.

It would be almost impossible to be otherwise. The book LotM is awful, almost unreadable. I thought that that was only my opinion until reading Mark Twain's scoffing essay of LotM. I stand with Twain.

For myself, the movie 'Little Big Man' was more enjoyable than the book. But maybe I should have a second go at the book. 'Bridge on the River Kwai' is a contender also.

An interesting question, and at one time I’d have just said, “The book, of course,” without much thought. That would still also be almost always true if the book came first. As mentioned, most books include things that would be difficult to impossible for a movie to depict except by highly contrived means, such as a character’s thoughts. Many of the novels I read have people doing things like performing intricate mechanical tasks that wouldn’t be clear without a written description.

Then there’s the quotation I once read that there’s no such thing as a cup of tea that’s too big or a [good] book that’s too long. I only recently discovered Stephen Hunter as a writer and I’m amazed at how he can keep me engaged in a story that goes and goes. I’ll look at my e-reader page count and realize that despite all the thrills and action and intricate plot that’s gone before, I’m only two-thirds (or less) through the entire thing. Trying to do proper justice to a story like that would require a movie days long, not hours.

On the other hand, movies can provide things no written descriptions alone can. I don’t watch many movies these days, but I still remember my initial impressions of Star Wars, Saving Private Ryan, and Downfall (Hitler’s final days). None of those had particularly complex stories to tell, and the early Star Wars movies in particular were riddled with elements that required more than the usual degree of “willing suspension of disbelief” even for a sci-fi tale, but their visual effects were what made them enjoyable and memorable. No written description of the events and settings even of Downfall could have conveyed the same impressions of what it was like in the bunker as did the movie.

I think I’ve even become a little cautious about seeing/reading the one if I’ve enjoyed the other. A prime example of that was Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. I read the book which had a profound effect on my attitudes about many things when I was a teenager, but I still remember more details about the abominable movie that I saw decades later. I would never, for example, watch a movie based on Heinlein’s Glory Road. I’ve never read any of the Star Wars books and can’t comment about how they compare with the movies, but the movies I’ve seen (not all of them) never left me feeling that I needed to seek and read the books.

So, it depends. Based on my admittedly limited experiences with book/movie comparisons, the book is usually better, but not always.

The only movie I thought was as good or maybe even better than the book was "The Road".

Both were incredible.

Jaws and The Godfather are the only two examples I can think of where I prefer the movie.

The Ian Flemming Bond books have not aged well, but are still worth a read. I just reread most of them. From Russia with Love is probably my favorite.

As far as the thriller genre goes in the area of Prison Movies that held their own against the books were Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Both were Stephen King books and The Green Mile was a short story in a series to begin with. I have to believe that Shawshank Redemption has to be near the top of a great many peoples list of favorite movies. In fact, according to IMDb it is #1 on the list of the top 250 movies of all time ! Year after year it remains a cinematic masterpiece by movie lovers.
A total of 60 Stephen King books have been adapted into movies, although more than 34 of his writings have been adapted into horror movies !

His rarest and most valuable book ? Get a load of this ! It's the First Edition of "Salem's Lot", published in 1975. The book, complete with it's original dust jacket showing the original price, is estimated to be worth up to $60,000 depending on condition ! This edition is considered "The Holy Grail" for Stephen King fans and there are only 4 copies in existence. One of the four copies was offered for sale 10 years ago in (2010) for $60,000 !

quote:

Originally posted by amals:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Everyone talks about how confusing the plot of The Big Sleep is. Read the book. Most of the book involves topics Hollywood would not put on screen. The book is much better than the movie. I think thats true for the Ian Fleming written James Bond books too.

The Big Sleep is probably a great example; who the hell can follow that plot? It has to be more accessible in the book. That's one I should read.

Goldfinger is the only James Bond I have read, and I was all of ten years old. I wouldn't have been much of a judge of literary merit. But Pussy Galore, in the movie, caught my attention! I've seen all the movies. That would be a good thing to try, since I already like the movies. See if they hold up when I read the novels second.

I'ver read one Bond book, wanna say it was Dr No,, but would need to go look at the title to see(been a long time ago)

easy quick read, and good,
IIRC is was a bit different, but not horribly so,

enjoyed both,


the 2 that always come to mind, re the Book vs Movie are Starship Trooper and Dune,

both books are infinitely better, but both movies are enjoyable,



I thought the Clancy movies were as enjoyable as the books,
and ditto The Shining, (book gets the edge, but both still good)