Why is the Book always better?

[JoeB131]

Well, usually, anyway.

I've almost always found myself disappointed when I've gone to see a movie based on a book I've read, and I find that the movie is almost always never as good as the book.

I think this even applies when the movies are made by devoted fans who try their best to remain true to the source material. (Examples- the Watchmen movie, various interpretations of Dune.)

I have two theories about this. First, you can go into more detail in a 300 page book than you can in a 2 hour movie. That's part of it.

The other is that as a reader, you are doing a lot of the work imagining the scene and characters. The writer is moving the plot along, but you are the one casting the book in your own head and doing the scene direction.

Anyone have any other theories?

 

[hjmick]

Those are pretty much the big two.

Of course you throw in substandard scripts, which goes to the three hundred page book thing, and bad directing and you will always be disappointed.

Of course there are exceptions, but those are rare. Peter Jackson's work with The Lord of the Rings comes to mind.


Most books really don't lend themselves to one two hour treatment. Most would be better served by being presented in the format of TLR or as a mini-series.

 

[JoeB131]

Those are pretty much the big two.

Of course you throw in substandard scripts, which goes to the three hundred page book thing, and bad directing and you will always be disappointed.

Of course there are exceptions, but those are rare. Peter Jackson's work with The Lord of the Rings comes to mind.


Most books really don't lend themselves to one two hour treatment. Most would be better served by being presented in the format of TLR or as a mini-series.

I did have a conversation with a young lady who is the niece of a famous SF writer of the 1950's, who told me that the biggest problem with scriptwriters in Hollywood is that you usually have about six people who get their hands on a script.

LOTR was good because Jackson really paid attention to his art direction, drawing on a lot of the popular Tolkein art for drawing things.


There have only been two cases where the movie was better than the book.

One was Jaws, where Speilberg and Carl Gottleib had the good sense to throw out all the steamy suburban potboiler and just made it a movie about some guys trying to catch a shark.

The other was "A Handmaid's Tale", where they made the protagonist stronger, made the narrative linear instead of bouncing all over the place. It also helped that it had Faye Dunaway, Robert Duvall and Natasha Richardson, all pretty good actors.

 

[hjmick]

And of course JAWS changed movie making forever. The first summer blockbuster. Everyone has been trying to capture that lightning ever since, all too often missing the mark and ultimately lowering the standards for what I consider a true American art form...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is always, for me, because the book is MY imagination. I add to it in my mind. A movie is visual you SEE what you see, with a book, as you said, you imagine the background, the scenery everything.

 

[blackhawk]

Well, usually, anyway.

I've almost always found myself disappointed when I've gone to see a movie based on a book I've read, and I find that the movie is almost always never as good as the book.

I think this even applies when the movies are made by devoted fans who try their best to remain true to the source material. (Examples- the Watchmen movie, various interpretations of Dune.)

I have two theories about this. First, you can go into more detail in a 300 page book than you can in a 2 hour movie. That's part of it.

The other is that as a reader, you are doing a lot of the work imagining the scene and characters. The writer is moving the plot along, but you are the one casting the book in your own head and doing the scene direction.

Anyone have any other theories?

You got mine with the going into more detail in a book also it seems in a lot of cases when Hollywood buys the rights to a book and make it into a movie they have a bad habit of trying to put their vision on the screen instead of the one by the author when they follow the authors vision they have a much better chance of success. I can give two examples of this from two Stephen King books made into movies the first being the Shining of which the movie version sucked the other being Misery which is in my opinion the best movie version of a King book there is.

 

[hjmick]

King hates The Shining movie.

 

[blackhawk]

King hates The Shining movie.

I know they did a interview with him on one of the Sunday morning talk shows and as part of the deal for him to buy back the rights to the Shinning he had to agree to stop trashing the movie.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, usually, anyway.

I've almost always found myself disappointed when I've gone to see a movie based on a book I've read, and I find that the movie is almost always never as good as the book.

I think this even applies when the movies are made by devoted fans who try their best to remain true to the source material. (Examples- the Watchmen movie, various interpretations of Dune.)

I have two theories about this. First, you can go into more detail in a 300 page book than you can in a 2 hour movie. That's part of it.

The other is that as a reader, you are doing a lot of the work imagining the scene and characters. The writer is moving the plot along, but you are the one casting the book in your own head and doing the scene direction.

Anyone have any other theories?

You got mine with the going into more detail in a book also it seems in a lot of cases when Hollywood buys the rights to a book and make it into a movie they have a bad habit of trying to put their vision on the screen instead of the one by the author when they follow the authors vision they have a much better chance of success. I can give two examples of this from two Stephen King books made into movies the first being the Shining of which the movie version sucked the other being Misery which is in my opinion the best movie version of a King book there is.

I think The Shawshank Redemption is far and away the best interpretation of a King book. Misery may be the best of his horror work, although I actually liked The Shining.

 

[Montrovant]

Those are pretty much the big two.

Of course you throw in substandard scripts, which goes to the three hundred page book thing, and bad directing and you will always be disappointed.

Of course there are exceptions, but those are rare. Peter Jackson's work with The Lord of the Rings comes to mind.


Most books really don't lend themselves to one two hour treatment. Most would be better served by being presented in the format of TLR or as a mini-series.

I did have a conversation with a young lady who is the niece of a famous SF writer of the 1950's, who told me that the biggest problem with scriptwriters in Hollywood is that you usually have about six people who get their hands on a script.

LOTR was good because Jackson really paid attention to his art direction, drawing on a lot of the popular Tolkein art for drawing things.


There have only been two cases where the movie was better than the book.

One was Jaws, where Speilberg and Carl Gottleib had the good sense to throw out all the steamy suburban potboiler and just made it a movie about some guys trying to catch a shark.

The other was "A Handmaid's Tale", where they made the protagonist stronger, made the narrative linear instead of bouncing all over the place. It also helped that it had Faye Dunaway, Robert Duvall and Natasha Richardson, all pretty good actors.

I enjoyed the Dune mini-series by the ScyFi channel more than the book, as well that Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Of course, those are books I didn't enjoy all that much. That may be the key; find a movie made well based on a book you either didn't like or at least didn't like a great deal.

 

[Noomi]

The book is always better because you get the whole story in the book. The movie adaption is usually modified and changed - if the ending in the book is sad, the movie will have a happy ending.

Take the film 'My Sisters Keeper'. Great book, was looking forward to the film, but they changed the ending, because producers thought that the audience would want a happier ending. Well, the people who read the book wanted the movie to be the same!

 

[Interpol]

I don't think the book is always better.

I think it's about even.

What's the old Hollywood saying? Great books make mediocre movies; mediocre books make great movies.

 

[longknife]

Well, usually, anyway.

I've almost always found myself disappointed when I've gone to see a movie based on a book I've read, and I find that the movie is almost always never as good as the book.

I think this even applies when the movies are made by devoted fans who try their best to remain true to the source material. (Examples- the Watchmen movie, various interpretations of Dune.)

I have two theories about this. First, you can go into more detail in a 300 page book than you can in a 2 hour movie. That's part of it.

The other is that as a reader, you are doing a lot of the work imagining the scene and characters. The writer is moving the plot along, but you are the one casting the book in your own head and doing the scene direction.

Anyone have any other theories?

You hit the nail on the head.

As a reader, you can imagine each and every scene based upon your own personal experiences and views. Characters come from inside.

Screenwriters are limited in their adaptation of the story. As well, actors don't always fit the general description provided by the original author.

As an author myself, I do my best to give my readers the opportunity to SEE the story as a form of entertaining themselves. I, of course, have information to impart, but that is secondary to the story.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Silence of the Lambs

The Godfather

LOTR

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bladerunner

 

[JoeB131]

The Silence of the Lambs

The Godfather

LOTR

are you arguing for or against?

 

[Toro]

Because the book is more in depth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The movies were awesome

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[skye]

It is always, for me, because the book is MY imagination. I add to it in my mind. A movie is visual you SEE what you see, with a book, as you said, you imagine the background, the scenery everything.

I agree with that!

Also in a movie you have to condense the whole book in two hours.... and by force, by doing that you will leave a lot behind.

 

[Missourian]

Two words...character development.

In a book, you are in the characters minds, you know what they are thinking, you get the backstory, you totally understand the characters motivation.

Movies, it's dialog only...the characters are one or two dimensional...no insight like the three or even four dimensional characters in books.

"Four dimensional?" you ask astounded.

Yes...you get the aforementioned extrasensory perception of seeing thoughts.

Not something you can even do in real life, much less in the movies.

I really believe this is why LOST was so successful...more character development and backstory...more understanding of motivation.