can films ever live up to the books!?

grames_bond

this is a debate that has been ringin out for a while! most recently with i am legend. a widely accepted opinion is that movies never live up to the books, unless the story is changed so people cant compare it to the book, like scarface with al pacino WAS based on the book by armitage trail. what does everyone feel about the movies vs books debate?

Ah, I can name countless movies that didn't live up to the book; The Time Machine and War of the Worlds are two that stick out instantly. However, if the movie is done correctly, it can be as good as the book. It depends on the people involved in the movie really, if they want to keep a true adaptation. For instance Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Green Mile (brilliant movie, but the book was a tad bit better) and 1984 too.

But then again, sometimes it would be a good idea if the movie didn't stick to the original source too much. Take Children of Men. In an interview the director, Alfonso Cuarón, admitted that he had not even read the novel when writing the screenplay or directing it. When he heard the premise, he formed his own idea of what should happen. He didn't want the original idea to dilute that in any way. Admitted, if you're not a fan of shaky-cam, you wouldn't like it too much, but if ya had read the book, you'd realise that, in some respects, the movie was more superior.

One thing I've always figured is to never watch the movie version of a book I've enjoyed. They'd only get bits wrong.

Shryke

Novels are never done well. Novellas on the other hand are perfect for translating to film. I Am Legend was a novella, (I haven't seen the film yet), Fight Club was also a novella. With longer works important parts of plot and sub plot are cut and butchered. This is why anyone making a film of a novel (in my opinion) should not translate directly but rather do their own interpretation. Who wants more of the same anyway?

Tusky

Fight Club, Lord of the Rings, Trainspotting...if you really love the book, you are unlikely to be as fond of the film. Those three were really good adaptations though. I imagine Jurrasic Park is another....and maybe The Shawshank Redemtion.

Galvasean

The Prestigue and Logan's Run (the general consensus tends to be that the films are better, although I have not read either book)

humanji

I wouldn't say Jurassic Park is even a patch on the book (the book is very dark).

Short stories work the best, since there's the basic plot, plus plenty of room to add more, if the need be. The Mist is a great adaptation and (I know many won't agree with this ), but I thought I, Robot was a good adaptation of the ideas containted in the book I, Robot (which was a collection of short stories).

The problem is that there is too much information in books to translate to the screen in a limited amount of time. And then there are things that can't easily be transfered, like, for example, a book can tell you exactly what a character is thinking, but when adapted to film, the screenwriter has to change things to convey what the character is thinking.

BurnsCarpenter

Sandor wrote: »

Novels are never done well. Novellas on the other hand are perfect for translating to film. I Am Legend was a novella, (I haven't seen the film yet), Fight Club was also a novella. With longer works important parts of plot and sub plot are cut and butchered. This is why anyone making a film of a novel (in my opinion) should not translate directly but rather do their own interpretation. Who wants more of the same anyway?

I don't think I Am Legend was a novella. Fight Club certainly wasn't. My understanding is a novella is around 70 or 80 pages.

I haven't read the book of The Godfather but I'm told it isn't great.

Zapho

It doesn't just stop at books either. Comics, cartoons, old TV series and games don't ever seem to translate well onto the big screen.

EDIT: Except for Sin City that is!

constitutionus

the problem to me is getting the fecking studios to MAKE a film version of a book. as mentioned both the time machine and war of the worlds are virtually nothing like the books, especially in regards to the endings.

studios seem far more interested in whoring a brand name.

its interesting to note its generally directors who stick their oar in in regards to faithfullness to books. jackson did a good job on lord of the rings and darabont on green mile and shawshank redemption. he done another king book called "the mist" i havent read it but ive seen the film and apparently its fairly true to the book. expanding on the ending as opposed to rewriting it

also V for Vendetta was a really good adaptation of the comic. but again its a director with clout that got that made.

if it was left to the studios you'd have a film called "the bible" staring arnold schwarzenegger (how ever the hell you spell that ) as jesus laying waste to romans with an uzi.

senordingdong

Billy and the Cloneasaurus was good.

Seriously though, I think it's a tough call.
Some have succeeded and some have failed.

Look at Harry Potter, the first three movies were good, despite the changes made, but the last two have been dire. I think that's a result of the books getting bigger but the movies obviously don't.

Then look at ....I Am Legend....stinker.

c - 13

Generally I am of the opinion that almost always the film cannot live up to the same standard of a book. The imagery that is churned out by the human imagination just cannot be recaptured on the screen as everyone has their own ideas as to how a carachter looks, acts, talks etc.

I usually put Hannibal forward at this point to back up my claims -
Fantastic book - Awful Film

Another reason that the conversion doesnt always translate well is that books generally have much more material than can safely fit into a three hour time frame. That said, LOTR proved that it can be done (albeit by leaving certain scenarios out etc.).

Now in defense of the flip side of the coin, I do believe that a good film can come from a book, example in this case being A clockwork orange.

Almost every element of the book has been lifted directly from the book with only slight embellisment of scenes to make them more appealing to the audience. One slight difference though is the final chapter of the book was completely omitted from the film (which I think was required to give the film a more cinematic ending).

armour87

The Jaws book is awful, great movie.
I don't have too many complaints about Fear & Loathing.
but the general concensus will always be against the movie thanks to plenty of fcuk wit directors

Its up to the director to make a movie using the source material, they cant be expected to follow it line for line

L31mr0d

yes!

but it all depends on any number of factors, like the director of the movie, how bad the book was, how closely the author works with the script writers...etc

A few examples, I haven't read the books but from reading around the series "Dexter" is doing a pretty good job of emulating the books, and is better than the books in some areas.

Then take "The Da Vinci Code", great cast, great director and they worked closely alongside the author but "ugh", what a mediocre movie. This movie was a prime example of working too close with an author of an average book. It was like they tried to fit, word for word, the conversations that happened in the book into the movie and it just felt rushed and patched together. This is a prime example where they should of taken some directorial liberties and cut and chopped the book to only feature the important information dialogue. I don't believe you can have an action movie that is broken up by long philisophical arguments. It should of chosen which it wanted to be.

Then theres any of Michael Crichtons books. They are the kinda of books the "should" translate well to movies, and in a fashion they do, but they never even come close to the books. The lost world, Congo and Timeline being an example. Jurassic Park was ok, but like was said earlier the book was a lot darker and far superior imo.

Wacker

It isn't a good idea to compare a film to the book it was adapted from, as the two media are so different. Take the LOTR trilogy, for instance (which I write about extensively below, without the use of spoiler tags. Is there anyone out there who hasn’t seen this films who would actually read my post? I doubt it) . These films are about as massive as films get; to watch the three would take ten hours or so. The book, on the other hand, would take about 60 hours or to read, at the very least. How could anyone possibly get as much out of the films if they put in so little, in comparison to the book?

A more sensible approach is to analyse both the book and the films as books and films respectively. Is the LOTR a good book? In terms of detail and complexity of the story, nothing comes close. There is about as much detail in Tolkien's Middle Earth as there is in our own planet earth! Example: hobbits always refer to the Sun as 'she'. Imagine conceiving that! I mean, who cares? Tolkien, that's who.
In terms of the characters, they are a little flat really. Also, the dialogue never sets the pages on fire for being so sharp. What's great about it are the vast tracts of exposition, which are fascinating in a book. My favourite parts of the book are the Council of Elrond and Gandalf's return as the White Rider, where he brings everyone up to date on what's been going on. Basically, it is an awesome book.

Now, onto the films. They come as close to capturing the vastness of Tolkien's vision as anyone could possibly ask. I’ve no major problem with any of the characters, the action is top notch, and the visuals are some of the best ever captured on film. The only really problem with the films, as I see it, is the pacing, especially at the very end of the Return of the King. All in all, they are awesome films.

My point is that saying that the book is better than the film is just stupid. One is a book, and it’s a great book. One is a series of films, and it is a great series of films.

The only area left for comparison and contrast are the differences between the story in the two media. The first big difference is that Frodo was a lot older in the book. There was years and years between Bilbo’s birthday party and Frodo heading off on his quest in the book, whereas the film might give the impression that it was only a couple of days. I have never heard anyone mention this as a problem, and I don’t think it is either. Anyone disagree?
The second big change is the removal of Thom Bombadil. I personally found the whole section in the Old Forest incredibly boring, and I can’t wait for it to be over whenever I read the books. I was delighted that he was not in the films.
Glorfindel being omitted and being replaced by Arwen in the Flight to the Fordes was a good move too. I liked the idea of using Arwen in the movies – I just wish she were in them a little less. Glorfindel’s cameo would have helped nobody.
The massively reduced Council of Elrond was a godsend. I believe the scene was about eight minutes long – if they wrote it like it was in the book it would have taken at least an hour. What works well in book usually does not work well in films, as this demonstrates.
The next big chunk of the film follows the book pretty close – the next big change is the death of Boromir. This doesn’t even happen in the book of Fellowship – instead it gets half a page in the Two Towers, and it isn’t effective at all. This sequence is one of the best parts of the trilogy of films – Boromir twice getting back up having been shot and fighting on, and his subsequent last words with Aragorn completely redeem him as a character.

Rather than write all day, I’ll stop there. My point is that most of the changes are for the better. This same point can be applied to a lot of franchises and adaptations. Look at the Godfather or the Bourne movies if you want further examples. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that fidelity to the source material is a good thing. Directors should stay faithful to the book only if doing otherwise would make for a worse film.

Wacker

constitutionus wrote: »

its interesting to note its generally directors who stick their oar in in regards to faithfullness to books. jackson did a good job on lord of the rings and darabont on green mile and shawshank redemption.

Just so you know, Red was a red-haired Irishman in Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, and there were multiple wardens.

strangesdays

I shall now risk the anger of the Stephen King fans, Kubricks The Shining is superior to the book. And in an interesting way, It diverges nearly completely from the supernatural elements of the source material, While at the same time incorporating some subtle story elements of King's book (eg.the man in the dog suit going down on the old man - never thought i'd type a sentence like that) that simply don't make sense if you hadn't read the book.

Kess73

Seeing as the last poster mentioned King, the film version of his short story "The Mist", is near perfect to the written form, with a much darker and emotion twisting ending.


Jaws is the perfect example of a film far exceeding the book version.

galactus

"The book is always better" is almost a law but Sandor makes a good point on novellas: Clive Barker's "The Hellbound Heart" made a much better movie (then again he Barker was involved in the making of Hellraiser).

The SF masterworks version of "I am Legend" is 160 pages, so more than a novella methinks but I'm not risking watching the movie version. With a book, there are surprises in store, with a movie you nearly know exactly what you are getting.

strangesdays

Avoid I am Legend. The last 20 minutes are fury inducing. Whats worse is there's talk of a sequel...

Anyway, from what I've read review wise There will be Blood is apparently an improvement on Oil but realistically I'm probably not going to read it to confirm

Armin_Tamzarian

Hannibal the film is terrible compared to the book.
All the others in the series, Silence of the Lambs, etc are way better in print.

Terminator 2 the movie is way better than the book though

projectmayhem

fight club was a better movie then the book IMO, purely because it added more atmosphere (naturally) that the book lacked. chuck palahniuck (or however it's spelled) is a good ideas man, but not a great writer.

as for good adaptations, i'm surprised no one mentioned fear & loathing yet...

Wacker

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Hannibal the film is terrible compared to the book.
All the others in the series, Silence of the Lambs, etc are way better in print.

I think the film of Silence of the Lambs portrays both Clarice and Hannibal in a far more effective manner. Plus, the trick with the doorbell in the film was too cool for words, and there is no equivelant to that in the book. I think the book is only average really, while the film is superb.

Laserface

its been done well twice that i've seen.

dean koontz' Demonseed (1977)

and Hunter Thompson's Fear & Loathing in Las vegas

humanji

strangesdays wrote: »

Anyway, from what I've read review wise There will be Blood is apparently an improvement on Oil but realistically I'm probably not going to read it to confirm

Well, There Will Be Blood is only very loosely based on the book, so I don't think it'd be a good comparison.

Killme00

You cant really compare Book and their film adaptations becasue as someone has already said, there is no way to put on screen what you are really seeing in your head wjilst reading.

One of the best adaptations i have ever seen has been Mystic River. The Dennis Lehane book was awesome and one day i hope he writes a sequel. Sean Penn was immense in the film.

Sleepers by Lorenzo Carcateria was also very good.

I can honestly say i will never pay to see this adaptation of I am Legend. It could never live up to my expectations.

I love the John Connelly books about Charlie 'Brid' Parker and hope they are never made into films. It would just ruin them for me.

My name is Todd

Wacker wrote: »

I think the film of Silence of the Lambs......I think the book is only average really, while the film is superb.

I thought both were excellent - the Lambs book was perhaps Harris' best. The pyschological analysis of the characters was amazing.

The Beach by Alex Garland was a terrific book, but the film smelled.

grames_bond

im surprised no one has mentioned american psycho! loved the book and loved the movie! (book was alot more detailed so it is impossible to put that on the screen)

Killme00

grames_bond wrote: »

im surprised no one has mentioned american psycho! loved the book and loved the movie! (book was alot more detailed so it is impossible to put that on the screen)

Yes, what he does with the rat is gruesome, so is the detail of the coathanger sequence.

Great book, good film

Mark Hamill

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the "Night Watch" series of books and films. The films are almost nothing like the books, half of the scenes in the film happen to different characters in the books, or in a different order, and there are only two films, but three books, and the last film has an ending that has pretty much nothing to do with the books.
That said, they are both still excellant pieces of fantasy, the books which are more thought provoking and delve into the nature of good and evil, and the films which have some of the coolest action scenes ever.
Personally, I think that the LOTR films far outstrip the book. This is because the books are written by someone who is more in love with the English language than actually telling a story (he was a professor of Anglo-Saxon language) and so they just become incredible tedious to read (I've never been able to get much further than Thom Bombadil) while the films are concerned more with actually telling a story.

Otis Driftwood

Killme00 wrote: »

Yes, what he does with the rat is gruesome, so is the detail of the coathanger sequence.

Great book, good film

Great Book,crap film,although I thought Bale was outstanding as Bateman.

Rules of attraction is very different in print and on screen and I have to say I thought the film was better.

senordingdong

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the "Night Watch" series of books and films. The films are almost nothing like the books, half of the scenes in the film happen to different characters in the books, or in a different order, and there are only two films, but three books, and the last film has an ending that has pretty much nothing to do with the books.
That said, they are both still excellant pieces of fantasy, the books which are more thought provoking and delve into the nature of good and evil, and the films which have some of the coolest action scenes ever.
.

I love the movies and I've only read the Nightwatch book.
Although the story was changed drastically, they did a fantastic job of it so I don't think it applies to this thread.

Gingervitis

Don't forget that the Godfather was originally a (mediocre) book by Mario Puzo.

A bad book can create a good film!

Sangre

They can live up but rarely. Why?

Well the main reason is that studios normally choose to adapt very famous and therefore usually very well written, paced and storylined classic. They're a hard act to follow.

Wacker

Gingervitis wrote: »

Don't forget that the Godfather was originally a (mediocre) book by Mario Puzo.

A bad book can create a good film!

I completely agree. Every single divergence in the film from the book is for the better. Example: when Michael is in Kay's apartment before he goes to the hospital. In the book, they go at it like animals and things had never been better between them. In the film, he’s very distant and this clearly bothers Kay. This makes so much more sense, as Michael is changing dramatically.

pickarooney

Psycho was marginally better as a film than a book and High Fidelity was possibly better on screen than paper.

Miguel_Sanchez

Brokeback Mountain.

Very good adaptation.

ztoical

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Brokeback Mountain.

Very good adaptation.

+1

ztoical

L.A. Confidential for me is a good adaptation. Its a film I think changed what needed to changed in order for it to work as a film but still kept the overall theme and feeling of the book.

The book takes place over a much longer time period [years] then the film [less then 1 year] and the characters have much bigger back stories and there are several subplots left out of the film. The ending of the book wouldn't work for a big budget hollywood movie but they managed to come up with a solution that worked for the film but stayed true to the book.

I enjoyed American Psycho as well thou I do think the book is 100 times better as its my fav book.

Alot of Kubricks films are based on books and taken purely as adaptations of the books no they aren't good but as films they are fantastic.

grames_bond

Palm-Star Entertainment has announced production of a movie version of the bret easton ellis book "Lunar Park" with an expected release date in 2009.

if anyone has read this book, i think you will agree that it is going to be incredibly hard to turn it into a movie! i really enjoyed the book, but am very sceptical about how the movie will turn out!

Mark Hamill

senordingdong wrote: »

Although the story was changed drastically, they did a fantastic job of it so I don't think it applies to this thread.

Why shouldn't it apply to this thread though? It shows that sometimes for a film adaption to succeed it needs to be so different from its source material that they can't really be compared.
I think having a book to compare a film to can kill even a good film because a good book can is always the ideal version of the film for whoever reads it: i.e. you picture the characters exactly as you want (or as who you want), you have your own pictures in your head of how scenes went, of which characters are the most interesting etc, someones interpretation of that can grate on people if they read the book in a different way to the filmmaker.
Novellas usually work as films because there is plenty of play for the director to add what they want, which they usually do, and then its just a case of getting a good director.
Video games almost never work because, while there is usually lots of play with story, its usually never done (so you get shallow or just stupid films like "Alone in the Dark" or "Street Fighter").
Unfortunately, having a director thats willing to diverge from the source is only good if the director is any good (crap directors result in "Resident Evil" or the second half of "I am Legend")

Shryke

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

I don't think I Am Legend was a novella. Fight Club certainly wasn't. My understanding is a novella is around 70 or 80 pages.

I haven't read the book of The Godfather but I'm told it isn't great.

I'm afraid your understanding is wrong I own both books and they are novellas. Interestingly enough Fear and Loathing (originally a magazine serial) and The Shawshank Redemption are also novellas.

Cokehead Mother

Sandor wrote: »

I'm afraid your understanding is wrong I own both books and they are novellas. Interestingly enough Fear and Loathing (originally a magazine serial) and The Shawshank Redemption are also novellas.

My copy of fight club is over 200 pages long. That's a novel. Novellas are typically less than 40000 words.

I am Legend is also a novel. The Shawshank redemption is a novella. Do you see the distinction?

phasers

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books...


they can be done really well, but it's very rare that it works

ztoical

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

My copy of fight club is over 200 pages long. That's a novel. Novellas are typically less than 40000 words.

I am Legend is also a novel. The Shawshank redemption is a novella. Do you see the distinction?

There is alot of grey area. The less then 40,000 word count rule is used mainly by a couple of groups for writing award but there is not set rule as to what is a novel and what is a novella - it's not word count which is the crucial factor. Novellas tend be more concentrated, focussed on contributing to a single issue/point. But even then it is very open. There's a good description of novellas here

I've seen I am legend described as both a novel and novella, its first print run only had 160 pages.

Do you guys count each word as you read it? Don't think this discussion is suited to the Film forum, probably literature would be better?

grames_bond

im even more worried about the lunar park movie now as i have been told that the role of bret easton ellis has been offered to ben affleck?! :eek:

BigBenRoeth

I'm of the opinion that sometimes films can live up to books,other times they just cant.
Example:After seeing the Excorcist a few times 5+ and getting to the stage where i wasnt screaming/running to my Parents when the mad bitch started on at it,i watched the film not for some cheap scare,but for a brilliant story.
I found the book at a charity coffee morning going for 50c when i was about 12.
I read it last year and i must say,it braught me to a whole new level of fear,more than the book could achieve,so there,books win.
Example 2:The Godfather,Quite simply,the book never quite managed to create the sense of thrill and suspense as the Movie did....you dont have background music and an amazing cast in books.
There movies win.
So if anyone agrees or disagrees,let me know

senordingdong

Deleted User wrote: »

War of the Worlds are two that stick out instantly.

What was wrong with WoTW?

EdgarAllenPoo

I enjoyed the James Patterson books (along came a spider and kiss the girls) but the films were absolute formulaic cack. Master and Commander was a good adaptation I thought.

No Stephen King film has ever been as good as the book.

Kess73

GDM wrote: »

No Stephen King film has ever been as good as the book.

Watch The Mist, it may change your mind.


Ok technically the Mist is not a book, just a short story by King, but the film version easily matches King's version.

senordingdong

And I ask you all again...what the hell is wrong with the War Of The Worlds?!!?!?!