22 replies to this topic

[RedAuthar]

Just what the title says. I want to know some of your all time favorite Movie/Book combos and which version you like better.


Example: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, I like the movie a whole lot better then the book (which was based on the movie) because they wrote out almost all the humor scenes to be dramatic and then added in their own humor scenes during dramatic parts.

[Glitcher]

I didn't even know Indiana Jones was based on a book.

I'd recommend:
Fight Club - movie as good as the book
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - book better
The Secret of NIMH (a.k.a. Mrs. Brisby and the Rats of NIMH) - movie better
Watchmen - movie as good as the book
The Lord of the Rings - movies better
Blade Runner (a.k.a. Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep) - movies better
Battlefield Earth - Wait... scratch that last one.

[BigWigRah]

paraphrasing "A film is not a book. If someone ask you if you have read a particular book, and you say "no, but I've seen the film," you might as well have sensibly answered, "no, but I had breakfast this morning"
Richard Adams

I couldn't agree more with this statement, but I don't mean to be a jerk about it. I see where you're coming from with this post, so I will answer.

Secret of NIMH: Honestly I liked the book better, but that's only because the movie tried throwing magical elements in that just didn't feel right to me. If you're gonna do science, do science all the way.

Plague Dogs: Book just as good as the movie, but for different reasons.

Harry Potter 1-4: I liked the books better, but the movies did have their own unique charm.

Felidae: Haven't read the book, only because I can't find it. Movie was spectacular though, and I don't see how the book can be better. who knows?

The Stand: Book is way better than the 8 hour miniseries, only because it is inherently more detailed and complete. The movie isn't bad, it's just not great.

Ga'Hoole: Movie is so much better, only because I found the books to be poorly written.

[Glitcher]

Secret of NIMH: Honestly I liked the book better, but that's only because the movie tried throwing magical elements in that just didn't feel right to me. If you're gonna do science, do science all the way.

I agree with you about the magical side. The amulet in particular felt like a huge deux ex machina if you ask me. But I prefer the movie because it shows Don Bluth at his finest and it fleshes out the characters emotionally. They were rather flat in the book, especially Jeremy, and Jenner was only mentioned in it. Both the book and the movie have their merits.

[saber16]

Ok... I'm breaking the rules with this one:

Spiderman 3 vs Spiderman 3 the novel. I haven't seen the film or read the book in some time, but honest to god if only the movie was as good as the book... I mean, it was still the same plot and everything, but the characters had more life, scenes are driven out more, it's just a much better experience.

The Harry Potter books vs the films.
I loved all the books. I prefer some over the others, but each one was enjoyable from begining to end for me. The movies... Well, they were enjoyable for me.... Though, in my opinion the first was probably my least favorite just because of how stiff everything felt. It was like a video game or something.

[Gojira007]

I'll agree that the Amulet in "NIMH" is a bit...out of place, but even then the fact that the magical side of things goes more or less unexplained adds a certain kind of mystique to the story. Even the big Deus Ex Machina moment of the amulet helping to raise the stone from the sinking mud is offset by the key fact that the amulet's power is linked to Mrs. Brisby's desire to save her family, thus allowing her to remain the driving force of the rescue, IMO. About the one aspect of the amulet's magic I dislike is how it goes to Mrs. Brisby on its own accord when the need for it arises; remove that, and I have no real issue with it.

I enjoy both the book and the movie versions of "NIMH", but I think I prefer the movie overall. The irony, of course, is that the book "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" is really more about the secret of NIMH than Mrs. Frisby even though her name is in the title, while "The Secret of NIMH" is more about Mrs. Brisby than the secret. To me, that's also why I prefer the movie: the rats' dilemma in the book is intriguing, but it lacks dramatic momentum; the fact that we spend almost the whole story in flashback makes it difficult to get invested in anything, because we already have a clear idea of where things are going to end up before we've even started. It also means the main conflict of the book, the rats being pursued by NIMH, remains a background presence for almost the whole story, up until the very end where it is introduced in quite the hurry. I much prefer the more relatable and compelling conflict of Mrs. Brisby trying to rescue Timmy and her family, and Jenner is simply a spectacular villain. Indeed, his villainy is enhanced by the book, because it is not difficult to ascribe the motive and backstory the Jenner of the book has to the one in the movie, and taken together, they make a very effective bad guy.

[BigWigRah]

couldn't have put it better myself.

[RedAuthar]

I didn't even know Indiana Jones was based on a book.

and

Ok... I'm breaking the rules with this one:

Reread my first post again: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Book was based on the Movie not the movie based on the book.
Besides Part of what this thread was about was Books based on movies.

[furrykef]

I didn't even know Indiana Jones was based on a book.

The book was based on the movie.

Jurassic Park. Both the book and the film are just stunning (though, sadly, seeing realistic dinosaurs on screen is nothing special anymore).

I liked the Watchmen film a lot better than the book (and I read the book first!). Dave Gibbons' art style doesn't appeal to me, the pirate side-story was needless and made it harder for me to concentrate on what's actually happening, I skipped over almost all of the boring walls of text between chapters (I don't mind reading lots of text, just not in the middle of my comics, OK?), and...

they killed Hollis in the book, which seemed entirely needless, and blaming the destruction of New York on Dr. Manhattan is a plan that makes much more sense than creating some kind of alien menace.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: the book is SO, SO much better than the film. TV series was all right. I used to hate the TV series, but the film made it look like Shakespeare. (OK, I hate Shakespeare too. But you get the point.) I haven't really heard enough of the radio series to comment on it, except in the case of Life, the Universe, and Everything, and I'd say that was probably of comparable quality to the book.

- Kef

[Vlad Yvhv]

The Thing (Carpenter's version): Haven't read "Who Goes There?", but the movie is said to be better my many of the people who have.

Christine: John Carpenter is the only person to make a descent adaptation of a Stephen King story. There are a few changes, but they make it work well as a movie. Though, it would've been sweet if they'd left the scene in where Christine kills Darnell in his house and grinds him up in the fan, instead of just crushing him between the seat and steering wheel... The final battle is most noticeably changed, because it really works a lot better for a movie battle.

Avoid any other movies made from Stephen King stories. Cause Hollywood loves to butcher his stories.

[RedAuthar]

Jurassic Park. Both the book and the film are just stunning (though, sadly, seeing realistic dinosaurs on screen is nothing special anymore).

Yeah. Did you know there is a Jurassic Park 2 book that the 2nd movie was not based upon?

[salamander]

Avoid any other movies made from Stephen King stories. Cause Hollywood loves to butcher his stories.

Not even The Shining?! I know Stephen King didn't like how Stanley Kubrick changed the story, but it's still a classic film that works on its own terms. One of my favorite movies of all time.

[Gojira007]

"The Shining" is fantastic; in its way, it is almost a better story than the book it is based on. I do find the book scarier overall, admittedly, but I also feel that the way the Overlook Hotel works in the movie, taking the evil that hides inside us all and bringing it to a maddening boil, is emminently more effectibe a conceit than the book version, which postulates that the Overlook's influence is so powerful that even the most innocent individual can be corrupted by it. Not a bad idea, but Kubrick's take on it strikes me as more menacing and much more distinctly human.

I do love John Carpenter, but I actually consider "Christine" to be one of the weaker King films. It has its merits-a brilliant musical score, for one thing, as well as some jaw-dropping effects work and some great scare scenes-but the overall story really loses a lot of its effectiveness in the transition. In a reverse of "The Shining", the idea of Christine in the book-that she is basically a psychic imprint of her past owners working to slowly overtake her present one-works better than the movie version, where Chrstine is just sort of evil from birth for no particular reason; this change renders a lot of the story nonsensical, as the specifics of Arnie's transformation no longer make any sense without the presence of the "imprint" idea. As well, the fact that the book's central tragedy-the ultimate death of the friendship between Arnie and Dennis-receives such short shrift in the movie version is nothing short of infuriating.

[Ratty Randnums]

This topic just reminds me how badly I need to read more. :/

On a side note though I love how different the Jurassic Park books and movies are since they were changed (largely by Micheal Crichton himself) to be consumed by a larger and more general audience, and what those changes (coupled with the subsequent success of the two films) say about us as an audience. It's been several years but...
In the original book instead of a kindly but tragically misguided old man John Hammond is a ruthless businessman, who gets just desserts by being eaten alive by Compies btw.
The black guy doesn't die first or in fact at all in the book as I recall. Neither does the hunter, who is in fact a much larger character in the book and a hero.

In "The Lost World", just wow.
Ian Malcolm, the author's mouthpiece from the first book who died but is mysteriously resurrected with no explanation in both the book and movie sequel (well, he didn't die in the movie version). While he goes to save his poor misguided girlfriend in the movie, she in fact was never on the island at the start of the book and has to go rescue HIS ass. And he's just as useless in the second book as he was in the first. Getting his leg taken out of commission early on to lie on a stretcher and act as author surrogate going into diatribes.
While Sarah Harding (who I don't believe was his girlfriend in the book) has all the action scenes running from dinosaurs on motorcycles and such.
So what is in the book basically a ginger Ripley knockoff gets turned into a damsel in distress for the movie audience to better digest. The conservation message of the book, if it's there I honestly can't remember it, gets dumbed down and hammered in for the movie.
Oh also a black kid computer whiz and a girl from the inner city get combined into Ian Malcom's black daughter for the movie, which actually makes the story of how they (or rather she now) get on the island much less convoluted but still very cheap.

And speaking of Crichtons...

Don't you HATE it when you read a book based on a movie or TV show you love and it's painfully, burningly obvious that the author of this official tie-in either has no knowledge of the property? Maybe having watched 1 or 2 early episodes tops, then assumed the characters were cardboard cutouts so the tone of the characters and story is completely wrong? Oh that's never happened to you? Well if you ever get into Farscape stay away from these pieces of trash

'cause that's exactly what they are, lazily repurposed stories that the author's just didn't think were good enough for their original work. There's only 3 of them (and the first called "House of Cards" is pretty good and doesn't suffer from this problem in fact) though so they shouldn't be hard to avoid.

What I've gotten to read of the Farscape comics is very good in contrast. As one might well expect since it's actually overseen by the original creator, much like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics are overseen by Josh Whedon.


PS- While "DUNE" is easily one of the best novels (much less science fiction novels) I can recall ever reading attempts to put it on film will always fail. It just isn't that kind of story. Too much of it is internal, and while the book examines politics, culture, religion and the limits of the human mind and how ecology interacts with and influences all of the above, that doesn't make for a very exciting science fiction epic to see on the screen.
Some of the best parts of the book are just people sitting in rooms basically playing chess without a board. While this can make riveting reading as we see the thought processes and forces at work behind each character, it would be boring as hell if not incomprehensible to the general audience even with the necessary voice overs flashbacks etc.

[furrykef]

The black guy doesn't die first or in fact at all in the book as I recall.

He does. Whether it's first or not isn't something I recall. I'm not sure if his race was specified in the novel, though.

[John Roberts]

Is it of any consequence a black guy dies? Lots of them evil white folks die too in that book/movie.

[furrykef]

The matter isn't that a black guy dies, but rather that the black guy dies first.

[Ratty Randnums]

Not counting the lawyer, but then we're only counting human beings right?
Actually a south american dock worker and Dennis Nedry die before him to iir. But I always mistakenly remember it as having the black guy dying first trope because of a conversation in "Canadian Bacon" (one of John Candy's last movies and Micheal Moore's only non-documentary film) which I saw as a child and first made me aware of the trope.
And yep kef, can't really remember if his race is specified in the book.

[DarthGamer]

I honestly really like the book Battlefield Earth, I mean compared to the movie, its story is actually good.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

The question of book verses film is a little more complicated for me. By default, books are more mentally engaging than film, so they can get away with combining more concepts into one work than a film can. Films on the other hand are visually stimulating, and work best when working on within that structure. For example, The quality of the climax of both the Jurassic Park book and film is really the same, and I enjoyed both in the same amounts. Sure, the ending in the book was more mentally engaging, but the film had to be more visually engaging simply because of the nature of film. And what was more visually stimulating in 1993 than a T-Rex eating Velociraptors? If the book's ending was directly translated into the movie's climax, the movie would switch from an exciting movie where children's lives were risk by a T-Rex, to a visually boring Walking With Dinosaurs special. That's not to say that films can't be mentally stimulating as well. Stanley Kubrick has made some wonderful film, most of which maintain both visual and thought-provoking stimulation throughout. But it's Jurassic Park, not A Clockwork Orange. There wasn't any need for the film to switch into something that the nature of film wouldn't have naturally allowed. (Now if we're talking about the middle section of Jurassic Park, the book was totally more exciting than the movie.)

Also, books also don't need to fall in the same 3 to 7 act structure that most films are bound to. So translating a book to a film will usually automatically require many re-writes so the story could work as a good film, since a direct page-for-page film adaptation of a book would result in a movie that is wildly uneven in story structure and pacing. This is the reason why The Lord of the Rings by-passes Tom Bombodil and completely cut "The Scourging of the Shire" from existence in the film version. It would have disrupted the pacing of the entire film trilogy. That's not to say that these sequences didn't fit well in the book version, but a book by nature has more narrative freedom than film anyway, so it could get away with those elements.

I honestly really like the book Battlefield Earth, I mean compared to the movie, its story is actually good.

Well, not to argue your opinion, but a lot of things are better when compared to that particular movie.