I've only read the first 4 Harry Potter books (after seeing the films multiple times.) I definitely prefer the films, but maybe that's because I saw them first. Anyway, reading isn't an activity I've ever enjoyed -- it's way more of a chore to me. So, I'd be surprised to prefer reading anything over seeing a decent film of it.
This is where I lean. Most movies are made to a standard that can be easily understood by the majority. This often leads to parts of the storyline, or all of the storyline, being hand fed to us on a silver platter, leaving very little to the imagination. If the people involved with the movie do a great job with all that it is very entertaining....but still mostly given to us from their perspective. When you read a book you are required to tap into your own knowledge and experience base to fill in that which is usually not so specifically written directly because the writer wants you involved in the story to some extent. When left to your own devices the things that happen in the written story are often more intense because you have taken the ques and filled in the rest on your own.. This usually results in you imagining a far more intense version of whatever it is you are reading about than what is usually presented on screen. Both books and movies can be great.....if done well.
The movie JAWS is way better than the book. I'd also argue THE SHINING is a better movie than the book. Generally speaking, genre fiction can be executed on film, as genre is driven by action. See Stephen King, James Cain, Philip K. Dick or Walter Tevis, all genre masters who have had multiple classic films derived from their novels. Literary fiction, which is more often driven by complex characterization, multiple sympathetic viewpoints, verbal pyrotechnics and nuance tends to be far more difficult to convey on film.
- Jaws definitely tops the novel. - The Shining is also exponentially better as a Kubrick film than a King novel (see the next entry as to why). - The Exorcist naturally (and infamously) tops the novel just because the horrifying imagery is more...visceral and effecting when the countless great shots in that film are etched into your head like still photographs when the lights go out! That said, Blatty's book is harrowing in its own right (if one were to never see the film. Or never have).
I enjoyed both, but it was nice seeing the characters in the book on the big screen...and how I pictured them before I watched the movie.
In addition... Maybe it's because I'm a bit more of a "visual guy" than a book guy, but the only real thing books have over films is that the images, scenes and charachters can be explored or expanded upon in much greater detail and depth. It is the inherent quality that books have over film or photography. Yet by and large I'm someone who believes the phrase that "A picture says a thousand words". I think it may just be a matter of how each individual's imagination is wired. I know that Hitchcock once said that he is not the biggest fan of books because every time he reads an engaging chapter of something he is distracted by seeing it as a movie in his mind. That's exactly the "issue" I often have.
I remember reading the novel "The Desperate Hours" and only then saw the movie (with Bogie and Fredric March); I thought the movie was a lot better. Liked "Day of the Jackal" better as a movie too, especially because there's so much time spent with no conversation it forces you to pay attention.
I'm an avid reader, so I generally prefer the books to movies. One big exception for me would be The Princess Bride by William Goldman. The book is good, but the movie is oh so much better lol.
I agree... also, his book "Magic" was no where near the quality of the Anthony Hopkins "Magic" movie!
90 % of theses threads include "I haven't read the book but..." Don't look at me. I'm watching Fox's Animation Domination. I liked , the "Inherent Vice" movie but it had a lot of disquieting elements, like the dialog, which rang false compared to the novel, and Joanna Newsome's vocal-fried narration.
I was going to mention that one as well: While I like the book well enough on its own terms, the movie blows the book out of the water and into the next stratosphere.
I've yet to read any of the original 'Little House' books- Not ruling it out, I just never got around to them I guess...
Well, the cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter. Actually, much, and I mean very much of the dialogue in the film is taken verbatim from the book, more so than any other film I've seen. I think "To Kill A Mockingbird" is the best example of a film doing justice to the book,.
Me too. One of the best film adaptions of a novel ever made. Gone With The Wind is certainly better than the book, as is Valley Of The Dolls, although the bar is pretty low on that one.
I don’t know why but I just love these lines: Gilmer: About your writing with your left hand. Are you ambidextrous, Mr. Ewell? Bob: I most positively am not; I can use one hand good as the other.
For me "The World According to Garp" was great as a book and movie. I thought the movie caught the lighthearted telling and death centred perspective of the book.
