![]() |
Adaptations where the FILM is better than the book?
I don't know about you guys but I believe for the most part books tend to be better than their adaptations. It's not because I'm a literary snob, in fact far from it but I just think that a book translated into a 90-minute visual medium tends to lose things along the way. Doesn't mean the film is bad but when it's two pieces of art put next to each other, the book version and the film version, I get the impression that the book version tends to tell the story better.
Where is this NOT the case? Which films are better than the book version? Obviously we can get into a massive discussion about the question being irrelevant because you can't compare two different mediums so casually and that film versions simply can't top the original because being better than original is impossible* but what the hey! Fight Club I think could be a contender but it's tricky. I think I tells the story in a really interesting way and definitely comes out very successfully but I like the book a lot too. Would probably reach for the film if given the choice though. (*dunno, works for Lucozade Orange) |
Fight Club's definitely a valid choice - I believe Chuck Palahniuk himself said he thought it was better than the book. Personally I think they're about on a par, although the book's ending isn't quite as good, I don't think.
This is really lame, but the only one I can think of right now is Order of the Phoenix. Out of all the HP films, that was the only one that really did it for me as a film in its own right, rather than just a showreel for the books. But the book is definitely the worst in the series. A lot of people would argue that American Psycho the film is better than the book, if only for tuning down the violence and the minutiae. I'd disagree, but I can see the argument. Good thread! |
I'm struggling to think of adaptions of novels that are better than the actual novel, apart maybe for The Godfather. However, there are a couple of literary pieces that I think are on a par - Brokeback Mountain from the short story, and the adaptation of Atonement. Both were superb, and fully captured the tensions and beauty of the written word.
|
Jaws. I struggled to get through that book. It's boring and a bit crappy. Peter Benchley has written far better books. The film is one of my favourites.
And also Hellraiser. I wouldn't say the film is any better than The hellbound Heart novel. They're both very similar in feel but the limited budget of the movie meant that the Cenobites couldn't be portrayed exactly as they are in the book and the result of this was Doug Bradley's Pinhead. One of the greatest cinematic creations of the last 30 years. |
Just remembered one. Lean's Great Expectations. I've always hated the novel.
|
American Psycho is one I've heard is better than the book, not read it but really want to. I really like the film though, big fan. I can see myself liking it more than the book if I ever read just because I'm so attached to it.
|
American Psycho is typical Easton Ellis if you've read any of his other stuff. It's cold and detached, aiming to shock by not seeming to try to do so. It's littered with designer names and labels throughout which gets a bit repetitive but it's worth reading once. By providing the ultimate stereotype of the yuppie it probably sums up the casual, deliberate excess of the 80s better than anything else.
|
Yeah, American Psycho's where his style of writing fit best. The book really emphasises its point and pushes the surrealism, which is cool, but the film is more enjoyable.
I'm still hoping for a film version of Glamorama. Another one - Starship Troopers. The book has all of the film's fascism with none of the irony. |
Probably One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest too. I've tried to read that a few times but can't get into it. I always enjoy the film, though.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.