though a clocwork orange was an excellent book, i think stanley kubrick did a masterful job making the movie. i think the movie was slightly better.
Blade Runner: Directors Cut, is better than 'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep'.
But you're right, most of the time the book is better. I think it's because when you read a book, you visualise the characters and action in your own mind, which is always unique to each reader, and a film is the directors visual interpretation, which most of the time differs from yours, and is therefore a slight disappointment.
I recently read the short story the Shawshank redemption is based on and I can't imagine their been anybody out their that prefers the short story
When you absolutely love a book though it's very unusual for you to then see the film and prefer it...theirs always far, far more depth in a book, you get to know how the character feels in a book and a film adaptation always has to leave things out!
Originally posted by Jamesqt The Lord of the Rings!!!!
I recently read the short story the Shawshank redemption is based on and I can't imagine their been anybody out their that prefers the short story
When you absolutely love a book though it's very unusual for you to then see the film and prefer it...theirs always far, far more depth in a book, you get to know how the character feels in a book and a film adaptation always has to leave things out!
Originally posted by nihilismor though a clocwork orange was an excellent book, i think stanley kubrick did a masterful job making the movie. i think the movie was slightly better.
I would have mentioned 'The Shining' before 'Clockwork Orange' in this thread, but I agree, CW was very well done too.
Clockwork orange: certainly. I couldn't even get through the first 10 pages of the book. What a bloody nightmare.
Star Wars (although the book came later, the film was still better).
Lord of the rings? Dunno. This probably highlights the debate on the issue. Can you really compare two different mediums? What's better? The Mona Lisa (the painting) or Mona Lisa smiles (film with Julia Roberts)?
Shawshank redemption was at least as good as the book. The same with The Apt pupil (which was the second short story, released together with Shawshank).
I'd say... and I may get shot for this one... The name of the rose.
One of the best books I've ever read, yet, at the same time, the film still strikes me as better. I was a lot younger when I saw the film though.
The Davinci code. The book was so bad, one couldn't help but enjoy the bloody film.
Originally posted by shavixmir This probably highlights the debate on the issue. Can you really compare two different mediums? What's better?
Yes, I struggle with this as well. It's simple enough if you have a great book and a crap film or vice versa, but if both the book and the film are good in their own way, I can't really tell which one is better. My personal example for this is "Death in Venice".
With "The Lord of the Rings" it's very clear for me though. I am a big fan of the books, but didn't like the films at all (I didn't watch the third one because I disliked the first two so much).
"the movie was better than the book"
06 Nov '08 08:26
Back to Top