"the book is better than the movie"...

I am hoping that Stardust is at least as good as the book. I've waited a long time to see a Neil Gaiman book translated to the big screen and don't want to be too disaponted. (The Dimmu Bogir track in the trailer is probably enough to keep me happy until it's released in the UK )

Books are better than films for the same reason radio is better than TV: the pictures are better.

sircosick wrote: I simply cannot watch a movie having read the respective book before....

Movies based on novels are almost universally appalling in comparison to the source material.  To say otherwise reveals either a lack of imagination or a lack of ability to grasp the written word, it's as simple as that.  Adding images where there were once none can only create entropy.  Can you name a movie based on an album that stands above the album? 

Now, movies based on short stories have a better chance of success, if only because instead of compressing and truncating, they're expanding and interpreting.

I generally cannot -finish- a movie based on a novel if I've previous read the novel.  It feels like a horrible dub-job on a foreign film, the characters are always all wrong in my eyes.  Is it because the characters -are- all wrong?  Well, in today's Hollywood, probably   But in the past, it was because what I got out of the book was much different than what the director did.  Hell, I loathed the screen adaption of The Shining, and it's universally applauded.

With that said...  if any of you like the modern "I, Robot" film with Will Smith over the original book, you deserve to be put out of your sad, sad misery.  I mean it.

I simply cannot watch a movie having read the respective book before.... 

If you are talking about faithful translations of the printed word onto the screen then I think it is subjective - either the director shares your imagined images of the characters and events or he doesn't. I am willing to accept that they will have to change somethings and leave bits out to fit even the shortest novel into a 2 hour film (many of the great films were based upon short stories and novella's), but I tend to emit the "The Book Was Better" line if they change too much.

Edited by darqdean - September 20 2007 at 18:28

Orlando. The movie is a good effort, though. Uhm... I saw a movie version of "El llano en llamas", but that was just anecdotic... it's impossible to pass that book to any other format.

I remember saying this on another thread dealing with the same subject - we all must remember that a movie is not and can not be the equivalent of a novel, because of the completely different amount of "time and space" they can "contain". It's not fair comparing a movie to a novel, and very few movies managed to have the complexity of a novel. They are just to limited by constraints - it has often happened to me to take a novel in hand and only leave it when finished, a day (or a night) after. But who could ever sit through an 8 hours film? The film is the equivalent of the short story (a novella). One example is "The Duellists" - Joseph Conrad's story is superb, but Ridley Scott's film is a masterpiece.
We should also look for those great movies who are not based on famous books, of course it's difficult to surpass a great novel. Many of great films, however, are based on books that are not really that good - that's a good start for thinking of some examples. How many people would say "Heart of Darkness" (the book) is better that "Apocalypse Now" (the movie)?

Anyone here read "The Leopard" and "Death in Venice"? I'm curious, as Visconti's films are incredible masterpieces.

Edited by Sean Trane - September 20 2007 at 05:48

Dune. Dune. And more Dune