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

By the way ben prog-"I'll die if I don't post 500 messagges every day-ismylife, this is not about your comment but it gave me the idea. Don't you people hate it when other people that just saw a movie based on a book say "oh, but the book was better"...wouldn't you say it is a ridiculous comparison, when you have two different artistic languages where things that work in one don't do so in the other and viceversa, when the resources and the "color palette" is totally different? When you adapt a movie from a book, the book ENDS the moment a screenplay based on it exists. The book is a separate entity from the movie, and sometimes for artistic purposes changes are made to the story in the book.

The T wrote: By the way ben prog-"I'll die if I don't post 500 messagges every day-ismylife, this is not about your comment but it gave me the idea. Don't you people hate it when other people that just saw a movie based on a book say "oh, but the book was better"...

I don't hate it, actually, I agree with that point of view. You know, we, progheads, are a little bit snobbish sometimes.

Jokes aside, the books are better than movies, in the majority of cases.

I agree that two different artistic languages are using two different color palettes, so to say, but I have a certain respect for the original.

Of course, we can argue which one is better: Queen's Fairy Feller's Masterstroke or the original painting? Camel's Snow Goose or the novel?

A film is a very specific art sub-genre. Nowadays it's too commercial, too crowd-pleasing. Hollywood is pop of art called cinematography.

For example: Stanislaw Lem's Solaris is a masterpiece of literature, hands down. Tarkovsky's movie is a masterpiece too!
But Hollywood's remake of Solaris with Clooney is just a pile of special effects and sh!t.
Another example:
I really doubt there is one Tolkien fan in this world who thinks that Lord Of The Rings is better as movie trilogy than book trilogy.
Of course, they are two different media, and movie trilogy as a standalone piece is working just fine, but you can't avoid comparisons, they are sharing the same core idea, for God's sake!

There are cases when a book and a movie are equally good: Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and Arthur C. Clarke's book (although he wrote the book after he wrote the screenplay).

The cases when a movie based upon a book is better than a book itself are very rare in my opinion, the only example that I could think of right now is Forrest Gump.

I am definitely guilty of saying this on the few occaisions that I  have seen a film and have read the literary source its from. Film can be an astounding mediem to convey ideas but I find only truly works best when using original ideas rather than those taken from a book. Basically a book can pack in more to get across the ideas and have them take far longer to progress, or to diverge down many different paths than a film can phisically do, unless you want a 12 hour film.  I'm not saying that its impossible to get a book successfully converted to a film but it will always be an uphill struggle unless the source material isnt that good.  

I see my name has changed to prog-"I'll die if I don't post 500 messagges every day-ismylife. 


As the inspiration of this thread I am guilty of saying this. a lot. The reason I say this is because when I read a book I let my imagination run wild with enjoyment and picture it anyway I feel like it (sometimes very different images when rereading a book). Movies sort of hamper that process for me as the director has shown his view of the novel and most people accept it that way and don't give the book a chance to give a different perspective to how the author planned it.


I enjoy the movies but I like being imaginative when reading books such as LOTR. It was a good adaptation of the movie and I liked it a lot (so much so that I got the special edition DVDs for all three movies and watched everything on them)

clarke2001 wrote: progismylife wrote: As the inspiration of this thread I am guilty of saying this. a lot. The reason I say this is because when I read a book I let my imagination run wild with enjoyment and picture it anyway I feel like it (sometimes very different images when rereading a book). Movies sort of hamper that process for me as the director has shown his view of the novel and most people accept it that way and don't give the book a chance to give a different perspective to how the author planned it. With you on that. And the worst possible thing is, after you watched a movie, you are not able to imagine a scenery from a book in a different way any more! Somehow, your vision of the story will always be spoiled with the scenery from the movie, and that sucks.

Yeah I know.

But if I abstain from stuff relating to the book I usually can get my imagination to work properly when I pick the book up again

[QUOTE=The T]By the way ben prog-"I'll die if I don't post 500 messagges every day-ismylife, this is not about your comment but it gave me the idea. Don't you people hate it when other people that just saw a movie based on a book say "oh, but the book was better"...wouldn't you say it is a ridiculous comparison, when you have two different artistic languages where things that work in one don't do so in the other and viceversa, when the resources and the "color palette" is totally different? When you adapt a movie from a book, the book ENDS the moment a screenplay based on it exists. The book is a separate entity from the movie, and sometimes for artistic purposes changes are made to the story in the book. THE BOOK IS ALWAYS BETTER ONLY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO TIE THE ENTIRE BOOK INTO A TWO HOUR FILM.  SOMETIMES ITS SAD TO WATCH A MOVIE BASED ON A BOOK BECAUSE OF THE DISAPOINTMENT YOU FACE!

Most blatant and striking example, the fifth Hary Potter Book. It wasn't even that strong to begin with, but the movie was an embarassment.

It depends on how the screen writer adapts the story to film. That is what will determine if the movie should be judged on its own merits.

Edited by bluetailfly - September 19 2007 at 23:51

stonebeard wrote: Dune. Dune. And more Dune         Oh, I almost forgot Dune.

I was young when I read it...Didn't enjoy it to its full extent, didn't understand everything, and I totally forget most of it now. But my mom told me the movies were terrible so I never bothered to jog my memory that way...


Oh yes, the books are always better, by a very large margin. Look at Harry Potter:

BOOKS: WTF IS THIS TRASH?!?!?!
MOVIES: *Chameleon's suicide smiley*

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

I've read them both, and I would say that the movies are probably on a par with the books in terms of artistic quality. Mind you, the media are vastly different, so a comparison in terms of "better" and "worse" probably would not hold. Both books are great, but their visual translations are perfect.