Are the books better than the movies?

[Rodney]

So what do you think, are books usually better than the movies?

[sunfrog]

I read a lot of books and I would have to say yes. But there are some Stephen King movies that were better than the book. The Stand is one. I can't think of anything else right now. My brain just died. Lol! :)

[Zephyrus]

Books can create more vivid images than is possible with a camra, and they can show a lot more detail. Usually the book is better than the movie (if the movie is based on the book)...but if it's the other way around (like Saving Private Ryan), then it's c**p :)

[OG-]

The books for both Jurassic Park and The Lost World were ALOT, LOT better than the movies. Same with Sphere. If you can't tell Michael Crichton is my favorite author. He writes about the coolest stuff.

There are some movies where I think the movie was actually better than the book. American Psycho, and Great Expectations were two of them. I didn't like the movie of Great Expectations too much, but it was an improvment from the book.

[Zephyrus]

Are you kidding OG??? Great expectations better than the book?!?!?! That's my favourite book of all time, no way is the movie better! It doesn't even get CLOSE to the book, the director mercilessly chopped out some scenes, and of course there are tons of other things which he plain and simply couldn't show...

You should re-read the book my friend :)

[paulgoodman]

I think lots of times, the book is better than the movie. I think Godfather and Jurassic Park were better books than they were movies. It is nice to see a book come to life in the movies though.

[Yoda]

I was only about 11 when I read Jurassic Park - I don't know if I could have followed it without having seen the movie beforehand.

Sphere was boring as a book in some ways, but very exciting in other ways. For example: the conversations with Jerry, and the things afterwards, were very interesting - I couldn't put the book down during those parts. The ending was good as well, but there was just too much junk in the middle at times that I think made it drag a bit.

But then again, I tried to read it years ago - I might enjoy it more now. That said, I think Lord of the Rings won't be better or worse as a movie - just different. If they ever make movies about The Chronicles of Narnia, I think the books will be superior, though.

[OG-]

I thought Sphere was an excellent book. It use to be my favorite untill I read Timeline. Michael Crichton has got some serious talent on his hands. The man is a genious.

I only think Great Expectations the movie was better than the book because I didn't like either, but I liked the movie slightly better.

[Rodney]

Are they going to make a movie out of Timeline? It seems like I read something about it.

[OG-]

Yea, it comes out late this year I think.

[ryanpaige]

I've found that movies based on John Grisham books are better than the books. That's mostly because Grisham is a hack writer and there's tons of stuff that can be cut or tightened when making the jump from the page to the silver screen. And given how poor a writer Mr. Grisham is, the screenwriter doesn't have to work all that hard to make the movies better than the books.

I thought the book version of Sphere was better than the film, by the way.

[thmilin]

i totally can't agree about The Stand, the book was waaaaay better. it was incredible. that was the first stephen king book i ever read and it was only after reading that book that i gained any respect for him. then i saw the miniseries and was sorely disappointed.

i agree, usually the book is better than the movie. BUT - i saw the Pedo Almodovar movie, Live Flesh (which is not as tawdry a movie as it looks/sounds from the name and cover of the box). It's based off this mystery/thriller writer from the UK, Ruth something or other, and after watching the movie -- which I LOVED -- i got the book, which was mildly interesting, but sucked. And the story was entirely different. In fact, I found the story in the movie MUCH better, deeper, and more interesting. It was no longer the mystery that it was in book form, but that didn't matter, it was just rich and great.

____
woohoo!! i wuv movies.

[Pigsnie]

I thought TIMELINE was the worst book Crichton had ever written. No comparison at all to JURASSIC PARK or even ANDROMEDA STRAIN. The book RELIC -- you know, the monster in the museum) was very good too -- the film did not do it justice. And of course, a lot of the novel HANNIBAL simply cannot be translated onto the screen (ie. the fascinating concept of Lecter's Memory palace or the scene where Lecter's baby sister Mischa was taken away to be appetizer.)

[OG-]

I loved TIMELINE. As for the Hannibal memory palace scene, me and my friend thought of a way it could be done perfectly. I was pretty sure that they would of thought of it and used it, but I guess they didn't.

[Pigsnie]

What was your idea for Lecter's memory palace? I thought Terry Gilliam could have pulled it off. Remember that floating staircase in TIME BANDITS?

[OG-]

Too hard to describe without visual stuff. I'll try though. It would be sort of matrix style roating cameras. Take the running in the woods scene. He would watch her run. Then she would freeze. The whole picture(the whole world) would freeze, and the camera would zoom in and out and rotate and fly around with in it. Or you could have him walking around in the frozen frame.

You would intro it by having him watch it, then show his face watching it, then the camera would of zoomed into his eye and rotated to show the whole scene(from Lecters perspective), then he would blink and the whole picture would freeze. Letting you know its frozen in his mind. So then it zooms out of his eye and free flys through out the scene.

[Gabrielle947]

It's impossible to compare them.Two different types of art.Although,I think that books have a stronger impact,they affect people more.

[earlsmoviepicks]

Brideshead Revisted was a masterpiece of a book. The 80's BBC Miniseries was very very good. The movie was a pathetic abomination. In this case, the book must be read.

[D34DT0Y]

Stephen King movie adaptations are always better than his long-winded books.

[Nausicaä]

^ I'm with you there.

[gandalf26]

Generally I would say that books are better but there is the odd occasion that a movie trumps the book.

The Bourne books are quite a long winded boring read.

[Critics]

The books will always be better in my opinion because your imagination has no limit.

[ollanik]

i really cant read books...i don't have patience for them...my mind is always somewhere else...but reading is allways better than watching...because there are no speccial effects or cinematography that good as brain can imagine...

[Slimgee55]

The boooks are always better than the movie. You have a chance to create the characters yourself to a certain point. If you watch the movie before the book you won't enjoy it as much. I agree with critics, let your imagination run wild :)

[Watch_Tower]

I agree with most of the points here. Books are normally better than the movies they give birth to, simply because a movie is another group of people's interpretation of what they imagine a book to be, it will always be different to what we imagine.

Having said that, there have been some movie adaptations I've enjoyed more than the books. Jurassic Park for one and The Time Traveller's Wife.

[Iroquois]

All I'm saying is that The Godfather was a better movie than it was a book.

[Watch_Tower]

^^^ Yesssss. I'm not a fan of any of those books but the movies were great.

[Mr Minio]

Not better for me. Of course it is the point of view. Perhaps, it is my age, but I enjoy movies more. Young generation...

[Kakarot89]

I think books are usually better but I can think of a few that I enjoyed the movie more. I enjoyed the 1408 movie more than I enjoyed the short story. I've also enjoyed the Dexter series much more than I enjoyed any of the books (except Dearly Devoted Dexter it was on par with the show at the time. Even the terrible seasons beat Dexter in the Dark for me).

[Exist]

I just finished the Larsson trilogy and didn't much care for it. Larsson seems very conscientiously egomaniacal about the inequality between the sexes, in the 21st century none-the-less! The writing is quite dry and mechanical. Might've been better of simply watching the films. Oddly enough the Hollywood version of 'Dragon' is considered more true to the book than the foreign film.

As far as reading the book vs. watching the movie. I guess it depends on the person, depends on how much you read also, or on how interested you are in the director/writer. I saw 'No Country' before reading any McCarthy books, it didn't ruin it for me.

SMALL SPOILER for GONE BABY GONE!!!
I think the murder of the perp scene in 'Gone baby Gone' is far better in the film than in the book, as far as with the perp's understanding that he was going to die.

[Miss Vicky]

I think each has its own merits.

Movies can sometimes trim out unneeded scenes that can make books overly long (Interview With the Vampire comes to mind) or make a character more sympathetic (Catch Me If You Can). Or, simply take the essence of the idea and story and take it in a different/potentially better direction (Dexter series, as already mentioned).

On the other hand, books more easily develop characters (since they don't have the same time constraints) and are often less formulaic and don't always follow the "everybody lives happily ever after" rule that Hollywood to often subscribes to (see The Help). They can also give more detail on how and why events in the storyline happened (Catch Me If You Can).

[Nausicaä]

I just finished the Larsson trilogy and didn't much care for it. Larsson seems very conscientiously egomaniacal about the inequality between the sexes, in the 21st century none-the-less!


And there is something wrong with that? it might be the 21st century(and that makes it worse) but there are still a lot of men out there who view women in such a negative way or treat them horrendously.

[Exist]

And there is something wrong with that? it might be the 21st century(and that makes it worse) but there are still a lot of men out there who view women in such a negative way or treat them horrendously.

You have a good point, I should've been more delicate given the subject. But in a sense, that's exactly my point, it still exists and, like all horrible things, it will always exist. Poverty, cultural differences, unavoidable tragedies, etc. etc. etc. When I read Larsson, i got the distinct impression he was revealing to us how powerful and unwavering women can be, if you yourself are a women or a man, I hope your offended by this. I find it conceited. And he had hopes or designs that things will be bettered through his valiant efforts, that these oppresions and violences may end; one of these 'horrible things' I've mentioned. WTF! Impossible! I am very pessimistic and cynical, and I should've been far more delicate, and less an arse.

One more thing. Often when someone goes on and on about something, it is more telling to the listener of the speaker, then of what the speaker is talking about. This is plainly the case with Larsson.

[SeeingisBelieving]

So what do you think, are books usually better than the movies?

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was my experience reading Moby-Dick.

The opening of the book is amazing and I can remember how well-written some parts of it are. Then it becomes more of a scientific journal really, telling us everything about whales but losing the dramatic tone with which the novel started off. This returns really so late in the book that it's a bit of a mixed success.

The 1956 film rectifies so many of the book's problems and builds on certain things to make a truly mythic story. For example things like Elijah's warning and Ahab's corpse beckoning to the crew are creations for the film, and I think they improve on Melville's story greatly.

[DeadChannel]

I'm so tired of people putting one artistic medium over the other. Have you ever noticed that most of the people who say "the book was better" aren't very well read, and mostly consume young adult stuff garbage?

See, I can be pretentious too.

[earlsmoviepicks]

Brideshead Revisited --abso-f---ing-lutely.

In order of awesomeness

1) Novel by Evelyn Waugh ----- 10

2) BBC Series ----- 8.5

3) Movie----- Godawful, does not belong on any awesome list

[SeeingisBelieving]

I'm so tired of people putting one artistic medium over the other. Have you ever noticed that most of the people who say "the book was better" aren't very well read, and mostly consume young adult stuff garbage?

See, I can be pretentious too.

I think when people say the book was better it's because they've built up their own vision of it in their minds. It's like listening to an audio drama – you have no constraints, so what you see in your imagination will always be more vivid than what can be shown on screen.

I think it's a lot different if you've seen the film first, mind you. Dune's a good example. I saw David Lynch's film and it made a hell of an impression with those incredible sets and the design style. Consequently when I read the book those images haunted every page. It was nice later on when I watched the TV miniseries because it was in many ways such a different interpretation of the novel.

[CiCi]

The majority of the time, the books are significantly better than their adaptations, usually because books can spend a lot more time developing a vast amount of characters, characters who might be in a single scene on screen.
Then some authors' expression is so poetical and masterful that it's near impossible to be translated effectively, Margaret Atwood is a good example of this.
Then literary structures and devices can sometimes be too complex to compact into the space of two hours, any adaptation of Wuthering Heights for example, excludes a great amount of content because of the way in which the narrative is revealed.

Nevertheless, some authors get very decent adaptations, Stephen King's books are consistently given amazing adaptations (The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, The Shining, Misery, Carrie) but it's quite rare, although it definitely does sometimes happen!

[doubledenim]

The last stuff I really read, were the books dealing with Whitey Bulger. Black Mass had no chance, regardless of Jepp and his crazy contacts.

I just started "The Long Way to a Small Angry Planet" and I love it. It makes me remember why I love reading, a movie can't expand my imagination like that. That said, a movie benefits by telling its story faster than 60 nights before I go to bed.

[honeykid]

Books are better books than movies are. Movies are better movies than books are.

[ursaguy]

I'm so tired of people putting one artistic medium over the other. Have you ever noticed that most of the people who say "the book was better" aren't very well read, and mostly consume young adult stuff garbage?

See, I can be pretentious too.

Ironically, I think "young adult stuff" is where the best examples of a movie improving on the book are. A lot of YA writers suffer from putting too much focus on romance, only caring about the main character, boring action sequences, and a scope way too large for them to handle. I think Hunger Games 2 and 4, Maze Runner, Warm Bodies, and at least half of the Harry Potter movies are all better than the books they came from. For the most part I think books and movies aren't comparable, but I think those are a few cases where you can fairly say the adaptation was better because it cut fat and used visuals to its advantage.

[DeadChannel]

I'm not a fan of movie adaptations that try to be true to the novel, because the story is usually designed to be told in book form, and fails to translate well. Storytelling in a film works significantly differently than novels, and ought to be treated differently. Look at something like Dr Strangelove. One of the greatest movies ever, but nothing like the novel. It bugs me when people are like "the book was better, because [xyz tiny discrepancy] was changed". Why even come to the ****ing movie if all you wanted was a precise recreation of what you felt when you read the book? Why can't the movie stand on its own as an artistic work? God I hate that.

Also, keep in mind that bad adaptations go both ways. How many good film novelizations are there?

But, I still feel like most of the people screaming "the book was better" don't really know literature to begin with. It's always the Divergent, Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Maze Runner fans etc. At the risk of sounding pretentious again, I don't think that fans of like To Kill a Mockingbird, or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or A Clockwork Orange are as vocal about their respective adaptations.

Edit: Didn't see Ursaguy's post.

I read The Hunger Games as a kid, and have to agree that at least the first two were pretty solid films when placed against the book. Especially since the books are pretty solid YA. Hated The Maze Runner, but I never read it. There are a lot of examples of good ya adaptaions, I'm sure.

[foster]

I've heard "the book was better" too many times. Heard it enough, never want to hear it again.
I'm with you deadchannel

[linespalsy]

Off the top of my head...

Pride and Prejudice (2005): 4.5 - book: 4.5
Sense and Sensibility (1995): 4 - book: 4.5
Emma (1996): 3.5 - book: 4
Mansfield Park (1999): 2.5 - book: 3.5
Little Women (1994): 3.5 - book: 3
Moby Dick (1950s): 3 - book: 4.5
Anna Karenina (2012): 3 - Anna Karenina (1990s): 2.5 - Anna Karenina (1930s): 2.5 - book: 5
Woman in the Dunes: 4 - book: 5
The Face of Another: 4 - book: 4.5
Man without a Map/The Ruined Map: 3 - book: 3
The Eel: 4 - book: 3
The Pornographers: 2.5 - book: 3
The Prestige: 4.5 - book: 3
Bladerunner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep: 4 - book: 5
A Scanner Darkly: 3.5 - book: 4
The Saragossa Manuscript 3 - book: 4
The Trial: 4 - book: 4
Jurassic Park: 2.5 - book: 3
The Lost World: Jurassic Park: 3 - book: 2
Disclosure: 1.5 - book: 1
Casualties of War: 4.5 - book: 3.5
The Black Dahlia: 3.5 - book: 3
L.A. Confidential: 3.5 - book: 3
War of the Worlds (1950s): 3 - Spielberg: 2.5 - book: 4
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1930s): 2.5 - 1990s: 3 - book: 4
Around the World in 80 Days (2004): 2.5 - book: 4
Dune: 3 - book: 4
The Exorcist: 3.5 - book: 4
The Shining: 3.5 - book: 2.5
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: 2 - book: 2.5
Chamber of Secrets: 3.5 - book: 3
Prisoner of Azkaban: 4 - book: 3.5
Goblet of Fire: 2.5 - book: 3
Twilight: 2.5 - book: 2
The Hobbit Part 1: 4 - Part 2: 3.5 - Part 3: 3.5 - book: 4.5
The Fellowship of the Rings: 3.5 - Bakshi: 2.5 - book: 4.5
The Two Towers: 3.5 - book: 4
The Return of the King: 3.5 - book: 4
The Name of the Rose: 2 - book: 4.5
The Martian: 3 - book: 2.5
The Bourne Identity: 3.5 - book: 3
The Bourne Supremacy: 3.5 - book: 3
The Bourne Ultimatum: 3 - book: 3

[Used Future]

For me there's no definitive answer. Most people tend to agree the book is usually better but that's not always the case. I think it has a lot to do with someone reading a book and the subsequent movie director's vision not matching their own personal visualisation. Beloved characters and plot elements can get left out for a tighter running time, actors faces don't match what was imagined etc etc. It can feel like someone has trampled on your own little private imagined universe when that happens. Similar to a favourite movie getting a shoddy remake.

I always think of Donald E Westlake's Dortmunder novels, in particular The Hot Rock in this respect. The movie adaptation with Robert Redford isn't half bad (even if Redders disowned it), but I have my own personal perception of those books that nothing...and I mean nothing...will ever match up to. As such I've steered well clear of all the other adaptations.

The exact same thing can also happen when I read a book based on liking the movie. Admittedly not as often, but it certainly has happened. Peter Benchley's Jaws is probably the best example I can think of. It's still a fantastic book, but I saw the iconic movie first and the extra details in the novel just detract somehow.

[linespalsy]

Huh, I didn't know The Hot Rock was adapted to film (I liked the book, but it's not a favorite or anything).

FWIW if I read a good book I will often try to wait a while before I check out the movie, so it's less fresh in my mind and my expectations are dulled a little. I find that works pretty well at keeping me from getting too bothered by differing details or looking at the movie as a cliffs-notes version of the book. Of course, some adaptations really aren't much more than that, just as some books aren't much more than movie pitches.

PS: I also think it's completely valid and worthwhile to watch a movie with an eye to how it compares to its sources, which I will sometimes do as well. This goes for historical "true story" films as well as adaptations of novels/plays/comics/remakes/whatever.

[cinemajack]

I don't think you can really compare the two. They're two different mediums. I mean, I guess you could compare them relative to other pieces of art in their respective mediums (book X is greater relative to other books than movie X is relative to other movies), but people don't seem to do that. They directly compare the book to the film, which is unfair. Part of that is the fact that the film has an extra burden to be loyal to the source material of a different medium whereas the original gets to just be.

I have a really terrible attention span, so I have a hard time making it through books. That's not to say I think books are bad, it's just my own problem. So in most cases, if I've read the book and seen the film, I'll prefer the film unless it's outright bad.

[Mr Minio]

"The book was better! (and they missed some chapters!)"

Example:
"I hated Pasolini's take on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Not only did he make Jesus a Commie, but also didn't copy the Holy Book word for word, which makes him a blasphemous, sacrilegious heretic. The book was better."

An issue with almost every film based on a book. There's always a group of devoted fans, who spam every comment section of every book-based movie on every film-related site with comments such as above.

[90sAce]

So what do you think, are books usually better than the movies?
Can't say out of a lot of personal experience, but when you try to squeeze a book like "The Count of Monte Cristo" which is over 1,000 pages long into a 2 hour movie, a lot ends up having to be cut out. Or else you'd have a 12 hour movie which almost no one would want to see in a theatre.

[Guaporense]

Books are generally considered superior to narrative movies because of their higher level of abstraction: they allow the reader to digest it at their own pace and to form their own subjective impressions of it to a greater degree. A book is a more personal experience than a film because a movie imposes everything: the visuals, the pacing, the sound, etc.

Although it's true that movies are more "efficient" than books: it takes much longer to read a novelization of a film than to watch it and since they require less imagination/elements from the viewer it also requires less effort to be consumed as well. So even though books might be superior I rather watch movies because it's faster and easier.

While manga are books though they use images instead of text to describe the physical environment of the characters. This makes them also easier to read than books but at the same time they incorporate elements that makes books superior: the fact that the reader imposes his own pacing.

Hence, manga is superior to both movies and books. Easy to consume like a movie but still retain the element of pacing that characterizes a book.

There are types of movies that are not narrative based that you cannot compare to books, like Tarkovsky's The Mirror or Fellini's 8 and 1/2, movies like those are the highest type of cinema because they focus on what film can do that books cannot: the fact that a film is a "visual sculpture of time".

[-KhaN-]

I think it depends on how big the book is (not the page count, but the world). For example I think movies like Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, The Witcher etc. will/would never be as good as books. I can't even imagine A Song of Ice and Fire movie, even five seasons of TV Show (Game of Thrones) had cut a lot of material, some of it very good. Book will always be able to provide more detail, more story and more of everything else (if author wants to do it).

Do we count Comic Books for this? Or is that a totally different discussion?