Do You Ever Get Sick Of "The Book Is Better Than The Movie" bit?

Agreed!



Can’t agree with that. While I find great experiences with both mediums to be just that, I can’t say any of my favorite novels dwarf my favorite films. Similarly with TV shows. I wouldn’t know what I’d do if someone asked me what I’d Sophie’s Choice between Blood Meridian, The Wire or Taxi Driver (geeze, what a cliched white guy my tastes are). I’m moved emotionally and intellectually by them all in great capacity.

I just think as we step away from the great art, the relative strengths and weaknesses inherent in the medium become a little clearer and for all the reasons I previously stated, my heart belongs to film.

Right--I think it just comes down to each person's chemistry with the different mediums.

I also think that books can pull off tricks that film just can't, such as when a character revealed over halfway through the book that their romantic partner was a woman. After multiple sequences with that romantic partner. There are tricks of perspective that can be accomplished, and a clever writer can pull off astonishing misdirection. And all the special effects are great because they are produced by the ultimate propmaster that is your brain.

It's fine for me to prefer novels and you to prefer books. But I think that it's certainly the case that someone might say "the book was better" and it's a genuine sentiment not just meant to drag the film.

I don't think either one, books or movies, are better than the other, they just have different characteristics. I liked Scanner Darkly book better than the movie, but the movie was still good, it was a lot shorter. There's a whole section in the middle that's missing from the movie. I also thought the harry potter books were better than the movie. But overall it's easier to watch movies and they have more types of stimulation (like music), so i end up watching more of them.

When Death in Venice first came out the critics were up in arms that it “wasn’t like the book” by Thomas Mann. But Mann didn’t make movies. This particular book & this particular movie are both excellent.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Has anyone read the 8-pages of Cheever's "The Swimmer"? I love the movie, but I've never read it. It would have to be a pretty amazing eight pages to overcome the excellent 2-hour movie.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I assume I probably have since I’ve read a lot of Cheever, but don’t remember it at all. Thanks to you I have the movie in my Netflix Q though not a fan of Lancaster. Will give it a try though.

I also don't think Lancaster is a great actor, more of a great presence, usually too intense, but he's probably the star who has picked the best movies.


-The Swimmer
-Birdman of Alcatraz
-Elmer Gantry
-The Professionals
-Come Back, Little Sheba


and then all the popular movies. And I believe the first movie his company produced was the great "Marty"

I just rewatched Birdman of Alcatraz a week ago. Really good movie, not factual, but I didn't watch it for a history lesson, I watched it for the pathos.

They need to take some failed adaptations and give them the 36 hour stream treatment.

Someone almost always tries to make a film out of a great book...i'm reading "the women's room", and i think it's an awesome book, much better than "a promising young woman". Sure, it may be exaggerated even for its time period, when patriarchy was less of a questioned thing in the US, but it's a much deeper and more thorough portrayal of the issues that women have. I was thinking "someone should make a movie of this book", but someone already did in 1980, and i'm not even going to watch it anytime because i think it will probably be disappointing.


I think the thing about books is that their potential for pleasure is much higher because it all takes place in your head. I still don't think either one is "better" though overall, just because with movies you can have music to go along with the film which is so nice at times.

Agreed, but a book can't usually capture the level of immersion and emotional potency in the moment that can come from a film. They just have different strengths. So when someone says the book is "better" they're leaving some things unsaid, like: better...at depth of story. Better...at depth of character. Better at world-building. To me it's like saying a marathon is a better example of running than a sprint.

Reminds me of the old Jim Gaffigan line: "Oh, the book was better? You know what my favorite thing about the movie was? No reading."

Nearly everything Cheever has written is worth the time. And The Swimmer is one of his premium short stories.

Game of Thrones was OK until they ran out of material and it became a fanfic.

I actually disagree with this in my case. I often find myself more immersed and more moved emotionally in a book than in a film version of a book.

Every now and then, a film version of a story will layer in elements that do enhance a moment from a book. For example, the Liz/Darcy showdown in Pride and Prejudice brings a lushness and immediacy to the scene that I think adds to what was already in the book.

I do think that processing visuals and sound but without the rigor of having to decode and process text can make film more immersive in the sense that you are operating more "on the level" with the film. There are just more processes that have to happen when you're reading that can make "sinking in" a bit more of an ask.

I have a friend who almost never watches TV or movies, but she reads several books a week. She once told me that she just can't "process" movies very easily and feels like she has to have her brain "turned up" the whole time. Then she said, "I think this is how most people feel about reading."

Again, I think that it's down to a person's particular wiring. (But also again: I do agree that some "the book was better" is just obnoxious intellectual posturing). If someone can say why they thought a book was better, who are we to say they are wrong? I think that, for example, eliminating a powerful subplot (in the interest of a shorter runtime) is a legit complaint.

I suppose "immersed" and "moved" are probably not actually helpful distinctions for me to make, then, since within those there are still distinct versions in each art form.

I'll modify: I think film has more potential, ceteris paribus, to have a strong immediate and visceral impact in the moment. There's no such thing as a jump scare in a book, there's no soundtrack aiding you towards an emotional resolution, and there is no elegant and impactful merging of image and theme in the same way. A book is something you wade into at your own pace and your own comfort level, and a film is a river that carries you along, a fact which limits its impact in some ways and enhances it in others. Which I guess you just go on to say anyway:

But yeah, agree completely it's a personal thing, I'm sure some people are more carried away the medium than others and personal differences have the potential to override these things, so the only thing I'd say with confidence is that they have relative strengths in the aggregate, apart from the handful of things that are functionally impossible in either medium (certain obfuscations of plot in mysteries, for example).

Yeah, that's a good point, there can be an addition through subtraction thing. That's generally a non-starter for someone who LOVES a bug because if you love a book you probably shudder at the idea of having less of it, even though any sensible adaptation has to cut away and plenty of them are better for it. I'm looking at you, Stephen King.

The last person on earth sat alone in her creaking old cottage. There was a knock at the door.

Read it, but didn't flinch.

Yoda was sitting alone sorting his mail. A large envelope from the Internal Revenue Service was on top.

Boo!

Did that make you jump?

I suppose I agree. Though the sensations I feel when reading are often strong, immediate, and visceral. I was more upset, grossed out, fearful, and entrenched in dread reading The Troop than while watching almost any film I can think of. The "movies" I play in my head while reading are very intricate, and sometimes novels conjure up images or sequences that stick with me far longer than ones from actual films.

Absolutely. I think that there are some stories that clearly function better as films and those that clearly function better as novels, and some that manage to be great in both mediums. (Like I said, I often prefer the book, but I still think that there are many great films based on books, both those that are faithful and those that make radical departures from the source).