Book v Movie + plug

[dr_mabeuse]

Having endured other's excitements over their favorite books being put to film, I am not going to enthuse about the November 14th premier of "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", Russell Crowe's movie of my main man (the late) Patrick O'Brian's series of Aubry/Maturin Royal Navy novels, since I already know (deep breath here) that they can't possibly live up the excellence of his elegant and erudite prose.

That being said (and at some length), have you ever run into a situation in which the movie adaptation of a book is better than the original? ("Wild Women of Wongo" notwithstanding, of course.)

---dr.M.

 

[raphy]

Never better. Princess Bride comes the closest that I can think of, offhand. That movie was as good as the book, but not better, and for different reasons.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Doc, the one that comes to mind immediately for me is The Godfather ... I always thought Puzo's prose was a little cumbersome and I had trouble getting through the book, it kind of plodded along. The movie ... well, it's a classic. One of the ten best films ever made, in many people's opinion.

Interesting question. I'll have to think about this one.

--Zack

 

[TheWriter]

Fight Club was much better as a movie.

 

[raphy]

By the way, Dr M. - Gotta say, I like the quote you have in your sig. Kubla Khan has long been one of my favourite poems. I actually did a computer-generated pictorial of it once, with rendered versions of the dome, and the river and vast underwater caverns, etc etc

 

[Guest]

I agree with Seattle. The Godfather was good pulp fiction, but The Godfather is art.

Perdita

 

[Quasimodem]

"Peyton Place" but that's only because you can't sleep while reading a book.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Good fellows, it was far superior to Wiseguy, but then who can write Ray Liotta & joe Peshi playing gangster off each other?

-Colly

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I agree with Zack and Perdita that "The Godfather" was better as a movie than a book.

In an odd way, "Gone With the Wind" was a superb adaptation of the very lengthy best-seller by Margaret Mtichell. Granted, Scarlett lost two kids and a husband in the translation, but the spirit of the book remained intact.

Among more recent book-to-film conversions, IMHO, the movie "Wonder Boys" with Michael Douglas, was the equal of the excellent book by Michael Chabon.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Jenny _S]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this one... but...

PK Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was one of his most interesting books. The film, "Blade Runner", was a great movie but the movie and the book were not really all that similar.

 

[Jenny _S]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this one... too...
I double posted

 

[Colleen Thomas]

oopsy, double post

-Colly

 

[Quasimodem]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this one... but...PK Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was one of his most interesting books. The film, "Blade Runner", was a great movie but the movie and the book were not really all that similar.

No flames from me. I agree.

I know the story about how the producer's payed $10,000. for the title "Blade Runner" because they didn't think Philip's title was worth Dick!

Has anybody ever been able to figure out what the heck Blade Runner is actually supposed to mean?

Yes! I know that Decker was a Blade Runner, but why? Why not a Replicant Terminator?

It has always seemed to me that the producers payed $5,000 a word for a title that sounded cool, but didn't make one iota of sense.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Quasi, who would go to see a sci-fi movie with "sheep" in the title (other than MG, of course)?

For Stephen King movies, I always liked Stand By Me the best, it was based on his novella "The Body" and really captured the spirit of the story.

 

[karmadog]

Doc, back to what began your post: I can't decide whether to see the movie or not!

I think I'll see it just because they are supposed to have made the best naval battle scenes of all time, and forget that they are based on some of the greatest novels I've ever read.

There is no way that they will be able to reproduce the subtlety of the interaction of the characters, the nuances of the dialogue.

Jus' cain't happen.

Oddly, I was just mentioning this to a friend.

 

[Icingsugar]

For Stephen King movies, I always liked Stand By Me the best, it was based on his novella "The Body" and really captured the spirit of the story.

And exceeded it, IMO.

I also don't really like Elmore Leonard's writing, but they make quite snappy movies sometimes.

/Ice

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Doc, back to what began your post: I can't decide whether to see the movie or not!

I think I'll see it just because they are supposed to have made the best naval battle scenes of all time, and forget that they are based on some of the greatest novels I've ever read.

There is no way that they will be able to reproduce the subtlety of the interaction of the characters, the nuances of the dialogue.

Jus' cain't happen.

Oddly, I was just mentioning this to a friend.

I agree with all the answers above, except for "Gone With The Wind" because I've never read the book, so I can't judge. Knowing the movie though, I suspect you're right.

I doubt very much that in this case the movie will live up to the books, just because O'Brian's style and vocabulary are so great, and that's exactly what a movie can't deal with. Russell Crowe is a bit too good looking to be Jack Aubry, I think, but I'm going to see it anyhow, just to see the ships and the food if nothing else. I was so enraptured of the books that I was pestering a butcher to get some suet so I could try and make a drowned baby, a pudding they used to eat. But you can't get suet anymore, at least not over here.

---dr.M.

 

[oggbashan]

Blast from the Past

E M Hull's "The Sheik" was fairly dull.

Valentino as The Sheik wasn't.

Og

 

[Guest]

 

[Sabledrake]

I've found that I like most of Michael Crichton's stuff better on the screen than on the page. Jurassic Park was a good book, but a better movie ... and The Lost World was a lukewarm book and a better movie. And Timeline, which I didn't really like all that much when I read it, looks by the previews anyway to be a pretty decent flick.

Sabledrake

 

[Guest]

Here's a site made for this discussion; certainly jogged my memory:

Based on the Book

 

[sanchopanza]

Henry James novels were transposed to film quite well - never could be bothered to watch them mind you.

I just looked at Perdita's link. I only looked at a few of the pages but I can see one of two - American Pyscho, the novel was far less funny but far more disgusting than the film - but well done I thought. Anything too high brow and I'll never shame my eyes by making them see it.

 

[Seattle Zack]

I'm a big fan of Elmore Leonard, but he has nothing good at all to say about the Hollywood process of turning books into movies ... or about Hollywood at all.

Ironically, his satire on the Hollywood movie-making machine, "Get Shorty," turned out to be his most successful movie adaptation of all. Go figure. It didn't hurt, of course, that he had some clout by that time and was able to participate in the creative process.

 

[Guest]

Henry James novels were transposed to film quite well - never could be bothered to watch them mind you.

I disagree, Sanch though I don't know why you state this if you haven't seen the films.

I have yet to see a James novel or story adapted well. The filmakers seem to latch onto bits of plot, character, settings and costuming, choose big stars for the leads, and think they've got something to say. It's obvious they don't know how to read that well. James' texts are still richer than the millions of dollars spent on the film sets and wardrobe, not to mention faces of actors who can't make you believe they lived a few decades ago.

On the other hand, Scorcese is obviously a fine reader and did such a fine job on The Age of Innocence I can't decide which I'd rather do--read or watch, so I do both.

Perdita

 

[sanchopanza]

I meant that I couldn't be bothered to watch films at all so I have seen only bits of Henry James adaptations, and from what I've seen they seem to be better than many other adaptations I've seen - though nowhere near as good as the books.

I've not read the novel 'Sexy Beast' but I've seen the film adaptation of it and I'm going to presume that the film is better than the book - the highlight of the film is Ben Kingsley and without that performance I don't think I could bear to read the book.

Another book-film idea: Brideshead Revisited. I think I saw the TV adaptation first then read the novel, but the television drama followed the book impecably and I thought it was delightful. Its quite rare for me to speak to somebody my age who has either read the book or seen the film but I spoke to a friend lately who revealed he had tried reading the book but couldn't stand it, uncultured swine.