Books & movies thread

[dalsh327]

I just finished reading Patton Oswalt's book about how he spent a couple of years binge watching movies that was a good read.

I figured there should be a thread on books about movies and open it up to novels turned into movies, books spun off from a movie or TV series, books like Ebert's "The Great Movies" or "1001 Movies To Watch Before You Die". Did anyone who watched "Godfather" read the book? Was there a book better than the movie, or vice versa? Just giving some examples. Graphic novels & comic books can also be included.

[magisme]

I thought the recent Gatsby remake with Leo was well done. I've watched it a dozen times or so.

[axlfan88]

Bad (or, at least, not especially good) novels make better films than great books do. Theres sense in this: A filmmaker may feel more obliged to subordinate his vision to an authors if the book is a patent work of genius, and creative people become less agile when they approach a project on bended knee.

Furthermore, what makes a novel great (the elaborate architecture of the characters inner lives in The Portrait of a Lady, say) is often whats hardest to capture in a dramatic, visual medium, precisely because those are the things that novels do best.

The most commonly cited examples of good films made from not-good books are The Godfather, Jaws and The Bridges of Madison County.

I loved how Kubrick adapted "Shining" (Stephen King didn't like it, which is understandable as the movie is better than the book). I hate what David Lean did to Doctor Zhivago.

Edited April 20, 2015 by axlfan88

[Nosaj Thing]

I thought the recent Gatsby remake with Leo was well done. I've watched it a dozen times or so.

It is a pleasure to watch that movie in 3D.

[dalsh327]

Catcher in the Rye would only work as a graphic novel because most of the book is Holden's thoughts, and maybe have that turned into an animated film.

Naked Lunch was an interesting adaptation, it kept the surreal tone of the book but made it loosely based on Burroughs,

[appetite4illusions]

L.A. Confidential is the best example of a film surpassing its literary source.

[wasted]

Music of Chance was good adaptation of Paul Auster's book.

[DieselDaisy]

I have never seen Dickens done correctly on the big screen. The closest to Dickens were the big BBC TV series of Bleak House. You miss out so much of Dickens' incidental quality when you adapt him for two hours.

[wasted]

The Hobbit was aight tho.

[Val22]

Most of the books I've read that were made into movies sucked.

I did think Stephen King's The dark half was as good as the book, but most of the books I've read by James Patterson and Dean Koontz just become horrible movies.

Most times the books are way better especially if you want to keep a killer in a mystery book a secret until the end.

[Nulla Lex Ink.]

A lot of Stephen King's stories work well as movies, but some fall flat. The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile are definite favorites, and Stand By Me has always been a fun watch. I think the key with adapting a King work is to know where to add and what to cut out. I thought that The Shining miniseries was awful because it seemed like it tried to get every little thing, even the stuff that only worked in a book medium, which is why I liked Kubrick's version better. Although it was an entirely different take, it worked well for the screen.

[DieselDaisy]

It also did not help that a lot of the earlier King adaptations were '80s made-for-tv films. I remember Romero doing one called The Dark Half.

[luciusfunk]

Kubrick's The Shining isn't The Shining though.

[Graeme]

The only film I've ever found to outdo the book on which it was based is Jaws. The book's quite trashy in a lot of respects, there're some completely unnecessary subplots around Martin Brody's wife having an affair with Matt Hooper, including some fairly cringey lines about sexual fantasies. The characters are all fundamentally unlikeable to such an extent that you kinda want the shark to eat everyone. The brilliant thing with the film was that you had three really different characters, Brody, Quint and Hooper who had to try and overcome their differences in order to confront something much stronger than each of them. In the book, you never have the USS Indianapolis scene where the three of them bond, they just continue sniping at each other, in the book Hooper's smart-alec qualities are insufferable, in the film they're quite endearing; in the book ("Hahaha, you're all gonna die" or "I don't have to take this abuse much longer"), Quint's essentially just a prick, in the film he's got some depth to him; in the book, Brody's a paranoid, snarky asshole, in the film he's genuinely heroic and you're really rooting for him the whole way through, but especially at the end. The film's a masterpiece, one of the best ever. The book is passable.

[wasted]

Fight Club movie might be as good as the book. I think Pitt, Bonham and Nolan bring it to life pretty well.

Bond movies too. Especially Moore era are more exciting than the books.

Godfather probably better than the book although its a fun read, even The Last Don. Coppola should make The Family.

Bladerunner probably better than Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?

Edited April 28, 2015 by wasted

[DieselDaisy]

Bond movies too. Especially Moore era are more exciting than the books.

The Moore films are vastly weaker than the books which carry the same name. Moonraker is actually a gritty thriller set in London.

[wasted]

I just don't think the plot is what is good about Bond. It's like his character and lifestyle and its better to see the girls, locations and cars.

[DieselDaisy]

I just don't think the plot is what is good about Bond. It's like his character and lifestyle and its better to see the girls, locations and cars.

Well not for the books which possess very good plotting - Moonraker is a good example of this. I wouldn't say so for the, better, films either as From Russia With Love, OHMSS, Casino Royale and Skyfall all have great plotlines.

[wasted]

But no one watches them for the plot lines? Maybe they do. I don't. It's one liners and action. Bond domination foreign women on holiday. A working mans fantasy.

My idea of Bond is more visual I guess. Reading about cars, girls and exotic locations isn't as good as seeing.

Edited April 28, 2015 by wasted

[DieselDaisy]

But no one watches them for the plot lines? Maybe they do. I don't. It's one liners and action. Bond domination foreign women on holiday. A working mans fantasy.

My idea of Bond is more visual I guess. Reading about cars, girls and exotic locations isn't as good as seeing.

When fans pinpoint the 'best Bond films' it is no coincidence that those are the same Bonds with the more intricate and well developed story lines. Also, you are leaving out the issue of the novels. You do not see the women in the books. You do not see the cars. A good plotline is essential.

[wasted]

Yeah, I don't know maybe the books are better. Like they are great spy thrillers but the movies aren't great spy thriller movies?

[Nulla Lex Ink.]

I think that the works of SE Hinton (The Outsiders, Rumble Fish, Tex) are about equal to their movie adaptions. Haven't seen "That Was Then, This Is Now" yet despite having it on my movie shelf for two and a half years now, so I can't speak for it, but the other three were really good. Quite a few alterations in Rumble Fish and Tex, but not enough to make them an entirely new thing, or at least I don't think so.

Lonesome Dove was a good adaption too, but again, they had to cut out entire parts. But some parts needed to be cut out, like the part where some random chick sleeps with Roscoe when he stops to stay with her, and that one cattle hand getting killed by a random strike of lightning. Then again, I feel like they lost a good story by not adapting in that one cowboy both sides kept running into that eventually got killed. All in all though, I think I'd rank the movie a little bit higher than the book in that case, because less random filler-stuff happened.

[J Dog]

The Green Mile

Stand By Me

Silence of the Lambs

The Crow (not really a book but whatever)

Lonesome Dove was a good adaption too, but again, they had to cut out entire parts. But some parts needed to be cut out, like the part where some random chick sleeps with Roscoe when he stops to stay with her, and that one cattle hand getting killed by a random strike of lightning. Then again, I feel like they lost a good story by not adapting in that one cowboy both sides kept running into that eventually got killed. All in all though, I think I'd rank the movie a little bit higher than the book in that case, because less random filler-stuff happened.

Agreed. Plus Duvall and Tommy Lee were just absolutely perfect.

[James Bond]

Yeah, I don't know maybe the books are better. Like they are great spy thrillers but the movies aren't great spy thriller movies?

The books are great spy thrillers but are fairly dated as well. In many instances the films actually improved upon the novels. Some were more faithful (OHMSS) while some just took a key sequence or character name and ran with it.

Other times there are plot holes that have been corrected. In the Goldfinger novel, Goldfinger actually steals the gold from Fort Knox. In the film it was changed to Goldfinger radiating the gold supply to render it useless and drive up the price of his pure gold. A minor change, but it definitely tightens the plot to lend a sense of believability,

[Georgy Zhukov]

Harry Potter.