Why Are The Films Never As Good As The Books?

All books, even the ones I don't like, seem to surpass the film version, what is it that makes directors so in able when planning a novel based film? Wuthering Heights wasn't particularly good as a film compared to the novel, Of mice and men, though not a great book, was still better than the film attempt. I always thought, with the exception of matilda, that Roald Dahl's books were better than the films too.

And Now, the lovely bones, after reading the book, which I thought was fairly good (much better than the other ones I had to read for English :laugh4: ) the film that has been brought out on it has had awful reviews. Many of the scenes, such as a rape (not that I would have wanted it to be graphic :tongue: ) and Abigail's affair (mother of her dead daughter that was killed after being raped...) were cut out. Just so it could make a 12 A viewing.

So aside the obvious question, do film makers really think making a film child friendly will get it more viewers when it means compromising there reviews? Just thought I'd say this because I find it very annoying that a film I was going to watch is now likely awful just to appeal to a young audience. :furious3:

P.S: I spelt films wrong in the title, so don't point it out grammar geeks.... :wink:

Well, one reason is because the books which are selected to be turned into films are usually already famous for their quality. A film is a film, but only good books become films, generally speaking. The there is the other side, where a good idea from a possibly crappy book or a mere short story si developed in the film.

The other reason is because books are inherently more complex, more expressive. Picture can represent a thousand words, but it is not worth a sentence, often times. The style of writing is a great part of the quality of the book. The best a film can hope for is a good plot, sufficient action, interesting message. Few films break reach those three things, let alone break out of them, and go further, as many good books do.

Anyhow, I can continue for much more time, but I have to run now!

It is simply not true. Some of the movies are infact, better than the books and in other areas, the books take a while to read, thus you tend to forget the bad moments and due to the process of reading, you create a mental image of a person, how they sound like, etc.

An example of this was when a web-comic did an animated series. I imagined the characters to sound British, with various tangs-tings of accent. When they did an animated series and put voices to the characters, one of them ended up sounding like a "whiney-pitched american accent" and it really killed the mental image I had for that character, who I otherwise associated more with a lower-pitch styled accent. Actually, if I am honest, I associated the characters with people I actually knew who sort of looked and acted like those characters.

But anyway, it is a conflict between the mental and the physical attributed between the characters in the format they are delivered.


Also - Harry Potter movies are vastly superior to the book. No matter what anyone says.

Also - Lord of the Rings book had more content, but the whole extended DVD version of LOTR is excellent as well. Especially with the calibre of the actors involved. You have one of the finest and best British actors (Sir Ian McKellen) playing Gandalf. That is justice to the series.

I agree there are some exceptions Beskar, I haven't read a great deal of books, but mostly all I have are better than the film equivalent. LOTR's trilogy was good though, Never read any books though I imagine it does them justice.

Whilst I get what your saying Aemilius, I think a film could grasp the moment of books, if they tried, a sentence in a book after all can be made into a sentence in a film, whether that's actually said or metaphorically speaking. I was mostly focusing on novel based books too, not deeming all films atrocious.

A lot of the time I find myself thinking...'is that it? I expected another hour at least' Just because a film has flew by it doesn't mean I enjoyed it, for me it means they didn't put enough content in. :smiley:

Especially where the book is only a short story the film can be better.

Some films better than the book coming to my mind are in no particular order
The Shining
The Godfather
The Thing--------- Book was called Who Goes There
Stand by Me-------Book was called The Body
Psycho
The Bourne Identity
Shawshank Redemption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Especially where the book is only a short story the film can be better.

Some films better than the book coming to my mind are in no particular order
The Shining
The Godfather
The Thing--------- Book was called Who Goes There
Stand by Me-------Book was called The Body
Psycho
The Bourne Identity
Shawshank Redemption

---

Definitely gotta agree with The Godfather and The Thing; "Who Goes There?" was a fairly mundane, poorly-written story that had an intriguing premise, and not much more, whereas the movie (despite, or maybe partly because of, its occasional excess of alien gore) was fantastic. The Godfather was also a surprisingly bad book; maybe I didn't read between the lines or something, but overall the characters in the book were terribly dull and flat, and came to life far more in the movie.

I would also like to add A Clockwork Orange; it made a fairly good book, but overall I liked the movie much better. Kubrick really did a good job of adapting the book, especially by changing and/or removing the somewhat silly government people, and replacing them with much more sinister, Orwellian characters. The overall effect is hard to describe in just a couple of sentences, especially since I haven't seen the movie or read the book in quite some time, but basically the movie version goes much further than the book in exploring the themes of social acceptance of violence both physical and mental. Probably the best change -- which, granted, was accidental, but still worked out for the best -- was the removal of the awkward final chapter of the book.

The Passion of the Christ :tongue:

Hides behind chair awaits the brickbats from religous orgahs

Jaws was a terrible book

There are a ton of great movies mad from books, but a lot of times you haven't heard of the book. And a lot of times they are just a different format. Usually the people who love the book but hate the movie prefer books to movies or can't stand their favorite being changed at all.

Quote:

---

Also - Lord of the Rings book had more content, but the whole extended DVD version of LOTR is excellent as well. Especially with the calibre of the actors involved. You have one of the finest and best British actors (Sir Ian McKellen) playing Gandalf. That is justice to the series.

---

See with those the books were amazing and i prefer them but i also like the movies. all around it was just done well.

I think it is because often people who actually read the book like it better. If you read a book then go see a movie your going to be pissed when they distort your images of the characters and leave out certain details.

For example i saw the eragon movie with my little cousin and yes i read the books *shame* and i was liid they made him a blond i thought the book was pretty clear.

People who actually read feel this way. The vast majority of plebians who actually go to the movies and never open a book are still oohing and aahing.

by the way probably a perfect forum for this idea relatively well read people here all around.

A big part of it is that films try to do more, when you read a book there is a lot you can interpret, your imagination fills in the pieces making the story in the book more pleasing to yourself, hence you tend to like it more.

With films this has already been done for you and unless it done extremely well, it means you usually feel less involved. It also means there is a lot more that can go wrong, you may not like a particular actor or how they portray a character, the visual elements might not be to your taste and so on, you don't get this with a book because you imagine these parts and so they are already suited to your tastes.

The point AP made was also good, as given that generally it's popular books that are made into films, most people already have their own preconceived notions and so are usually dissapointed, the people who read the book after seeing the film usually like them more because the book expands on the films plot and so is giving them a more complex and complete version of a story they already like.

Books are generally longer. Films have to cram and abridge, which inevitably loses some of the flavour of the original.

Right. It reminds me of when people complain that a movie had "a lot of impressive visuals and action sequences, but the plot and character development was lacking". Perhaps they also complain about the lack of visuals in the songs they listen too and about how their books don't make any noise, I don't know.

Movies bring things to life and can show them to you in a unique way. Books let you do it on your own, you can take your time and imagine what you like. They can spend a lot more time on a character and have more internal monologue.

I usually like both the book and the movie; I'm convinced that people who hate on the movies just don't like movies that much or can't let go of their preconceptions enough to enjoy them. People will shut themselves off from a lot of enjoyment with their arbitrary standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacques Barzun (from dawn to decadence)

The poets had to observe excruciating rules. The three unities were rarely violated, never the code governing rime and meter. These prohibitions suggestive of bureaucracy at work had the force of etiquette. The public knew the rules and enforced them without mercy. The vocabulary too was more and more limited as pedants kept extending the veto of the Precieuses against calling a chair a chair or saying "It is midnight."

---

How silly people were back then, hmm?

Most people are disappointed by the movie because they go in expecting the book to be the script for the movie, but things just don't work like that. The movie adaptation is just that, an adaptation. They take the general story and adjust things to better fit on the big screen. I generally like the book better since there is usually more detail, and things like the characters thoughts can be included, something that can only be done in a movie with those, usually horrible, thought voice overs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The Bourne Identity

---

I liked the book more than the movie, although the movie was also very very good. Something I thought was weird about the movie trilogy, is that I watched it before I read the books, and I had just assumed that it had generally followed the book trilogy, but then I read the books and found out that the entire movie trilogy is basically just the first book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Jaws was a terrible book

---

Indeed. I read it, and found an utterly perplexing romance story jammed between segments about a shark eating people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Indeed. I read it, and found an utterly perplexing romance story jammed between segments about a shark eating people.

---

Well, yeah, that is surprising for a book. But Hollywood manages to stuff a romance story into every friggin' thing they show - I swear, I do not remember the last relatively modern Hollywood production with some sort of sexual/romantic overtones. I mean, Jesus, sometimes their efforts seem like something out of The Island of Dr. Moreau, where animals are spliced together - literally, dissected and sown together, except that different parts of different animals are joined into a single live 'abortion' of a creature. That is how Hollywood rolls with their romance stories. Did Passion of the Christ have romance by any chance? If it did, the end of the world is indeed somewhere around 2012...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is simply not true.

---

That is though. Shame you ruined that by saying the HP movies are better then the book. No, where is the humor.

Fight Club is another example of somewhat boring book which turned out to make an awesome movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Well, yeah, that is surprising for a book. But Hollywood manages to stuff a romance story into every friggin' thing they show - I swear, I do not remember the last relatively modern Hollywood production with some sort of sexual/romantic overtones.

---

If there was no love interest, do you think less people would see it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Fight Club is another example of somewhat boring book which turned out to make an awesome movie.

---

I still have yet to see Fight Club, even though I really want to.

It happens to a lot of films because they try to make the film appeal to as large an audience as possible, which doesn't always mean those who liked the book.

Quote:

---

I still have yet to see Fight Club, even though I really want to.

---

egads man wht do you do in Europe.

No Country For Old Men?

Ok book, good film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Books are generally longer. Films have to cram and abridge, which inevitably loses some of the flavour of the original.

---

Dexter might change that.

Honestly, a 300+ page book is a season for a tv-series. Not a 2-hour movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

egads man wht do you do in Europe.

---

I just haven't found the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

No Country For Old Men?

Ok book, good film.

---

:yes:

The Road by cormac Mccarthy as someone mentioned was a great book. The movie was meh.

The count of monte christo has got to be the best example of a crap movie based on an outstanding book.

They changed to entire premise of the book, which was revenge, into some romantic hollywood-crap where it's about a boy finally getting his girl.

Well, HoreTore, a great majority of the renowned books are simply too good for any film to surpass or come close to matching them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The count of monte christo has got to be the best example of a crap movie based on an outstanding book.

They changed to entire premise of the book, which was revenge, into some romantic hollywood-crap where it's about a boy finally getting his girl.

---

The fact that the book was changed or even altered completely says nothing about the quality of the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The fact that the book was changed or even altered completely says nothing about the quality of the movie.

---

The entire point of the story was revenge.... That's what made it interesting and special. Swap it for a generic cliché and what you get is an uninteresting movie.

double post.