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.

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.

---

Have you read Monte-Cristo? It was a favourite childhood book of mine (BTW, the Russian version is in two volumes, ~800-900 pages of a regular-sized hardback book - and so far the three English versions I saw are not even a third of that, missing most of the stuff - an yet both claim to be unabridged - how so?? :dizzy2:) HoreTore is completely right, the original book is as pure as a story of revenge can get short of a slasher film.

The Count did not accept Mercedes, his lost love, in the end, even as Ferdinand was dead. He went away with his Greek slavegirl, Gaide, whose amorous advances he never returned in the whole book. There is no romance. The author makes it clear the revenge was all he wanted, and it did not even satisfy him that much in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Have you read Monte-Cristo? It was a favourite childhood book of mine (BTW, the Russian version is in two volumes, ~800-900 pages of a regular-sized hardback book - and so far the three English versions I saw are not even a third of that, missing most of the stuff - an yet both claim to be unabridged - how so?? :dizzy2:) HoreTore is completely right, the original book is as pure as a story of revenge can get short of a slasher film.

The Count did not accept Mercedes, his lost love, in the end, even as Ferdinand was dead. He went away with his Greek slavegirl, whose amorous advances he never returned in the whole book. There is no romance. The author makes it clear the revenge was all he wanted, and it did not even satisfy him that much in the end.

---

Yeah, I read the book and saw the movie.

But the fact that the movie changed things is not a flaw. It does not make the movie bad. There's nothing wrong with taking the name and basic plot elements and creating a new story with them. It was a lot like the Zorro movie I thought.

I read the abridged version, that's how it's almost always sold. I think the unabridged goes into his adventures in the east at great length, or something like that. He ends up with some foreign chick as his companion kind of randomly in the abridged version I remember.

[QUOTE=Sasaki Kojiro;2439332]Yeah, I read the book and saw the movie.

But the fact that the movie changed things is not a flaw. It does not make the movie bad. There's nothing wrong with taking the name and basic plot elements and creating a new story with them. It was a lot like the Zorro movie I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I read the abridged version, that's how it's almost always sold.

---

Oh, I weep for you. As I said, the unabridged one is what became one of my favourite books of all time. The abridged one? Well, it was nothing much. But you are right, it does seem to be difficult to get hold of the real thing. What really bugged me was the claim that those ridiculously shortened version were 'unabridged', as their label said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think the unabridged goes into his adventures in the east at great length, or something like that.

---

Well, that is what one would first expect from reading the abridged version, but I read the abridged version after the full story. The original version actually has absolutely no mention of the eastern adventures, save for the few times the Count recounts (hehe) some of his experiences there in conversations. Dumas did not write it as a mere adventure book - he simply stuck the east as a backdrop. The abridged version cuts all of the crucial details of the revenge. Really, unlike most books of its time, Count of Monte-Cristo was not abridgeable by modern standards. The book was all action, basically, for its time. It still is. It was not an awfully serious book, and Dumas was not a serious writer. He was a giant, as J.K. Rowling would be today. Some during his time managed to be both brilliant and popular. Some did not.

Dumas was brilliant, but not in the thought-evoking or revolutionary manner. It was not the style or the message of his work, but the content. He simply wrote adventure novels. That is what made is such a good children's book, especially in Russia, where it is still popular, and where I have not seen any abridged editions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

He ends up with some foreign chick as his companion kind of randomly in the abridged version I remember.

---

Gaide? The daughter of the Greek chieftain? Really? Yeah, there is a very long story behind her, and her confession was instrumental in bridging down Fernand (or was it Ferdinando?), Count de Morcerf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But the fact that the movie changed things is not a flaw. It does not make the movie bad. There's nothing wrong with taking the name and basic plot elements and creating a new story with them.

---

I haven't read the book, but it sounds like AP and HoreTore are saying that revenge is a basic plot element.

I mostly agree that the books are better than the movie adaptations, but it's not always the case. The Last of the Mohicans was a pretty dreadful book, I thought the movie was way better. But if you go to a movie thinking it's going to be like the book, you will generally be pretty disappointed. The written word has many advantages over current cinematography, movies are limited by length, point of view, and imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I mostly agree that the books are better than the movie adaptations, but it's not always the case. The Last of the Mohicans was a pretty dreadful book, I thought the movie was way better.

---

You make a fatal mistake of insulting my second favourite childhood author - Fenimore Cooper. How could you slander the first real author of your country :stare:

But yes, that film was relatively good, although never the same or as good as the book itself. Natty Bumpo series are beyond simple flicks.

Following-up on drone's excellent point, I can think of a number of flawed or bad books that made much better movies. Silence of the Lambs, anyone? Take away the genius of Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster and Ted Lavine, and it's not nearly so special. And the movie of Fight Club features many improvements on the book, even if it misses one or two important bits. I'm sure there are many others.

The problem comes when we fall in love with a book, a really good book, and then see it adapted. There's no way the film can measure up to the theater of our mind.

But generally speaking, I do not see any, or at least many examples of books that were famous before the film, which the film actually improved. Silence of the Lambs was not that wel-known before the film. Nor was it a classic or an oldie - generally the only old books we remember are the good ones which became renowned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Silence of the Lambs was not that wel-known before the film.

---

As Jar-Jar Binks would say, exqweeze me? Silence of the Lambs was a massive, Stephen King-style bestseller, and what's more, the adaptation of the previous book, Red Dragon, was a splashy failure. Admittedly, SotL was not a classic or an oldie, but considering it a minor work of no notice is misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

As Jar-Jar Binks would say, exqweeze me? Silence of the Lambs was a massive, Stephen King-style bestseller, and what's more, the adaptation of the previous book, Red Dragon, was a splashy failure. Admittedly, SotL was not a classic or an oldie, but considering it a minor work of no notice is misleading.

---

Hmm, my mistake, what I meant to say was that it was not a particularly good book, but apparently it was popular. Funny how I did not hear of it much, despite considering myself an amateur literature geek. Wait a sec, was it a popular book? Shoot, of course it is. Stephen King is popular fodder, just as Harry Potter, Twilight, and Monte-Cristo (was).

Of course he is no classic or oldie, since the book was comparatively recent - but why do you re-affirm this?

If they use decent actors instead of going for good looks. I think the films wouldn't be too bad.

Silence of the Lambs is a great movie, mainly due to the high quality acting. IIRC, it was the third book by Thomas Harris adapted to a movie (Black Sunday and Red Dragon/Manhunter being the first two). The book itself is pretty good, but Hopkins made the Lecter character his own. Oddly enough, the movie follows the book almost to the letter, a rarity in film adaptions. Black Sunday and Red Dragon were decent books, but the movies suffered some from poor casting (Bruce Dern?) and mismatched directing (Michael Mann in full Miami Vice mode for Manhunter).

There are, I believe, some books that are so well written that making a movie that does them justice is just not possible...reason being, books don't have real people playing out their parts or actual visual scenes and stuff. The author writes and the reader imagines.....I'm not saying writing books is easier than making movies, but IMO writing bestsellers is easier than making awesome movies.
Then again some books are easier to make into a movie......I mean, I recently saw 'Up in the Air'....liked it a lot. And like it's been mentioned, The Godfather, that's one movie that is actually better than the book. Good book, but awesome movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

And like it's been mentioned, The Godfather, that's one movie that is actually better than the book. Good book, but awesome movie.

---

I think if you read the book after watching the movie, the one major plotline that's not in the movie is kinda WTF???!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

(BTW, the Russian version is in two volumes, ~800-900 pages of a regular-sized hardback book - and so far the three English versions I saw are not even a third of that, missing most of the stuff - an yet both claim to be unabridged - how so?? :dizzy2:)

---

Just checked my Monte Cristo, 1250 pages. I haven't actually read that much though, started 3 times and keep getting distracted by some history book. I haven't even got past the bit were he gets arrested near the beginning.:embarassed:

Has anybody seen "The Road"? I can't imagine Hollywood doing that justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Has anybody seen "The Road"? I can't imagine Hollywood doing that justice.

---

Actually, I thought they did pretty good with that one. Likewise McCarthy's No Country for Old Men (different team, but an equally good adaptation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

I think if you read the book after watching the movie, the one major plotline that's not in the movie is kinda WTF???!!

---

I get that all right, but the point is that though the plotline is missing, does that make the movie any worse? I mean all right maybe had they included the whole story and been absolutely faithful to the book, it might have been better, but then again, that might have made the movie longer....
Like I said, it's harder to make good movies you know.....And I can't think of anyone who'd say that the Godfather wasn't a good movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, I thought they did pretty good with [the Road].

---

Eh, I didn't think the book was that good in the first place. Fallout 3 blunted the impact of post-apocalyptica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

I get that all right, but the point is that though the plotline is missing, does that make the movie any worse?

---

What gets my blood going is when the delete stuff from the book but insert made-up stuff which most times is cheesy cliche that is pure Hollywood . As good as the Lord of the Rings movies are, there are scenes that make me cringe - from X-games dude Legolas to Aragorn's cliff plunge to an over-long Moria stair balancing act. Aside from the fore-mentioned romance requirement above, character growth is another movie "must-have". Again, taking from LotR, comparing the book Aragorn to the movie version is one of a confident, ready-to-be-king man versus a hand-wringing wimp (I exaggerate) who grows into the kingship role.

Overall, I think Hollywood severely mis-judges what elements of a book can be translated to film. I'm going to stick with LotR here as I'm most familiar with it, but LotR was considered unfilmable for decades not just because of the fantasy elements (special effects) but because the story was deemed too complex with too many characters. My complaints aside, Jackson did an admirable job with LotR. It requires work which is probably why so many directors/writers over the years have ignored trying to deal with complex stories. Yet in the last several years that seems to finally be changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Just checked my Monte Cristo, 1250 pages. I haven't actually read that much though, started 3 times and keep getting distracted by some history book. I haven't even got past the bit were he gets arrested near the beginning.:embarassed:

---

Ha, but your book is still abridged. As I said there are two volumes, each 800-900 pages. So there is a total of about ~1700 pages. Does the book acknowledge it is abridged, or does it lie just as the miserable ~400 page versions I have seen so often?

Some books have bigger pages and smaller print. I think my copy of "the complete sherlock holmes" is only 900 pages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thermal Mercury

Of mice and men, though not a great book,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

Take it back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

I get that all right, but the point is that though the plotline is missing, does that make the movie any worse? I mean all right maybe had they included the whole story and been absolutely faithful to the book, it might have been better, but then again, that might have made the movie longer....
Like I said, it's harder to make good movies you know.....And I can't think of anyone who'd say that the Godfather wasn't a good movie.

---

Sorry, didn't word that well. I meant you would be going WTF with the whole doctor/Lucy Mancini plotline in the book if you watched the movie first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Ha, but your book is still abridged. As I said there are two volumes, each 800-900 pages. So there is a total of about ~1700 pages. Does the book acknowledge it is abridged, or does it lie just as the miserable ~400 page versions I have seen so often?

---

The forward has six pages describing the previous English translations and how much was cut out for childrens editions and the Victorian readership. It never actually states it's a complete and totally unabridged version though, only hinted at "It was high time to go back to Dumas, entire and unexpurgated."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

---

Yes, I think it's often because the film does not match your imagination that you came up with when you read the book.
And then the director may have just had a different imagination than you and created the movie after that, taking into account monetary problems etc. as well.

Quote:

---

Why Are The Flims Never As Good As The Books?

---

I dunno. I thought Der Untergang was way better than Mein Kampf.


(I guess that is in English: I prefered Downfall to My Struggle)

I cannot agree that the Harry Potter films are better than the books; they bring the story to life, certainly, but I feel that there's simply too much omitted that I find myself sat wondering things like "where's Peeves?" or "why hasn't this happened yet?". I don't like when things I feel are key to narrative are missed out, which is why I will always rate the Lord of the Rings more; aside of better acting, it's more true to the story, even if it is twice as long per film.

I also disagree about A Clockwork Orange; having studied the original, British version (as opposed to the American version which had the true ending removed by publishers) of the novel in 2005 for my A Levels, I have a deep appreciation of Burgess' work. While I'm a fan of Kubrick's directing as a whole, I feel that certain aspects of the film don't quite live up to the novel, though I guess that an American interpretation might be different, because that was the basis for Kubrick's movie vision.

As for films that were better than the novel they were based upon, I feel it's prudent to point out Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. I guess it's clear what the film adaptation was called, and I feel it's one of the finest movies ever made, an absolute classic and Morgan Freeman's finest moment for me. :3

I also loved To Kill A Mockingbird, The Shining and The Silence of the Lambs and would rate all three as better than their source material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

I also disagree about A Clockwork Orange; having studied the original, British version (as opposed to the American version which had the true ending removed by publishers) of the novel in 2005 for my A Levels, I have a deep appreciation of Burgess' work.

---

I'm of the opinion that the 21st chapter was left out on purpose for the film. It's a much more disturbing, ambiguous work without the "and then I got older and decided I should do something productive" capstone.

"I was cured, alright," is the perfect ending to that story.

I had been taught that Burgess did not appreciate Kubrick adhering to the American rendition rather than the British 'full' product. I concede, however, that my teachers may simply have been biased against the film, particularly as one of them loathed it with a passion.

However, the return to the 'ultra-violence' was too predictable (for me) as an ending goes, which is why I preferred the sense of change, maturity and overall closure that is gained from Alex actually renouncing that thuggish lifestyle. It showed that, while the dystopian world in which Alex lives hasn't really changed for the better, at least he has been able to make good of himself.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film, it's merely a case of preferring the novel more. :3

Another angle on Clockwork Orange: Everyone I know who has read it says that they get about halfway through before they stop seeing the invented dialect and can just enjoy the story. Certainly that was my experience. But in the film, we don't depend on Alex's voice for basic narration—the camera takes care of that.

So while line like this are pure lovely: "There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really dim, and we sat in the Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening." It's a lot easier on the audience to enjoy the dialect qua dialect, and not as the narrative voice.

I'm struggling with a way to make this point sound less pompous, and I'm failing.

-edit-

Just to clarify about the 20th versus 21st chapters of CO: If all Alex needed to do was get a bit older and mellow out, the ending is a hell of a deflation. Why did we just go on the ride we went on? What's the point? Why the elaborate cure, the hell-and-back through the system, if all we needed was to pack a few years onto Alex?

Whereas in the American/Kubrick version, we're left with the possibility (not the certainty, mind you) that Alex is incurably evil, and that all of the misguided good intentions of every authority figure have been in vain. More, that there's a congruency between Alex's amorality and the needs of power, since it is a power figure who spoon feeds him in this ending.

I loved the use of nadsat, and recall many a lesson where we had to decipher what the words meant based in context and see if we were correct or not. I would argue that it should have been used in the film a little more

A good example would be the manner in which Mr. Alexander learns it was Alex who raped his wife; in the novel, he hears Alex talking nadsat and puts two and two together, whereas in the film, he hears Alex whistling the tune to Singin' In The Rain, a song he sung while raping the wife. It's a poor example (I actually loved Kubrick's choice of song over nadsat), but I'm sure you get my point. It's as though Kubrick chose not to utilise the full range of the language as so not to confuse those who had not read the book. And that is why movie adaptations of novels don't always live up to expectations of the books themselves; simplying things for a broader audience.

Look at the Twilight adaptation; the film knows it's target audience, doesn't shy away from the fact it's sub-par vampire BS and embraces it, remaining largely true to the not-worth-the-paper-it's-printed-on novel. There's no massive attempt to attract audiences who won't be interested, so the film maintains the integrity of the novel. Again, a poor example, because Twilight's a fairly two-dimensional piece of work, but I'm sure you catch my drift anyway. :3

I think that putting a few years on Alex wasn't necessarily the means to mellow him out, so to speak; the ride is very much part-and-parcel of how he reaches that stage in the first place. There is a moral to the story; no matter the indiscretions, irregardless of the intervention of others, the path we choose is our own. All these elements have shaped Alex; despite the criminality, the betrayal of friends, the correctional treatment and the inability to truly appreciate his beloved Beethoven, he is still able to overcome it and choose his own path. I guess I simply like the positive outlook that Chapter 21 gives the story.

It has been a while since I saw the film last, but by power figure, you mean the politician who visits him in bed, right? I actually liked this part immensely, as it shows the extent that the government will go to in order to cover their tracks. They openly endorse his malevolent behaviour in order to keep the Ludovico treatment quiet.

There's no deception as there was to be with Mr. Alexander or the rest of his cliqué; the government is quite forthcoming about their intentions for him, and he revels in his 'ultraviolence' being 'legal'. McDowell's acting in this scene was fantastic.

People who actually read the books then go to see the films are usually the ones disappointed.

But even those who read the book after the film usually like the book better.

Those who like the firm better are normally those who don’t read at all.

One of the big reasons I see for movies being inferior to the books is because the movie industry doesn’t know how to leave well enough alone and try to improve on the original authors work.

Not only do those changes anger those who read the book, they usually are a total failure and detract from the flow of the story.

At other times the movies miss cast key people. Sometimes they totally remake characters into something they never were.

So very much must have to do with Ego. There must be some huge ones where the film makes make so many changes you hardly recognize the finished product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

I also loved To Kill A Mockingbird, The Shining and The Silence of the Lambs and would rate all three as better than their source material.

---

Second two certainly, I would say the book and movie of To Kill A Mockingbird are both stone cold classics but the book is probably slightly superior. I thought the sense of menace around Boo Radley was better developed in the book.

Are books usually as good the second time as they were the first? If not, that would be part of why people who read the book first find the movie lacking. In addition to people not being able to let go of the book as has been said.

It's kind of like how people who know the original song don't like the cover as much (usually).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's kind of like how people who know the original song don't like the cover as much (usually).

---

And like how some people seem to listen to the cover first and prefer it to the original! Seriously, how can someone find Glee's Don't Stop Believin' better than Journey's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

And like how some people seem to listen to the cover first and prefer it to the original! Seriously, how can someone find Glee's Don't Stop Believin' better than Journey's?

---

Once you know one version the other is just jarring.

I find that effect a lot easier to overcome in movies and books than in music though. The difference is jarring on a sensory level in a song, not so in a movie where it's more on the conscious/thinking level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Take it back.

---

Nope, Of Mice and Men had a poor plot, it didn't interest me much. Certain characters were thought out well, such as Curley's wife & Lennie, doesn't mean I enjoyed it though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Secura

And like how some people seem to listen to the cover first and prefer it to the original! Seriously, how can someone find Glee's Don't Stop Believin' better than Journey's?

---

I agree entirely, the cast of glee should be shot for the musical atrocities they have scarred my ears with. Then again I'm not Journey fan, but it was better and less jarring than its cover. I don't agree with Sasaki saying the original can seem jarring once you've listened to a cover, I like many original and cover versions of songs, but many people will always prefer an original if they heard it before they heard the cover.

you only think the books are bad because you read the wrong books which are too long and boring like real literature lol which is liberal bias me I read the Xmen and its not better then the movies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thermal Mercury

I agree entirely, the cast of glee should be shot for the musical atrocities they have scarred my ears with. Then again I'm not Journey fan, but it was better and less jarring than its cover. I don't agree with Sasaki saying the original can seem jarring once you've listened to a cover, I like many original and cover versions of songs, but many people will always prefer an original if they heard it before they heard the cover.

---

I meant that when you know one version (either original or cover) well, hearing the other is jarring. It seems like the more similar the are the worse it is. This is not very jarring for example (mild language):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o39etJFlW7k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I meant that when you know one version (either original or cover) well, hearing the other is jarring. It seems like the more similar the are the worse it is. This is not very jarring for example (mild language):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o39etJFlW7k

---

Perhaps more so, I thought you were only refering to the original.

Though I have covers and originals of the same song and can like them both, you are inevitably going to compare them and find one better I guess :balloon:

In the example you've given, the disturbed version is wayyyy better in my opinion :tongue: .

Quote:

---

Nope, Of Mice and Men had a poor plot, it didn't interest me much. Certain characters were thought out well, such as Curley's wife & Lennie, doesn't mean I enjoyed it though...

---

Great book. Moved me to tears. :snobby:

I like to interpret Clockwork Orange (Chapter 21 inclusive) as a depiction of the cyclic nature of life, with the protagonist Alex revelling in violence and the accompanying sense of power, eventually renouncing such behavior, and potentially raising the next generation of young criminals who will victimize Alex just as he victimized his own elders (old woman, man w/ book outside bar, etc.). The Queen song "We Will Rock You" is relevant here, in a way. Also, Alex's feelings toward classical music remind me of Gary Oldman's character from Leon.


Warning: Violence

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKjJKbgqf2A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Following-up on drone's excellent point, I can think of a number of flawed or bad books that made much better movies. Silence of the Lambs, anyone? Take away the genius of Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster and Ted Lavine, and it's not nearly so special. And the movie of Fight Club features many improvements on the book, even if it misses one or two important bits. I'm sure there are many others.

The problem comes when we fall in love with a book, a really good book, and then see it adapted. There's no way the film can measure up to the theater of our mind.

---

Hey, Silence of the lambs was a good book!

It's been a while since I saw the movie though. What I remember though was that I disliked the third movie (Hannibal) and then read the book on wich it was based and loved that ....