Why Are The Films Never As Good As The Books?

[Aemilius Paulus]

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?? ) 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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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?? ) 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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[miotas]

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.

[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. 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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

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.

[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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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?

[Beefy187]

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

[drone]

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).

[rajpoot]

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.

[johnhughthom]

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???!!

(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?? )

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.

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

[Lemur]

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).

[rajpoot]

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.

[Subotan]

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.

[Gregoshi]

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

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?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Azathoth]

Of mice and men, though not a great book,

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

Take it back.

[johnhughthom]

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.

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."

[Husar]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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)

[Secura]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Secura]

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

[Lemur]

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.

[Secura]

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.

[Fisherking]

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.