Why Are The Films Never As Good As The Books?

**HoreTore** · 02-25-2010, 21:14

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.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 02-25-2010, 22:04

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

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 02-25-2010, 22:09

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.

**HoreTore** · 02-25-2010, 22:29

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.

**HoreTore** · 02-25-2010, 22:30

double post.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 02-25-2010, 23:03

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?? ) 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** · 02-25-2010, 23:13

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?? ) 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** · 02-25-2010, 23:33

[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.

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.

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.

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.

**miotas** · 02-25-2010, 23:55

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.

**drone** · 02-26-2010, 00:33

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** · 02-26-2010, 00:37

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

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** · 02-26-2010, 00:38

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.