Why Are The Films Never As Good As The Books?

**Lemur** · 02-26-2010, 01:11

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.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 02-26-2010, 01:34

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?

**Beefy187** · 02-26-2010, 01:44

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

**drone** · 02-26-2010, 06:09

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** · 02-26-2010, 07:19

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** · 02-26-2010, 11:21

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???!!

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?? )

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** · 02-26-2010, 14:08

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).

**rajpoot** · 02-26-2010, 14:39

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.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 02-26-2010, 16:55

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.

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?