Why Are The Films Never As Good As The Books?

**johnhughthom** · 03-01-2010, 16:50

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.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-01-2010, 16:56

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).

**Secura** · 03-01-2010, 18:04

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?

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-01-2010, 18:07

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.

**Thermal** · 03-01-2010, 18:10

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...

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.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 03-01-2010, 20:33

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

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-01-2010, 20:39

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

**Thermal** · 03-01-2010, 23:17

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

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

.

**Azathoth** · 03-02-2010, 08:49

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.

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:

**Kralizec** · 03-02-2010, 15:24

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 ....