Films that Transcend the Book

[Libaax]

Rambo is a way better book. For one, it didn't destroy the entire point of the story, and also, naked motorcycle rampage. C'mon, that's gold!

I'm not taking the Blade Runner troll bait, but the film definitely transcended the book.

The Shining is a better film than book, but having read the book makes the movie a better experience.

Blade Runner is really its one of the first Hollywood SF films of its kind and its fame is mostly because of that. The book doesnt have that freshness because its one of many books with andriods,cyberpunk elements and not even among the top 10 PKD when those are often listed.

The book is deeper and more philosopical but its not PKD best writing and the film is simpler and more visually cool.

It says alot how superficial SF films usually that Bladerunner is classic Hollywood SF. Not saying the film isnt good but there was not much competetion for its in 80s, Alien and what else.

[Karl O'Neill]

Yeah, I agree, people over-use the phrase the book is way better than the movie.

Film is great and when done right can bring a great book to the screen in a new and unique way.

As a lover of Literature though, some works just don't translate.

[Libaax]

I have to say I hate the "books better then the movie!" people.

Thats hell of generlization dont you think? Because usually i think books are better because adaptation films is usually done by low level film talents and not Stanley Kubrick level directors exactly.

Then there are many films that improve on a book that was good but had annoying dialouge or some other big flaw.

[passer-by]

A lot of people I've met who generally are "books are better!" people tend to rub me as the type who act that way simply because they want to feel special because they read a book.

That's a statement I find hard to even begin to understand.

Then again for me reading books is a natural pastime just like watching films for an American, I suppose. (I'm reminded of the classic "Did you write your paper on / Are you familiar with [book title]?" - "Oh yeah, I saw the movie.")


And when the film is a book adaptation, in most cases the literary source is better by comparison, yes. Which is why I suggested to evaluate the films on their own.

[David Walton]

Books allow the reader the flexibility to envision the characters and the action as they see fit, whereas a film can't be all things to all people. Suddenly something as vague as messy hair and a lightning scar becomes as specific as Daniel Radcliffe.

I think that's one reason we tend to prefer books to film when the comparison comes up.

[T Hedge Coke]

The Shining, I think David Lynch nailed something central to the Kubrick adaptation when he speculated Kubrick may have been afraid of the idea of ghosts. The movie is restructured from the novel so that the family are cold and horrible from the beginning and the ghosts are friendly, or desperate, and constantly reaching out while the family are sharp and mean and full of despair. What makes the ghosts scary is that they are autonomous and that they are ghosts.

The girls, the hall, the bartender, party, the bathtub are considerably more inviting or outright sad than anything going on with the family. Unless you think they're violating a natural order.

The book grabbed with me with arm-breaking and the desperation to make that up to everyone, and to justify it (and the man himself), and it never really let go until long after the end.

But, the movie is hella good as a visual piece, and it's great in terms of techniques, even if it doesn't scare you.

[the goddamn batman]

I have to say I liked the NBC mini-series of "The Shining" from the 1990's much better then the movie.

This is just crazy talk!

[passer-by]

Books allow the reader the flexibility to envision the characters and the action as they see fit, whereas a film can't be all things to all people. Suddenly something as vague as messy hair and a lightning scar becomes as specific as Daniel Radcliffe.

I think that's one reason we tend to prefer books to film when the comparison comes up.

One of several, indeed. ;)

The time constraints of a film are another big one, sometimes leading to simplification in the widest sense of the term. *


Said simplification can of course be enforced by the studio as well, in order to attract a larger audience - and there we have a third reason.


P.S. About imagination - it varies in different people. You reminded me of something George Lucas once said - for a long time he took for granted that all people were gifted with a rich imagination and he was shocked the day he realized that isn't the case. :p




*That goes for TV shows as well - case in point, HBO's Game of Thrones. Which I enjoy as a TV show. But it's like a demo - the Song of Ice and Fire book series is the whole game.

[Karl O'Neill]

Which is why I suggested to evaluate the films on their own.

They really should be, remember film was originally created by scientists (Louis Lumiere and Thomas Edison) and then over time used by film-makers for artistic expression. So film is quite young compared to Literature and must be assessed on it's own merits.

[T Hedge Coke]

I have to give the talent of Blade Runner or the movie version of Naked Lunch props, though, for coming at the material sideways like that and doing their own thing, to different strengths, that still has something to say, something to present us, that is of worth (to some). Each of the Vampire Hunter D movies, for eschewing the more direct horror or any of the (social) politics of the novels for a lush and quick-paced romanticism. Any adaptation of "The Fly", for better or worse, or "Who Goes There?" Perhaps not "superior" but transcending, anyway, in the sense of going beyond the limitations.

Some very accurate-to-the-plot adaptations or careful adherence to world-building as laid down in the prose can come off terribly in movies, and has. You, optimally, find the best way to communicate something of worth, even if that worth is just excitement or novelty.

Thinking further, Manchurian Candidate and Requiem for a Dream are both better than the books they adapt, because a movie gives you less time in-play to think through the plot machinations (and because Manchurian Candidate is a great movie).

[Surtur]

Thats hell of generlization dont you think? Because usually i think books are better because adaptation films is usually done by low level film talents and not Stanley Kubrick level directors exactly.

Then there are many films that improve on a book that was good but had annoying dialouge or some other big flaw.

You aren't getting me. I don't mean to say I hate anyone who finds the book better then the movie. Rather I mean the people who seem to smugly make those kind of comments as if to go "Look how intelligent I am" and things like that.

So I guess it's less about what they say and more about how they say it. Personally I agree with you about books..usually they are better. If for no other reason then a lot of times to make a book into a movie you have to cut out certain things and those things can ultimately make the book a richer experience.

[Lancerman]

Disagree with the two people who said The Godfather. The book makes the characters more mythical and it clears up alot of glossed over plot issues.

[Karl O'Neill]

The Shawshank Redemption is a beloved movie, but the original novella is just as great. There's some nice passages contained within about perseverance and the human spirit told through the metaphor of single droplets of water hitting a rock over the course of thousands of years. I don't recall the exact wording of it, but makes for good reading. Good reading is damn hard writing.

[Ood Omega]

Thinking further, Manchurian Candidate and Requiem for a Dream are both better than the books they adapt, because a movie gives you less time in-play to think through the plot machinations (and because Manchurian Candidate is a great movie).

Which version Denzel or Sinatra?

[T Hedge Coke]

Which version Denzel or Sinatra?

Sinatra!

I forgot there was another Manchurian Candidate, but the second one seemed to highlight and intensify the absurdities to the point that nothing else in the movie matters. Man, that was bad.