When a Film is actually as good as the book?

pugh-the-special-one

pugh-the-special-one

Messages
5,874
Now I thought long and hard about this one, and in most cases a really good book is nearly always much better than the film, now not being a prolific bookworm but none the less i would like to start this off with my opinion on the book V film, well here's my small choice.

Stephen King
The Green Mile. The film and the book superb, film was equal to the book Misery. The film and the book superb, film equal to the book

Dan Brown
The Da Vinci Code, really enjoyed the book, film big let down.


Jamie
 
pugh-the-special-one said:
Stephen King
The Green Mile. The film and the book superb, film was equal to the book.
Click to expand...

I agree, they are both very good. I particularly enjoyed reading the books as they were released though. I recall picking up the first two at once, but then having to wait to read the following instalments as they were released monthly over the course of a few months. I think the sense of anticipation made me enjoy it even more than if I'd read the whole story as one volume.
 
I think Jaws - I enjoyed the book well enough (it was in my school library growing up and was one of the few books with 'racy' sections that made it past the censors!) but the film is very special.

Looking for a bad one, Striptease with Demi Moore. I love Carl Hiaason's books, but the film is bobbins.
 
Trainspotting.

High Fidelity - which worked surprisingly well despite the fact the setting moved from London to Chicago.

One book that I'd love to see made into a film (done properly of course) would be Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. Now that would be something special.
 
Pig Cat said:
LOTR - better than the books! :icon_razz:
Click to expand...
Sorry. I have to disagree.
The films were brilliantly done. But the books are magical.
I developed true emotions for the book charactors, and felt really shocked when Frodo was bitten and paralysed at the end of The Two Towers.
In the films, Frodo's near death experiences (on weathertop mountain, the cave troll and the spider) all left me thinking that frodo was a bit of a drama queen and needed a quick drink of man-up juice.

That said, the films are still a fantastic achievement.

Harry potter and the order of the pheonix was far better as a film. The book was a somewhat tedious "scene setter" with few moments of action, the film managed to portray the story and keep up a sense of action.
I gave up watching the Potter films after this however. The last 2 books (3 films) were too epic to risk disappointing myself.

One of the best books I read last year was "water for elephants". I loved it and was delighted to hear that a film was made.
Watched it and can't understand how it was soooo bad. The story was surprisingly true to the book and yet it was boring. 90 minutes of tedium. The book took several hours and kept me page turning.
Interesting how these things happen.
 
Re: RE: When a Film is actually as good as the book?

Pig Cat said:
LOTR - better than the books! :icon_razz:
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Tolkien was a great myth-maker but not, IMO, a great writer; the films tell his story better than he could.

The Shining.

Blade Runner is a better film than Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep is a short story. (But then I don't like PKD much.)

I can't think of any more at the moment, though I should be able to.

(In reply to an earlier comment: I'd've thought Snow Crash was pretty much unfilmable without enormous reengineering?)
 
Dr Rick said:
I'd've thought Snow Crash was pretty much unfilmable without enormous reengineering?)
Click to expand...

Didn't people used to say LOTR was unfilmable? :icon_smile:

It would certainly be a tough call to adapt Snow Crash into a single film. I agree with the director Vincenzo Natali that it would work better as a series. It's such a tremendous story it would be great to see it brought to life on screen.
 
Dr Rick said:
Pig Cat said:
LOTR - better than the books! :icon_razz:
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Tolkien was a great myth-maker but not, IMO, a great writer; the films tell his story better than he could.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. I too have read the book but to me it just wasn't a 'story'. Absolute genius, but no page-turner, in fact deathly boring a lot of the time.
 
Pig Cat said:
Dr Rick said:
Pig Cat said:
LOTR - better than the books! :icon_razz:
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Tolkien was a great myth-maker but not, IMO, a great writer; the films tell his story better than he could.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. I too have read the book but to me it just wasn't a 'story'. Absolute genius, but no page-turner, in fact deathly boring a lot of the time.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
 
cruciate said:
Pig Cat said:
Dr Rick said:
Pig Cat said:
LOTR - better than the books! :icon_razz:
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Tolkien was a great myth-maker but not, IMO, a great writer; the films tell his story better than he could.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel. I too have read the book but to me it just wasn't a 'story'. Absolute genius, but no page-turner, in fact deathly boring a lot of the time.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
Click to expand...

Now 'Bravo Two Zero' by Andy McNabb. That actually improves with every read. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom