Film Tie-In Book Covers

[paperplane]

No Country for Old Men, absolutely hated the way it was written, I know it was meant to be constant stop start with little punctuation but the excessive use of 'and' infuriated me. I think I counted about 8 ands in one single sentence.

 

The film however is so much better, love love love the cinematography.

[Pinkpaper]

Annonement - I loved the book but prefered it on the screen and love how they teid it all in at the end.

 

I didnt mind the Keira knightly film, at least they showed how poor that family really were in it plus alot of the other actors in the film were brilliant.

[Stephanie2008]

The Notebook. I really enjoyed the movie but just couldn't get into the book at all. I have to stop reading books after seeing the films.

[lexiepiper]

I agree, The Notebook film was better than the book.

[jankensan]

I always thought that Silence of the Lambs worked better as a film than a book. I saw the film when I was quite young and impressionable and read the book at a much later date so maybe that has something to do with it.

 

Dare I say Where the Wild Things Are?! The film was awesome but the book (obviously) was a teeny tiny picture book, so I got way more from the film than the book:lol:

[vodkafan]

For me the one that jumps to mind is About A Boy. The book was a mess, didn't enjoy it all. The film was much tidier, concise-it hit the spot. Also about the only film I think Hugh Grant does a half-decent job in.

[Capture]

Quite true: "pop" novels often have the seeds for great stories which their authors do not quite pull off, or do not pull off at all. The Godfather is a good example of the Hitchcock rule I mentioned earlier in this topic.

 

So why do the authors fail? A comparison: I suppose there are Michelangelo-wannabes out there, who have Sistine-Chapel images in their heads, but when they finish painting, they have stick figures and two-dimensional landscapes.

 

Perhaps such authors are more interested in cheap thrills for the audience, or they find it easier to keep and treat their characters as marionettes, attached to the author's hands for jerking them around into those cheap thrills, rather than freeing the characters and giving them free will to choose what they want to do.

 

The story then follows the will of the author up and down a roller-coaster track, pre-set and unalterable, rather than an organically psychologically evolving story.

 

Great post. Thought provoking.

 

I was going to say I have to stick with what a t-shirt I saw once said, "Movies ruining books since 1920," however, one movie-book adaptation really sticks out for me. I know I may be tarred and feathered for saying this, but Pride and Prejudice I couldn't even finish the book. Hands down every adaptation of the movie is better than the book. Sorry I had to be the messenger...if you must shoot...go ahead.

 

I will probably sit down someday and read the book all the way through. For now I'll stick with the films.

 

I have to agree. Since i've seen film adaptations of the book and loved the story, i thought i should read the book. I honestly didn't get quite far. I don't think poorly of the book, but it was quite slow in many parts, and the chemistry and intensity of Lizzie/Mr. Darcy onscreen was more potent than the book's description in my opinion.

 

I completely agree with you BJ. I've been watching the BBC adaptation over the last few days and it's absolutely wonderful, but I love it so much because it's so true to the book. The only other adaptation of it I can stomach is the Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson film, which you're right, does take a lot of liberties with some parts of the story, but I remember watching it as a child before I even knew about Jane Austen or her books and have fond memories of laughing at the absurdities of Mrs Bennett, the silliness of Lydia and Kitty, and the toe curling obsequious Mr Collins. It did lead me to read the book as a teenager, and a love of Austen grew from there. However, I have watched exactly six minutes of the Keira Knightly version before I could bear it no more and had to turn it off.

 

 

I really enjoyed the Grier Garson/Laurence Olivier version as well.

 

My mistake - wrong book/film! It was Emma I wanted to slap - sorry! I didn't get past about chapter 4 of that book! The recent BBC adaptation was good though.

 

I liked the film Emma. I tried reading the book but i didn't get far. I like visual engagement of characters on a screen v. text. Unless the characters are truly engaging, as if telling a story, where i've been fully involved or drawn in by the characters, their personalities, or the storyline, I don't feel I can connect with a book, especially if the reason given is that it must be loved because it is supposed to be "great literature." Characters in some of these classic novels tend to be quite subdued but when put on screen, will come to life in ways they may not when reading a description of them in a book. I'm also a big fan of expressive/interactive dialogue, especially one between the narrative voice and the viewer.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Capture

[pontalba]

This isn't really a film...but a tv series. I enjoyed the Inspector Morse programs more than the original books, at least the 2 or 3 I've read. I credit the late John Thaw, he was Morse personified.

[WrongIslander]

Blade Runner. I enjoyed the book but the original uncut version of the film is just untouchable. The revised version where they take out the monologue is just not right!

[iamnotreal]

Stardust - I love the movie, the book was OK but I think the movie's fantastic .

 

Same! I read the book first and thought it was amazing, but then I saw the movie and it was absolutely magnificent! I think it's probably the only film that's better than its book (at least, any I've read ).

[BookJumper]

Stardust is a bit of a special case, though - Neil Gaiman wrote the script for the film, chopping and adding bits for the screen, so this is not like King's The Shining vs. Kubrick's The Shining; rather, it's two different facets of Gaiman's vision.

[brooksyd2]

At the risk of being controversial, I think both the Stardust book and film were awful.

 

Stand by me was much better than 'The Body' by Stephen King in my opinion.

[Cadenza]

I agree with a couple of earlier posts i enjoyed the film of New Moon a lot more than the book.

[Nicola Booth]

The Shining

[BigWords]

Howl's Moving Castle, Bladerunner and The Neverending Story are all completely different from the books they're based on but to me they're all the better for it.

 

The first Neverending Story I can accept, but the sequels (and the awful cartoon series) dragged that film down by association. It's hard to watch, knowing that the producers intended the title to be taken literally once the cash started rolling in.

[Anika]

I'd have it say it's 'One True Thing' by Anna Quindlen. The movie is one I watch all the time since I have it on DVD and I absolutely LOVE Meryl Streep--always have. Rene Zellwegger is great in this movie too. When I saw the book I thought I should buy it, since the books are always BETTER than the movie, right? Well, just browsing through it and reading different parts while still in the store I found I really didn't care much for it at all. Can't pinpoint why exactly--it just didn't grab me the way I'd expected and I've still never read it. Mostly, I think I didn't want to ruin my enjoyment of the movie by my mind being clouded with images from the book.

[Nicola Booth]

No I loved it too.

 

I just watched the BBC Version with Colin Firth last summer and watched the Kiera Knightly movie about two weeks ago but have yet to read the book but I do intend to this year.

[BookJumper]

The Neverending Story is only based on a third of the original book, true - which in theory should have made it more faithful. Who'd need to crop a story that's not even 200 pages long to squeeze it into a motion picture?

 

Yet they did: the material they used for the film comprises about half of the first third of the book, and love the film as I do (I grew up with it, like everybody else on the planet) I can't blame Michael Ende for suing the movie company on the grounds that they betrayed his vision.

 

Besides, cute as Falkor is in the film, there's a big difference between the head of

a white lion

and that of a golden retriever. I feel like the film lied to me.

[BookJumper]

The film of A History of Violence had me whimpering in a corner, nearly tearing my hair out and wanting to throw up, so unsurprisingly I've never felt the urge to pick the graphic novel up... .

Let the Right One In I believe is a case like Neil Gaiman's Stardust (i.e. the author wrote the script and made the changes he felt necessary due to the change of medium, hence why both versions feel 'right').

 

I personally don't find Ende's lawsuit funny - particularly as the poor bloke lost - I'd have done the same.

[kikee]

Lord of the Rings. I've tried to read it several times and could never get into it.

 

Mine would be Lord of the kings. Like you I tried to read it a few times but just couldnt get into it.

 

Wasnt sure about seeing the movies but when I did I found them much more enjoyable then the books.

[BookJumper]

No worries - no offence at all was taken about the 'funny' thing - just, if someone tried to pull that 'cutting bits of plot off' malarkey with my work I'd take the enlarged hardback edition of said work and bash them repeatedly over the head with it... .

 

Also, I have read LOTR and (sort of co-)own the extended DVDs - they're OH's technically - and love them all. Unless you were talking to someone else, in which case I apologise.

 

And finally - what zebra, where?

[yellowstonegirl]

Angels and Demons was a terrible film, but almost infinitely better than the book...

 

And on a slightly different level, I actually much preferred the film of No Country For Old Men. But I think that might be because I saw the film first and it was in many ways such a literal translation from the book, the book just read like a screenplay, but without some of the humour.

 

I really like the Da Vinci code book and the film for that matter, however I agree that Angels and Demons the film was better than the book.

[Rawr]

Secret Window had a far more effective and less clich

[Raven]

I'm sure I've posted this somewhere on here before, but I prefer the film version of Starter for 10 over the book, because the film has the right ending (I felt hugely let down by the book).

[StephenKingman]

I didn't think it was possible to surpass the book in terms of bleakness and affect, but i saw the movie of "The Road" last week and was blown away by how powerful it was. Relentlessly grim and hopeless, it's no date movie but in terms of acting, it deserves a few Oscars and in my opinion is even better than the esteemed book.