Better than the book?
Over a delicious Tim’s pizza last night, some friends and I were talking about movies. Inevitably, the line “well, the book was better” popped up. This got me thinking; Have you ever heard someone say “the movie was better than the book?” I know I haven’t and I doubt you have either.
Granted, in most cases, the book is better than the movie… mainly because adapted books have to be condensed into a two hour movie. Because of this, whole chapters are left out or drastically simplified in order to squeeze them into the film. So, off the bat, you’re given significantly less detail than is presented in the book. Combine this with the fact that reading a book, at least one of decent size and moderate reading level, will take quite a bit longer than 2 hours. When you spend that much time reading a book, you become more immersed in the story and closer to the characters than you would while sitting in the theater for a couple of hours. It’s just the way it is.
However, having said this(brace yourself), there are times when the movie is better than, or at least as good as, the book. Yes, it seems backward, but it does happen. Occassionally, a filmmaker takes the source material(novel, short story, play) and improves upon it. It’s rare, but it does happen. Take Philip K. Dick’s Blade Runner. Great short story. But when Ridley Scott sussed it out into a full-length film, it became an instant classic.
Another example would be Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. A film that is easily one of the most groundbreaking and masterfully-made films of the 20th century… at least in this movie geek’s opinion. It was adapted in the late sixties from Arthur C. Clarke’s novel of the same name and appears on the AFI 100 greatest films of all times in the #22 spot. The 2001 series was a great read. Yet, for some reason, the film stands out when comparing it to the novel.
Another example? How about High Fidelity? This is a case where the film and the book are neck-and-neck in terms of which are better. They’re both equally great. The superb casting and the masterfully adapted screenplay are the primary reasons that Nick Hornby’s novel translated so well on the big screen. If you like the film, you’ll like the book… and vice versa.
The list could go on and on, however, I’m curious as to what you think? Which films do you think stand out more than their leather-bound counterparts? Or are you of the school of thought that believes a movie can never be better than the book?
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
By rcu on November 25th, 2008
No Country for Old Men is the only movie I’ve seen that even comes close to the book.
By gdr on November 25th, 2008
i would say lonesome dove hit pretty close with the movie being up to par with the book, but it was a mini-series. so i don’t know if that counts or not.
By sg on November 25th, 2008
Transfomers was better than the book-adaptation. Just sayin’.
By the Steve on November 25th, 2008
Good call. Lonesome Dove totally counts, and that movie is at least on par with the book. Robert Duvall=perfect in that role.
By JTrain on November 25th, 2008
Ok. Let me throw this one out there. Lord of the Rings(Or LoTR for all you fantasy nerds out there trilogy. Which is better, the books or the movies?
By bryce on November 25th, 2008
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will probably fall into this category. I would watch paint dry if David Fincher directed it.
By Duke McDingo on November 26th, 2008
True story: I was watching one of the LoTR movies at the theater back when it came out. I think it was Return of the King. Towards the end of the movie, a guy screams out “They ruined it!” and storms out of the theater.
I think that guy would say that the movies didn’t do the books justice.
Personally, I liked the movies. I thought they did a really good job. I found the books a little slow in parts.