TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Book vs. movie

Go To

BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#1: Feb 3rd 2011 at 8:41:28 AM

I read a couple neat articles on the AV Club website in a short series called "Book vs. Film", comparing books to their movie counterparts and showing the differences, which are sometimes mild (in the case of an Adaptation Distillation), and sometimes huge (in the case of Adaptation Decay and In Name Only).

For example, Jumper was pretty much an example of In Name Only, or at the very least, colossal Adaptation Decay. The book was about a guy who could teleport, and simply tried to live his life while doing so - even doing things like teleporting into a bank and taking money and leaving IOUs, then returning it later. The movie, on the other hand, was a big chase movie.

What books have you both read and seen the film version of? For me, only a handful in my life, but I've seen some pretty bad Adaptation Decay and Adaptation Expansion.

How would you compare the film version to some of the books they're based on, and why?

RalphCrown Short Hair from Next Door to Nowhere Since: Oct, 2010
Short Hair
#2: Feb 3rd 2011 at 10:16:37 AM

I'll lead off with what is possibly the biggest fail in history, Dune. First, as several have noted, the book can't be adapted faithfully to film, since there are so many interior monologues. Whole chunks of the background got tossed overboard. Second, David Lynch?? His forte was C-grade horror movies, and that's what he made this one into. Third, to throw it a bone, the casting was pretty good.

Bottom line: loved the book, hated the movie.

Under World. It rocks!
vifetoile Since: Jan, 2001
#3: Feb 3rd 2011 at 11:58:49 AM

Harry Potter is a very interesting case. Same cast for the most part, same setting, many of the same technical pieces, and a consistent source material - different directors each time, though, means you end up with a very interesting look at filmmaking.

These are my thoughts on the as-yet-incomplete HP septology in film, as adaptations.

The first movie was cute - it didn't have a real spirit, and was by the numbers and given a few unnecessary explosions - and the second movie was very similar, but not as good - more bloated and rushed. (But I want to watch it again for Kenneth Branaugh).

The third movie, the one which divides fans, I have always said is "the best movie but the worst adaptation." It's the one where the lead (child) actors really started to show their development. As a director. Alfonzo Cuaron made the world of Hogwarts and its environs really come alive in a beautiful and fun way. It's dramatic and swooping and grand and cinematic. It misses out on key elements of the actual story but I can forgive it because of the style, in that case.

The fourth - I haven't seen that in a while, but I remember it being very rushed. The fifth movie did an even better job of expanding the magical world, and compressing the source material of what had been a very difficult book. The sixth probably remains my favorite, because like the fifth and third it's got style, and though the ending has no energy and there's no point to the burning the Burrow scene, it's in many ways the funniest and the most fun.

The seventh... is odd. I hate the book, I make no secret of it. And I think that the only reason it was split into two films was to make money.

But the filmmakers made the "two films" aspect work, at least from part one. Part one seriously improves on the original book, though they do that by cutting out all the really stupid stuff, that's going to leave the second half of that a very difficult movie to put together. But time alone will tell...

Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#4: Feb 3rd 2011 at 9:24:29 PM

^I would agree with every single description of those.

I've both seen Layer Cake the film a few times and read the book twice or so as well. I'd say that the characters are definitely more thuggish in the book (many characters are Wicked Cultured in the film and those who were brutes in the novel are more like just Stupid Criminals in the film). Both subvert Damn, It Feels Good to Be a Gangster!, but the novel is more obvious about it. I think I prefer the film, although I'm of two minds as to whether I prefer the novel's ending.

Hodor
MEPT72 Vote is No from Boston, MA Since: Sep, 2009
Vote is No
#5: Feb 3rd 2011 at 9:49:42 PM

Godfather, the short is that the movie is actually better than the book.

It streamlined down a lot of the side stories that had no point, and smoothed over a lot of the poor writing. It was one of Puzo's first book and while he had good characters and plot his actual story telling was weak.

edited 3rd Feb '11 10:45:01 PM by MEPT72

Obligatory self promotion: http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/
Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#6: Feb 3rd 2011 at 10:01:44 PM

Think you mean the movie was better than the book. But yeah, the book was pretty bad.

Hodor
MEPT72 Vote is No from Boston, MA Since: Sep, 2009
Vote is No
#7: Feb 3rd 2011 at 10:45:30 PM

Good catch.

It wasn't bad it was just very... amerature feeling, he really needed a better editor to help clean it up.

Obligatory self promotion: http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/
MoeDantes cuter, cuddlier Edmond from the Land of Classics Since: Nov, 2010
cuter, cuddlier Edmond
#8: Feb 4th 2011 at 4:25:19 AM

I honestly liked Dune the movie and the book. Does this make me a bad person?

But don't get me started on the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries...

Anyway:

Red Dragon - I've seen the eighties film adaptation (called Manhunter) and to be honest its not really that different from the book. The main thing is it deletes Francis Dolarhyde's traumatic childhood and focuses more on Will Graham, but what it does adapt though, is pretty faithful to the book.

The Silence of the Lambs - It's been awhile, but I remember this being in the same case as Manhunter—its not complete, but its pretty faithful.

Hannibal - This one, on the other hand, took liberties with the plot, up to and including changing the ending (this probably also makes me a bad person, but I liked the book's ending more). Oddly I kind of had inverse reactions—I thought Hannibal was the high point of the movie trilogy, but that the novel was the weakest part of the book trilogy. Not even sure how that works, but there you go.

The Hobbit - Rankin-Bass' cartoon adaptation is, again, in the Manhunter camp: its only inaccuracy is that it's not complete.

The Lord of the Rings - Referring to the Bakshi movie, again its in the Manhunter camp—except its a far more extreme case of such. Proves however that a faithful adaptation of Tolkien actually could work... as long as the executive producer isn't an illiterate retard.

The Return of the King - Took huge liberties (including: Gimli and Legolas aren't in it at all). Managed to be a decent film despite.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes - The first half of the movie is book-faithful (the book btw was called Tarzan the Ape Man). When Tarzan goes to England it goes totally an original (and quite pleasing) direction. Besides this, the only movie version of Tarzan worth watching is Tarzan and the Lost City.

Conan the Barbarian - Has practically nothing to do with the short stories its based on. To be honest, even before I read the short stories I thought this was a pretty boring movie.

So now that I've practically ended the thread here...

visit my blog!
MEPT72 Vote is No from Boston, MA Since: Sep, 2009
Vote is No
#9: Feb 4th 2011 at 11:32:34 AM

Silence was close enough, it's also a rare case of improving the material as you go. There was some little shit in the book that pissed me off, such as Lecter having red eyes and 12 fingers.

Obligatory self promotion: http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/
Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#10: Feb 4th 2011 at 12:31:25 PM

I usually like what comes first, novelizations tend to be just as crappy as the other way around.

A noted exception is Star Wars, but that was likely because the book and the movie where done at the same time by the same person.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#11: Feb 4th 2011 at 12:39:16 PM

I think Hogfather is the most faithful adaptation I've seen. Although obviously, there's a lot of stuff they had to leave out or change because it doesn't work in a movie.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there's I Robot and Cheaper By The Dozen.

edited 4th Feb '11 12:39:26 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
shiro_okami Since: Apr, 2010
#12: Feb 4th 2011 at 2:22:14 PM

Watchmen wasn't a book, but it's generally agreed that the movie was a pretty good adaptation. Blade Runner was not as good as the novel it's based on.

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#13: Feb 5th 2011 at 4:35:58 PM

i watched Howl's Moving Castle the other day. Wow. The book and movie are so vastly different that it's impossible to compare the two.

Be not afraid...
wuggles (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#14: Feb 5th 2011 at 8:33:30 PM

Probably most faithful book to movie adaptation I've seen would be Precious. I read the book (Push by Sapphire),and quite a few lines were actually taken verbatim from the book. Nothing was really changed, except a few scenes added to elaborate more.

WarriorEowyn from Victoria Since: Oct, 2010
#15: Feb 6th 2011 at 10:55:16 PM

[up][up][up] I'd agree that Watchmen was a good adaptation - actually one of the best I've seen. It was virtually identical to the graphic novel in most respects (even to the point of using music mentioned in the book in its soundtrack, and preserving most of the dialogue exactly), except for changing one thing in the book that, honestly, made very little sense. Of course, Alan Moore, being extremely picky, hated it anyway.

The movie of V for Vendetta - another Moore comic - is one of my all-time favourite movies, though it's a less faithful (and less morally ambiguous) adaptation. But it's neat because, despite being made nearly 20 years after the graphic novel, the political tone is parallel - the novel had jibes at Thatcher, the movie had jibes at Bush.

Probably the best example of a good adaptation that doesn't adhere closely to the text of a book is the 1995 Sense and Sensibility. It fleshes out characters who are flat or unsympathetic in the book and adds many new scenes, but all of them fit seamlessly with the tone and sense of the book; and some of the changes (in particular: Marianne getting deathly ill after taking a long walk in a torrential downpour [movie] rather than getting deathly ill from moping about in a damp yard [book] is much more plausible) seriously improve the the story. Emma Thompson, who wrote the script as well as acting the part of Elinor, was amused to receive many letters by fans telling her how much they loved one particular scene in the book - which wasn't actually in the book, but original to the movie. Making a movie of a classic and actually improving on it is pretty impressive.

cardboardtubeknight OMG its Bonnie Gruesen from Texas Since: Jan, 2011
OMG its Bonnie Gruesen
#16: Feb 17th 2011 at 11:20:44 PM

@vifetoile: The first Harry Potter movie is entertaining because they're all so small and it makes me laugh.

I think their decent adaptions. I love Fight Club, as it seems to take things in a slightly different direction and it worked really well. Silence of the Lambs I never read, but love the movie. A lot of movies are based on books no one knows about, like Die Hard is loosely based on a book.

Fractured, my Harry Potter Fic: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6655978/1/Fractured
Promethax Evil Mastermind from Center of the Earth Since: Feb, 2011
Evil Mastermind
#17: Apr 1st 2011 at 10:21:56 AM

Eragon Book > Movie

Lot R Book = Movie

boopsahoy Since: Feb, 2013
#18: Apr 20th 2011 at 6:14:22 PM

The Green Mile. Excellent book and the movie was perfect. The casting was perfect as well. Frank Darabont rocks. (and Stephen King of course)

McJunker Mc Junker from California Since: Jan, 2010
#19: Apr 28th 2011 at 11:00:49 PM

The only book-to-movie adaptation that I've ever seen that was exactly on target, neither better than nor worse than, was The Outsiders.

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#20: Apr 28th 2011 at 11:09:44 PM

I watched Tomorrow When The War Began yesterday.

I feel that Chris and Robyn were flanderised a lot - the sporty, confident part of Robyn was lost, leaving her as 'meek religous girl', which I thought was a shame. Chris went from 'introverted, nerdy guy with a drinking problem' to 'loud stoner'.

And there were some changes that I really thought weren't for the better. For example, we had the soldiers in the Showground randomly shoot that guy just so the audience would twig 'oh yeah, these are the baddies'. The gang went from reluctant to use guns due to how incriminating they'd be if caught, to having an arm-up montage at the end scene.

Not to say I hated it, but I felt it lost a lot of subtlety.

Be not afraid...
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#21: Apr 28th 2011 at 11:11:27 PM

2001 the movie was boring and confusing, not a good combination. But critics apparently like it? I don't understand. I much preferred the book.

Though I don't think itw as an adapation so much as that thye were cowritten.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
Nikkolas from Texas Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#22: Apr 29th 2011 at 1:14:38 PM

Jurassic Park is an interesting case. There are some pretty big changes in the story from book to movie (mainly Hammond being turned from a Corrupt Corporate Executive to Kindly Old Guy) but I think the film kept with the theme of the book very well.

The Lost World though... Ugh. There's Adaptation Decay if I ever saw it.

And while we're on teh topic of comis to movies, Sin City was amazing.

BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#23: Apr 30th 2011 at 12:53:41 PM

The Lost World was written because Speilberg wanted a sequel to the movie, and the book's existence gave him an "excuse" for one.

TheSollerodFascist Since: Dec, 1969
#24: Apr 30th 2011 at 4:24:49 PM

As noted by pretty much everyone, American Psycho is an interesting example in this war. The distillation involved in the adaptation is generally recognised to be 'necessary' to a fair degree, though the film's visual absurdity (achieved by toning down some of the more vivid, completely bizarre pieces of the novel) comes across more as conventionally thrilling rather than satirically powerful. The over-the-top costume descriptions and progressively disturbing pop culture snippets in the book for instance come across as if it's taking place in a world gone truly mad, rather than within (or with the impression of framing) Patrick Bateman's personal Sanity Slippage. Which I personally think, is more frightening.

Of course, Ellis is one of those authors who likes to play around with how people interpret this as the Wiki page says. I think he's changed his mind about it numerous times now.

I think a more faithful adaptation is entirely possible, but not as a big release. It'd only really be suitable for small markets that can take the different levels of ridiculousness in stride, and the plot would likely be very unsatisfying in how it plays itself out. You'd need some skill.

However, at least Bateman's love of 'Sussudio' is still intact.

NULLcHiLD27 Since: Oct, 2010
#25: Jun 7th 2011 at 9:48:29 PM

Blade Runner was not as good as the novel it's based on.

I disagree, I think it was as good. Other than character names and the general idea (guy hunting down robots) they have nothing in common, which I think is great. I liked that the movie made Roy Batty a more important character though. Deckard's battle with the final 3 androids in the book felt kind of lacking compared to the others.


Total posts: 59
Top