So you haven't experienced both?
Going solely by my own experience, I haven't seen many people who thought the film was better than the book (though they do exist, as do the people who thought the Peter Jackson films were heresy and not worthy of their title). By far the most common opinion that I've seen is that the films were a very worthy adaptation, perhaps improving on the novel in some aspects.
I'd echo that. Some elements were improved, some were missing entirely causing a Missed Moment of Awesome or two. Give and take, for me it adds up to a worthy adaption.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchFor me, the books had a bit of Missed Moment of Awesome stuff themselves, in that most action scenes tended to be described by a character after they occurred. You can't really do that for a film.
I think the increased emphasis on action sequences in the films was a reflection of the difference in medium. The book's style wouldn't work a film because in the books, we often get a resolution where the pivotal elements aren't explained until later. In the films, it follows the standard "establishment of threat -> tension -> resolution" line because messing with that order would get tiresome in a three hour movie.
edited 8th Jun '11 5:45:47 AM by MadassAlex
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchI thought the LOTR movies were about as good an Adaptation Distillation of the books as could've been done.
I saw the movies first and would up with a dislike for the opening. As a result, I didn't even finish the first book.
Fight smart, not fair.I love Harry Potter movies 1 to 5. Movie 6 has some distillations, but the middle it is slow and boring. That is what the attack on the Burrow is for.
HP, LOTR, Narnia and Golden Compass are all pretty close to the oos and excellent Frankenstein movie is better. The book has no thunderstorm, no Igor and non-stop wangst.
Hog Father is close to the book, but lack zing. Going Postal made a couple of changes and is excellent.
edited 9th Jun '11 10:03:22 AM by Trotzky
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!I loathed the Golden Compass movie. I mean, they outright told us what Dust is in the very beginning of the movie, and that was supposed to be one of the big mysteries of the trilogy. Not to mention, we can't have a bittersweet ending in a children's movie, now can we?
In general I just felt it was really dumbed down.
Be not afraid...I avoid watching movie adaptation of books I know. It almost never ends well. I tried several Harry Potter movies. Hated them all. I thouroughly avoided Hithchiker's Guide or the Golden Compass. Never watched Dune. Disliked Watchmen.
The problem is, I'm not flexible in my imagination. I know what the people should look like, and the places, and I know what tone of voice the person used to say this specific sentence, with what facial expression, and so on. Good luck doing it like I imagined it (=NO CHANCE). I'm always dissapointed, because my favorite scenes are missing, or changed in a way I don't approve.
I realise that if I'm not flexible enough to accept that person's X hair got done wrong, it's best to not watch any movie adaptation of a book I remember too well.
Exceptions: I read Godfather before watching the movie and I loved the movie. I also liked Blade Runner. Read Trainspotting and liked the movie Trainspotting - more than I liked the book. (Already had forgotten the plot of the book Trainspotting, though)
Though it generally works better if I already forgot much of the book and its plot. Or if I didn't like the book in the first place.
Sometimes I do it the other way round: I read the book after having seen the movie. This goes generally well. For example I have to admit that I started reading LOTR only after the first movie came out. So I saw the movie, then I read the book, then the next movie came, and I loved it just as much as the first one. The first movie hat influenced the way I imagined the characters and the scenery, so there was no "You're doing it wrong!!" dissapointment.
Never read Fight Club or Clockwork Orange, but they are generally reguarded as good adaptations of already excellent books (I love both movies).
edited 9th Jun '11 4:42:35 PM by RighteousIndignation
If everything you try works, you aren't trying hard enoughA Clockwork Orange is always the example that comes to mind of a movie that I think is about as good as the book. At least, I wouldn't have a clear favorite between the two.
As a side note...
That's pretty much how I feel about 2001. But I haven't read the book so I can't compare.
no one will notice that I changed thishm. I, for one, thought the watchmen movie was better than the original graphic novels. At least, as far as the ending goes. I have a few gripes with it, and obviously the movie had to cut out a lot to fit it within a reasonable amount of runtime, but the plot changes it made changed things for the better, I'd say.
I agree with all the criticism about The Golden Compass movie: ending before the last chapter of the book was like ending The Empire Strikes Back before Luke faces Vader; putting the Bolvangar section after Iorek's duel created a massive plothole; too much bowdlerization of anything bad happening to children. And yet, and yet... I wanted to like it. The looks of the thing were lavish, there was plenty of atmosphere and suspense, and the actors did a good job. I kept thinking that a sequel could fix almost all these problems (well, except the "why didn't Iorek just send an army?" plothole). Yeah, that's gonna happen.
Actually, what I disliked most was Serafina Pekkala's opening Infodump where she mentions "the Witches of the air, the Gyptians of the water and the bears of the ice" (quoting from memory). Lyra's world is supposed to be a close alternative dimension to ours, not some generic fantasy world with magical races that are each based on an element.
I agree with Howl's Moving Castle being completely different from the book. I think some bits like removing the whole part about Howl being from Wales is Pragmatic Adaptation, but almost all of the characters are essentially In Name Only. I think it's inevitable because a great part of the charm of Howl's Moving Castle is in the descriptions and the very European sort of fairytale quaintness, but I have to say I prefer the book.
One of the adaptations that gets on my nerves the most is Ella Enchanted. They gave it a modern-ish setting which really ruins a lot of things, but it just has to be close enough to the book that I can't dismiss it as In Name Only. Adaptation Decay at its worst IMO.
I agree. Howls Moving Castle was one of my favourite books as a teen, and I couldn't enjoy the film as much as I might have if I hadn't known the source material. It took the vague background war of the book (which I don't even remember being more than mentioned until the sequel) and used it to hammer in a War Is Hell aesop. Bad guys had Heel Face Turns with little motivation. On the upside, Diana Wynne Jones (RIP) liked it.
Also, some things in the movie made no sense even with knowledge of the book. The Big Bad just calls off the war?
I don't like Black-and-White Morality, "all evil people need to be destroyed" plots, but I sometimes think Miyazaki goes too far in the opposite direction, with Heel Face Turns for everyone. (That said, I haven't seen a lot of his films: maybe there are plenty of strong, non-converting antagonists in the others.)
EDIT: Edited as I realised I'd consistently mixed up Heel–Face Turn with Face–Heel Turn.
edited 11th Jun '11 3:45:36 PM by DoktorvonEurotrash
I feel that the Harry Potter books are smarter than the movies, but the movies are more entertaining than the books. Does that make sense?
At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...I felt that way with LOTR. Not saying the books were not entertaining (how else would I have read through ALL THESE PAGES), but still.... Reguarding HP, I found the books both cleverer and more entertaining than the movies. But I get what you mean, and it makes sense.
If everything you try works, you aren't trying hard enoughI've seen tons of movie adaptations of books I've read, but I almost always find the books better. (And it's not really exclusive to books, either; I usually like the original better than the adaptation, whatever it is.) I do have exceptions, though. Practical Magic was a movie I watched over and over again growing up, and while I did like the book, I will probably always like the movie better. I also liked the movie version of What Dreams May Come way better than the book. (Even though the movie was kind of melodramatic in comparison.
) The Princess Bride and A Little Princess(1995 version) are two cases where I loved the movie and the book equally.
I think my problem with most adaptations is that I think they either deviate from the books way too much or stick way too closely to them. I know it sounds kind of weird to complain about movies sticking too closely to the books, but...when I go to see a movie, I don't really want an exact carbon copy of the book. It's a different medium, so trying to keep them both exactly the same can be a mistake, and sometimes stuff from the book just doesn't translate well onscreen. I don't mind if the film changes a few things as long as they're necessary changes or even make the story better.

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