The Sword and Laser discussion

Ok, that is not true most of the time. Fine, I give it, I made a tabloid-esque headline there.

But sometimes, we do see a movie that, for one reason or another, we enjoy more than the book. Maybe there is some great acting by an actor you admire (Leonard Nimoy - Brave New World), or maybe you found the book to be so bad, but so bad, that even a crappy TV series is better, in the sense that 1/10 is a better rating than 0/10 (The Vampire Diaries).

Of course, those are very personal examples, and it mostly comes down to taste. I loved some books everyone else I know hated, and I hated some books everyone around he loved. It happens. There is no accounting for taste. However, as a rule of thumb, even great movies, the book is still better (The Name of the Rose).

What about you, my fellow S&L friends? Did you ever experience it? Have you ever watched a movie you enjoyed more then the book? Why?

The only movie that I can think of that's been better than the book (for me) was The Princess Bride. Don't get me wrong, the book is fantastic, but the balance of comedy and romance from Goldman's screenplay, along with the unforgettable acting by all involved moves the movie up a notch.

There's another thread for this topic here, I'll find link when not on phone.

With me, it only tends to apply when I dislike the book - as with Interview with the Vampire (I just can't stand the writing style), or (and I know this will be controversial) Starship Troopers, where the movie made fun of the book's politics. (I love a lot of Heinlein's work, but loathe some of it; Troopers is in the middle, enjoyable but far from great, and very problematic)

I haven't found this very much in movies, but in TV, there's a few series that I liked as much, if not more than, the books.

Dexter, True Blood (taking a wildly different path), Dresden Files, Game of Thrones.

I haven't seen Walking Dead, but I've heard many good things about it.

Miklos wrote: "Maybe, I'll be alone with this but The Hobbit is better in film, so far."

Yes. I enjoyed the film more than the book. But I think they use the book as a very loose outline. I didn't enjoy the book as much as a lot of people.

I also enjoyed The Princess Bride movie much more than the book but I saw it many times over several years before I read the book. The same is true of the Wizard of Oz for me. It may be that, like with music, whatever you see or hear first is the standard in your head against which everything else gets compared.

Phil wrote: "The same is true of the Wizard of Oz for me."

Judy Garland singing "Somewhere over the rainbow" is probably impossible to beat by a book. Good call there.

Jaws is way better than the book.

The Walking Dead is WAAAAAY better than the book.

I honestly can't think of anything. Maybe Blade Runner has a bit of an edge over "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." But mostly it comes down to it changed it so much it was hardly the same.

L.S. wrote: "I honestly can't think of anything. Maybe Blade Runner has a bit of an edge over "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." But mostly it comes down to it changed it so much it was hardly the same."

I have to agree with you on that one. It can barely be considered a related story.

There are a lot of films based on books that most people don't realize. Generally, the books aren't that great and are quickly forgotten. I have a theory that it's not hard to make a decent, even great film from a bad or mediocre book, while it's difficult to make a good film from a great book (but not impossible).

The Godfather
Fight Club
The Shawshank Redemption
The 39 Steps
Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, adapted as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Psycho
Nothing Lasts Forever, adapted as Die Hard
58 Minutes, adapted as Die Hard 2
Red Alert, adapted as Dr. Strangelove
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days: The Universal Don't of Dating
Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence, adapted as Mean Girls
Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, adapted as The Secret of NIMH
King's Ransom, adapted as High and Low (Tengoku to jigoku)
Shrek!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - I wouldn't say this of the other Potter books, but the last volume felt kind of flat, while the films actually made the final conflict seem as epic and important as it was.
The Fellowship of the Ring - Sorry, Tolkienites. I really do think the first film of the trilogy was better at establishing the tone of dread, horror, and urgency of the beginning of the epic than the book's occasional meandering, and the characters were much more vivid. That said, the books reclaim their place with the next installments, as too many comic relief moments and political commentaries detract from Tolkien's timeless themes.

Most of the Bond novels. Some are still good--Casino Royale holds up fairly well (I was amazed how faithful the Craig film is to the book). The racism and misogyny in most of them is really hard to swallow though, even accounting for their age. And really, between the hip, swinging fun of the Connery films and the far better drama and writing of later espionage authors like John le Carré, the Fleming novels' attempt at seriousness generally seems silly.

Trike wrote: "The Walking Dead is WAAAAAY better than the book."

You might be the first person I've seen with that opinion.

I personally don't have an opinion on that one--I've only read the comics up to the story arc with the prison, and I barely remember them. And I've never seen the show. The video game is pretty good though.

Joe wrote: "Trike wrote: "The Walking Dead is WAAAAAY better than the book."

You might be the first person I've seen with that opinion.

I personally don't have an opinion on that one--I've only read the com..."

I just read the first collection last week. Kirkman is just not good at writing characters or scenes with characters in them. In his comics the idea and plot trump everything else.

Joe wrote: "There are a lot of films based on books that most people don't realize. Generally, the books aren't that great and are quickly forgotten. I have a theory that it's not hard to make a decent, even great film from a bad or mediocre book"

I certainly agree with a certain 'type' of book - a good example are bog-standard thrillers that are nothing but plot (James Patterson, for example; I quite like the two films with Morgan Freeman, not seen the latest although it's supposed to be dire).

You'll get a lot of arguments on your list! I can't agree with Fight Club, Shawshank or 39 Steps - they're all great films and I love the books. I confess you have a point of Fellowship, though, much as I love LotR. After the strong start it's a bit of a drag between the Barrow Downs until almost the end.

Hmmmm, I liked your list, and agree with you on the ones I've read. But, no Tom Bombadil? No farmer Maggot? Bill Ferny?

I think they did a good job on adapting the novel. Not all things that work in books work on film. But, that being said, the book is a much richer experience.

The general rule of thumb has long been, "Good book, bad movie; bad book, good movie." It's not strictly true, of course, but it works for most adaptations.

I know this is heretical among geekdom, but I don't like the LotR movies. I'm not a huge fan of the books (I read them once when I was 14), but man those movies are just eye-rollingly awful on the story level. If I were Aragorn and tasked with saving the entire world, I would've slit the throats of Merry and Pippin on day two and blamed it on orcs.

There are thousands of movies and TV series based on books and short stories, so it becomes tiresome to list them all. (Just go to IMDB and search on "based-on-book" to get a taste of how many there are.)

Restricting ourselves just to the SF/F genre, films I like better than their books:

A Boy and his Dog
The Boys from Brazil
Captain America
A Clockwork Orange
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
The Crow
Game of Thrones
Iron Man
Limitless
Solaris (2002)
Village of the Damned (1960)
The Walking Dead

Movies that managed to be just as good as their good source material:

Colossus: The Forbin Project
Field of Dreams
Memoirs of an Invisible Man
The Secret of NIMH
The Secret of Roan Inish
The Shining (1980)
Surrogates

Trike wrote: "The general rule of thumb has long been, "Good book, bad movie; bad book, good movie." It's not strictly true, of course, but it works for most adaptations.

I know this is heretical among geekdom,..."

The Shining? No way, the movie destroyed the soul of the book, completely missed the point. Killed the hero of the book, missed the humanity of the father at the end, knowing he's damned but fighting to save his family.

There is a reason that SK complained loudly and often about how badly Kubrick ruined his story. In fact, Kubrick sold the rights back to SK for a paltry sum on the condition that SK quit criticizing Kubrick and his film.

Jack Nicholson was masterful, but, good acting still doesn't change that Kubrick ruined a great story.

Respectfully disagree

The problem with Stephen King's writing is that once you strip away the prose you're left with a cliched -- and often swiped -- plot and characters. So you have to substitute something equally powerful cinematically to compensate for that loss. Kubrick was able to do that. He found the essence of the story, that of outside forces working their way through the cracks of a man's spirit, which I don't think King realizes because he's too caught up in the autobiographical aspect of it being a metaphor for "the demon alcohol."

By toning down the over-the-top supernatural aspect, Kubrick manages to make the story creepier. Is Jack Torrance insane and everything we see simply a delusion? Does he even exist? Was he evil at his core and finally found a home at the Overlook?

The book is unambiguous on these points, and while it is scary as hell (which is why I still consider it good), it plays out the exact same good versus evil story King later told in The Stand. Good triumphs over evil, there's a big explosion, the end. The movie version is far more insidious, getting under your skin and intimating that evil is lurking out there in plain sight, ready to snatch the weak and unwary.

It's a different kind of scary, but it works far better in film than a straight point-by-point rendition of the book's plot would.

In that regard I find it similar to another good adaptation of King's work, Rob Reiner's Misery. Reiner and William Goldman changed just enough to make the movie more powerful without going over the top. Breaking the ankles rather than chopping off his feet is a superb choice, because you can't rely on the inner voice King supplies so you have to *see* that there's still hope for escape.

That's the sort of thing Kubrick did for The Shining. It's not like Starship Troopers where Verhoeven discarded the book's premise to make his own space marines movie; Kubrick drilled down to find the soul of the book, by necessity simplifying certain aspects in order to balance the story and horror.

Trike wrote: "The problem with Stephen King's writing is that once you strip away the prose you're left with a cliched -- and often swiped -- plot and characters. So you have to substitute something equally powe..."

Nice analysis, and I would agree that King often has the same theme, good vs evil, evil takes a toll on good, but good ultimately wins. But, that's who and what he is as an author.

But I have to respectfully disagree that Kubrick got it right. How can he have gotten the soul of the book when he changes he message? Kubrick made a very good slasher move. If you like the darker message that Kubrick sent, that's cool. But you can't say he got the soul of the book when the author hated what he did.

Kubrick did justice to many parts of the book. But, if you hadn't read the book, the movie would make very little sense. The party goers, the history behind the Overlook, how the hotel itself is evil, you only understand that if you read the book first. Kubrick wanted to tell his story. Not Kings. Which, again, f you liked it better, that's your prerogative. However, it's not the same story. Similar characters, similar locale, similar characteristics, but by changing the outcome, killing the hero, he changed completely the message. And since he paid King for the rights, he had the right to do so. I thought he ruined the story the second jack kills Halloran. That wasn't creepy. That was slasher.

And I agree w/ Reiner being the best adapter of Kings books. So perhaps, there are just going to be people who love kubricks version, and those like me, who hated what he did to one of their favorite books. And by the way, the Stand doesn't end quite like the shining. Remember, Randal Flagg is walking onto the beach in what sounds like South America, plotting all over again.

Kubrick's movie was okay but it was far removed from the much superior book. The book is the first book I can ever remember getting scared by (I was in my teens)and worried something was going to jump out and get me even though it was about noon.

The one that comes to mind for me is Dexter where the TV is far far superior to the books.

For those who haven't read the books only the first book bears any resemblance to the TV series. The first season and first book are extremely close with two major differences right at the end of the book: (view spoiler)[ La Guerta dies while trying arrest Brian and Dexter and Debra finds out then and there about Dexter being a serial killer. The TV series got there finally but it took them seven seasons instead of just one (hide spoiler)]. After that though the TV series took its own path and while there is occasionally a hint of of something in the series that was slightly based off something from the book there is no similarity otherwise.

The books aren't bad (except for the third which is horrible for what it does to the mythology of Dexter: (view spoiler)[ the dark passenger is part of a demonic alien race that came to Earth to possess creatures and make them kill each other (hide spoiler)]) but they are darker and far more centered on Dexter than the series. In the books the only characters who get any page time are Dexter, Rita, Cody, Astor, and Debra. Hardly anyone else exists and you might tops see Bautista or Masuka on one or two pages and they might not even have a line.

Dexter on TV is also a lot more of a sympathetic anti-hero than in the books. I can't really explain why without using mild spoilers from the books - these aren't really plot spoilers but do spoil certain themes in the books (view spoiler)[For instance Dexter is training Cody and Astor to be little serial killers like himself. He also clearly is just using Rita as his beard whereas in the TV series you could tell he did care for her. (hide spoiler)]

Joe wrote: "There are a lot of films based on books that most people don't realize. Generally, the books aren't that great and are quickly forgotten. I have a theory that it's not hard to make a decent, even g..."

I never knew Dr. Strangelove, Die Hard or Die Hard 2 or Who Framed Roger Rabbit? were first books. Thanks for the information.

Thomas wrote: "But I have to respectfully disagree that Kubrick got it right. How can he have gotten the soul of the book when he changes he message? Kubrick made a very good slasher move. If you like the darker message that Kubrick sent, that's cool. But you can't say he got the soul of the book when the author hated what he did."

I do agree that killing Halloran was unnecessary for the story, but it might have been important to seal Torrance's fate. I haven't seen the movie in decades so I'd have to refresh my memory on that.

After I posted I looked up King's reaction (note to self: do research *before* extemporaneous screeds) and he's actually come around to liking Kubrick's vision. I maintain he was too close to the personal nature of the story to see it for it was back then.

One humorous factoid turned up: Kubrick sold the rights back to King for a cheap price on the condition King would agree to stop bad-mouthing the movie. I watched the version King made a few years ago but got bored at the halfway point because it was so lifeless.

I've long said that King is nearly impossible to translate into film because you lose the one thing he's good at. It's kind of like writing about Jackie Chan -- you simply can not adequately convey the brilliance of what he does on the page. Certain things simply belong in certain mediums and resist translating. For me, that's the problem with Watchmen. No matter how accurate or detailed an adaptation you make, you lose an entire layer of meaning once you take it out of the comic book format. Watchmen is a superhero comic that deconstructs superhero comics. Making it into a movie destroys its reason for existence, and simply substituting the filmic version of that deconstruction doesn't work because it's been done too many times before.

Kevin wrote: "Joe wrote: "I never knew Dr. Strangelove, Die Hard or Die Hard 2 or Who Framed Roger Rabbit? were first books. Thanks for the information."

Even better: The book that was the basis for Die Hard 2 was completely unrelated to the book that was the basis for Die Hard -- they basically just found an action novel and changed the name of the main character to John McClane.

And don't forget First Blood by David Morrell. Interestingly, I think Morrell wrote "novelizations" of the second and third movies.

Joseph wrote: "Even better: The book that was the basis for Die Hard 2 was completely unrelated to the book that was the basis for Die Hard -- they basically just found an action novel and changed the name of the main character to John McClane."

I find it amusing that none of the stories for the first four Die Hards were originally conceived as Die Hard stories. The third and fourth films were unrelated screenplays kicking around Hollywood until the main characters were replaced with John McClane. It looks like the upcoming 5th movie will be the first Die Hard film actually written to be a Die Hard film.

I knew there was another thread for this: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3...

I haven't red Red Alert, but it's hard to imagine anything could top the performances of Peter Sellars, George C. Scott and Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove.

terpkristin wrote: "I knew there was another thread for this: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3..."

nice digging skills.

terpkristin wrote: "I knew there was another thread for this: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3..."

It won't matter. People have migrated to this new thread. Happens all the time in groups this large.

People just don't read the stuff that came before and assume they have come up with an entirely new idea.

Tina wrote: "I haven't red Red Alert, but it's hard to imagine anything could top the performances of Peter Sellars, George C. Scott and Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove."

It's very different, in that Red Alert is deadly serious, while Dr. Strangelove is a black comedy satire. Strangelove's relationship to Red Alert is almost the same as the Starship Troopers' film is to Heinlein's novel.

Interestingly, there was another novel with a premise similar to Red Alert, Fail Safe, so much so it triggered a lawsuit. That book was also made into a film, which came out a few months after Strangelove, and flopped. After Kubrick's satirical take on the subject matter, apparently no one could take it seriously. A shame, too, Fail-Safe is one of the best Cold War thrillers, with a lot of tension and great performances from Henry Fonda and Walter Matthau.

I liked the movie Fail Safe. Haven't read the book, though.

A great actor can make all the difference. For example, Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman in Die Hard. Kirk Douglas in Spartacus (the movie! I actually liked the book but the movie is a classic and beautifully done). Bogart and Hepburn in The African Queen. (Actually, Bogart in just about anything).

Let's see: I prefer the LOTR movies to the books, The Secret of NIMH to the book, and many others. Though book versions tend to be stronger than their adaptations, it doesn't shock me when I come across a movie that beats its predecessor.

Another: The Prestige. Movie is much better.

The Shining - books ending was very weak whereas the movie's was far better.

Misery - i preferred the movie, Kathy Bates was tremendous.

Jaws - in the book the only character i cared about was the shark. I didnt really like the Mrs Brody sleeping about parts in the book.

No Country for Old Men - great book even better movie.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers - 70s remake with Donald Sutherland was exceptional.

The Godfather - good book exceptional movie.

The Maltese Falcon - another very good book but i loved the bogart movie.

The Exorcist - i find i like them equally.. a great book and a truelly frightening movie at the time.

Starship Troopers - i know i will take a pounding for this but i totally love the movie but i like the book. I feel the movie is a bit more fun... maybe one of my guilty choices :)

Let The Right One In - the foreign version was simply excellent.. i didnt enjoy some of the peado parts in the book.

Rambo - l like the book but the movie's ending was a lot better

The Sword in the Stone - my son and i like the animation but i cannot stand or even managed to finish the book.

Who Goes There - not so good short story, magnificent movie by John Carpenter

There's just one movie I can think of that was better than a book I've read - Chocolat

The only one I can think of is The Godfather.

I'm surprised no one has opined that books and movies are entirely different beasts. Hardly any direct transcription from book to movie works like it should. Just take a gander at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Charming book, flat, uninspired movie, but only, I think, because the movie tried to be the book on screen.

Similarly, Lord of the Rings, the book, could not possibly exist on screen as written. It would never have worked for anyone who didn't worship the original text, and would have been 40 hours long on top of that. I love the book (except I hate Tom Bombadil; I always get bogged down there, and plan to skip it on my next read-through), but it just doesn't work as a screenplay template.

I think it is rare for a written story to be the same as the movie, and even then, casting, budget, special effects, setting, directorial interpretation... all these things make books and movies so different that, in my opinion, they cannot be directly compared. The only thing I can do is to say that "Book A" is masterfully written and a joy to read, and "Movie A," based on the book, is masterfully filmed, directed, cast, and otherwise put together, and a joy to watch. I can say that the plot was the same, that the dialogue was witty in both mediums (though words that I love on the page sometimes fall flat on the ear).

Movies and books work with entirely different mediums, though cinematography may have influenced what readers imagine, and so the only way for them to be directly comparable is if they project the words of the book, in silence.

The book Braveheart by Randall Wallace was almost exactly like the movie. But of course in the movie you have Mel Gibson in a kilt :)

Tina wrote: "The book Braveheart by Randall Wallace was almost exactly like the movie. But of course in the movie you have Mel Gibson in a kilt :)"

you mean a complete work of fiction? as a scot im embarrassed by that movie.

So what did you think of the book's costuming? How about the makeup and special effects (injuries from battle and other make believe)? Did you enjoy the jacket cover of the movie? How well did the spine of the movie hold up to viewing? What did you think of Gibson's performance of the author's acknowledgements and dedication?

And the smart ass award goes to...

Pickle wrote: "Tina wrote: "The book Braveheart by Randall Wallace was almost exactly like the movie. But of course in the movie you have Mel Gibson in a kilt :)"

you mean a complete work of fiction? as a scot i..."

I'm a Scot and I liked the movie :)

Robert wrote: "So what did you think of the book's costuming? How about the makeup and special effects (injuries from battle and other make believe)? Did you enjoy the jacket cover of the movie? How well did the ..."

Of course with a book you have to use your imagination :)

Planet of the Apes. Heston version of course. Even though the Boulle book was pretty good, I had a hard time plodding through it.

Keith wrote: "greed. Rod Serling took a good idea and made it a GREAT idea. The book was really a socio-political allegory, like Gulliver's Travels, and didn't make much sense story-wise. And it didn't need to, that wasn't the point. Serling's genius was in seeing how one simple change to the ending would wrap it all up and make for a hell of a reveal. Yeah, great movie."

Serling's version is still allegory, he just changed the politics and location and added a different twist ending. What planet did Taylor think he was on? Humans running around being chased by apes who spoke English and had Roman names?

Humorous aside: Some years ago on Usenet a guy remarked that when he was lined up to see PotA he looked at the poster and groaned aloud at seeing Serling's name. And that's because, he said, Serling only has three endings: That Really Was The Devil, He Was Already Dead and They Were On Earth The Whole Time.

That isn't entirely accurate, but it's also not too far from the truth. Back in '68 audiences were a lot closer to Serling's storytelling, since his shows were still on the air and they had grown up with his stuff.

Roald wrote the screen play? That's interesting, my kid was watching the original and asked a question about the cast, googled and then explored. In my explorations I found where he disliked the film immensely, of course that doesn't mean he didn't do the screen play, just means he didn't like what the director and actors did w/ his words. He was a very interesting cat, ww2 fighter ace, was married to actress Patricia Neal for 30 yrs but was a notorious womanizer, wrote in a gypsy wagon located on his estate in England.

The Lord of the Rings, for me, for pretty much the same reason Veronica gave in today's YouTube episode about Jurassic Park. (That's another one for me, I agree completely, V.)

I love the LoTR books, but I have a lot of difficulty reading them. I'm generally a pretty fast reader, but have never finished the trilogy in less than a year's time, and it sometimes takes 3 years. The movies take all the best parts of the books, eliminate the slow parts, and tell a nicely cohesive and interesting version of the story.

I remember seeing the movie The Power of One and thinking to myself that it was a great movie. I recommended it to my friends and it immediately was on my favorite movie list. As soon as I heard it was a book I read it.

Never has my opinion of a movie dropped so much in just a moment. The movie changed so much of the story to make it work as a movie. I felt betrayed by the movie that I had such a high opinion of before.

It was at this point that I realized that I need to completely separate my opinion of a movie from the book is based on. If I don't I won't be able to appreciate the entertainment value of whichever medium I am using at the moment.

Logan's Run for me is the best example of a Movie being better than a book. One could argue that the film is so different as to almost be a case of "apples to Oranges" but I don't think so...because if that's your argument then you should really not compare ANY book to ANY film based on it.

James wrote: "Logan's Run for me is the best example of a Movie being better than a book. One could argue that the film is so different as to almost be a case of "apples to Oranges" but I don't think so...becau..."

Logan's Run is a movie I always wanted to like but never really did. I like parts of it. Then I found the book. What a crazy, over-the-top pulpy adrenaline rush it is. So much better than the movie. I love that the chapters count down from 10 to 1.

Similarly, I prefer the book Damnation Alley over the movie. Except for the Landmaster. The movie truck is better. Otherwise, though, the movie doesn't match the gritty nature of Zelazny's novel.