Books to movies - how do they compare?

[Liza]

I gotta admit, as an English student with my major in Film Studies - I am always having this debate. I love it when they adapt great books into movies, but when they change too much, I hate it. I can only really think of one movie (Forrest Gump) that was actually better than the original book, but there are probably many more that I'm just blanking out on. Some of the books that I think were better than the movies are: Alice in Wonderland, The Shining, The Wizard of Oz, The Little Mermaid, Persuasion, Rebecca, and Northanger Abbey. Any others?

[Liza]

I just thought of another movie that topped the book - Breakfast at Tiffany's

[Brian]

I have read over seven or eight Stephen King books. What follows are my brief critical analyses of the movies and books or novellas.


It

Book: Long but worth the reading. It took me months to finish but it was one of those books that will grab you and never let go until you finish the last page.

Movie: It was OK TV movie and it had a good cast (John Ritter, Harry Anderson, Tim Reid, Jonathan Brandis). Tim Curry is awesome as Pennywise the Clown. It's hard to believe it was him under all that makeup.

In total: I preferred the book. Unlike the movie, It's origin is told. You would have to read the book to understand the movie. There are a lot of things in the book that aren't in the movie and some of the storylines have been changed (for both legal and television censorship reasons.)

Cujo

Book: The first Stephen King book I ever read. I was surprised that it had a lot of adult stuff in it but then again, it is Stephen King here. Cool book. Worth reading. Probably not for the faint of heart for some people.

Movie: Now I haven't seen this movie in a long while. I didn't like Dee Wallace-Stone as Donna Trenton. She was not how I envisioned that character. The movie doesn't disappoint though. Danny Pintauro of TV's Who's the Boss plays the kid who is trapped with Trenton in the Pinto. That St. Bernard was creepy.

Total: I liked both pretty much the same. It doesn't matter to me which you should do first, read the book or see the movie, since there is not too much difference between the two.

Pet Sematary

Book: I loved this book. It was creepy and, like It, it hooked me until the very end. It's not one of King's best, though, but it is good.

Movie: I don't understand why Leonard Maltin hated this movie. He gave it a BOMB rating. I liked it a lot. It's not a 3 star movie, 2 1/2 stars at the most but I thought it certainly did not warrant a BOMB rating. I liked Fred Gwynne as Jud Crandall. I thought Denise Crosby (probably best known as Tasha Yar on Star Trek: TNG's first season) didn't fit my image of the wife.

Total: I saw the movie first, when I was in 7th grade on Halloween. If I saw it again today, I think my opinion on it wouldn't change. The book and movie are almost exactly alike in terms of plot and story. You shouldn't expect too much difference so, like Cujo, it doesn't matter (at least to me, anyway) whether you should read the book or watch the movie first.

The Body/Stand By Me

Novella: Of the four stories in the novel "Different Seasons", this one stood out. A great story about four teenagers going on a weekend trek to find a dead body. Great storytelling.

Movie: One of my favorite Rob Reiner-directed movies. Wil Wheaton, Corey Feldman, Jerry O'Connel, and the late River Phoenix fit the roles perfectly.

In total: It is hard to say which is better because both were done so well. There are a lot of differences in the book and movie (i.e. the part where Gordie goes to the deli). Either way, the book and the movie do not disappoint.

Children of the Corn

Novella: I made the mistake of watching the movie before reading the novella from "Night Shift". It wasn't so much the movie was bad (it was an enjoyable movie for its genre) but the movie is more understandable and comprehensible when viewed after reading the novella. The novella explains EVERYTHING.

Movie: I liked the movie. I think it is a little underrated. Like I said above, the movie is hard to understand without reading the novella beforehand.

In total: I suggest - actually, I strongly suggest - that you read the book before you watch the movie. The movie isn't too bad but in order to understand what is going on, read the novella.

Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption/The Shawshank Redemption

Novella: Great novella from "Different Seasons." That's all there is to it.

Movie: The movie, in my opinon, was better than the novel. Not too much was changed and that is good. Frank Darabont couldn't have made a better adaptation. The ending is better, too.

In total: I think both versions are great and it should be no surprise that it is the #2 ranked movie on the IMDB according to viewer votes.



More book to movie adaptation analyses to come.

[I am Him]

Books and movies are to different mediums.

What works in one does not nessessarily work in the other. It is often nessessary to change things when doing a film adaptation of a novel in order to make the film more enjoyable.

Of course there are also instances where the changes made leave you wondering what the hell they were thinking.

[vashti1999]

I think I liked the books for both Christine and The Firm more than I liked the movies. The Outsiders: I liked the book and movie about evenly.

[webuster]

I think movie adaptations often get critiscized too harshly. It's very hard sometimes to make everything in the book known, on film. In saying that, I believe some films are just bad- and it was probably laziness that led to the bad adaptations. some books, like The Stepford Wives- are books that are impossible to make 100% faithfully into a movie, and keep it interesting. It's a story creative license had to be taken in.

Carrie: I don't think the original was anywhere near as good as the book. I loved the remake- except for the ending. It was so faithful to the book, I love the book Carrie.

Willy Wonka: Movie and book shouldn't be compared, considering the movie is a musical, and the book is not. But in the film, I'd like to have seen square sweets that look round. I think it was a good idea using geese instead of squirrels in the movie too.

I've never read 'The Ring'- but I've heard the book is very different to the american film adaptation.

In Lord of the Rings- I was really annoyed Tom Bombadil wasn't in the film. I can't think whod' play him- then again while reading the book it's hard to imagine anyone playing the characters. But Bombadil was such a fun character in the book- and the descriptions of his house, and his wife (I think she was called goldberry) were great- they'd have made the film more magical.

[Janice]

Two examples that come to my mind are, The Bridges of Madison County and Angela's Ashes. I enjoyed both the books and the movies a great deal.

We get inside the character's mind more with books, but I'm a movie person, so I usually prefer the movie.

I also loved Stephen King's book and the movie, Cujo. They ended differently, but I think they realized that the intensely sad ending in the book wouldn't play well to the mainstream audience.

[Short Circus]

James Patterson's book "Kiss the Girls" was excellent but the movie flopped. "Flowers in the Attic" by V.C. Andrews is another book whose movie version, although I still enjoyed it, could not live up to the book itself.

[TJL]

A couple of years ago I finally got to read "The Godfather" by Mario Puzo, and I think the films are better than the book.

Coppola and Puzo did a great job of fleshing out and already great book for the big screen.

[HuntingtonM15]

Originally posted by Brian
I didn't like Dee Wallace-Stone as Donna Trenton. She was not how I envisioned that character.

I haven't read the book, but I thought her acting was pretty good. Not that this matters, but she's also a very nice person.

[webuster]

"Flowers in the Attic" by V.C. Andrews is another book whose movie version, although I still enjoyed it, could not live up to the book itself.

I've never read the book- but was there a sequel or something to flowers in the attic wrote? Or are V.C. Andrews books similar? I have seen the movie Flowers in the Attic quite a few times now- it's addictive, and great, I was shocked by the ending the first time I watched it. That evil grandmither reminded me of a teacher in my old school.

[Short Circus]

Originally posted by webuster
I've never read the book- but was there a sequel or something to flowers in the attic wrote? Or are V.C. Andrews books similar? I have seen the movie Flowers in the Attic quite a few times now- it's addictive, and great, I was shocked by the ending the first time I watched it. That evil grandmither reminded me of a teacher in my old school.

I enjoyed the movie too and own the DVD but I remember being rocked to shivers by the books the first time I ever read them. The Flowers in the Attic was a 5-book series:

1) Flowers in the Attic
2) Petals on the Wind
3) If There Be Thorns
4) Seeds of Yesterday

and then there's Garden of Shadows. Garden of Shadows is a special book because it can be read either first or last and still make sense since it is the grandmother's story. If read first, you can then have full understanding of the grandmother's history while reading the rest of the books which detail how horrible she was to the family. Or if you read it last, like I did, it is fascinating to learn about her past already knowing what horrors she's capable of later.

Any library should most likely have all 5 books. You won't be disappointed by them

[Liza]

Originally posted by Short Circus
I enjoyed the movie too and own the DVD but I remember being rocked to shivers by the books the first time I ever read them. The Flowers in the Attic was a 5-book series:

1) Flowers in the Attic
2) Petals on the Wind
3) If There Be Thorns
4) Seeds of Yesterday

and then there's Garden of Shadows. Garden of Shadows is a special book because it can be read either first or last and still make sense since it is the grandmother's story. If read first, you can then have full understanding of the grandmother's history while reading the rest of the books which detail how horrible she was to the family. Or if you read it last, like I did, it is fascinating to learn about her past already knowing what horrors she's capable of later.

Any library should most likely have all 5 books. You won't be disappointed by them

Hey, thanks for the info. That's a series I was thinking of reading, now I definately will

[Brian]

Originally posted by HuntingtonM15
I haven't read the book, but I thought her acting was pretty good. Not that this matters, but she's also a very nice person.

Her acting was good but I didn't think she was the Donna Trenton I read in the novel. It's one of those feelings that is hard for me to explain.

[Mijada]

Originally posted by Liza
Hey, thanks for the info. That's a series I was thinking of reading, now I definately will

That is a great series! Don't even bother seeing the Flowers in The Attic movie. It sucked. They left out way too much stuff.