Comments on: Culture Warrior: The Book Was Better…

By: filmvisuality

filmvisuality — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:59:11 +0000

The only film I've seen that beats the book is Thank You For Smoking. Extremely clever and funny book, but the film takes the best parts of the book and makes them brilliant.

By: Reebee7

Reebee7 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:29:34 +0000

A good article.

Unfortunately, many contemporary novels are written with screen plays in mind, which really detracts from them, I feel.

It's true, I have rarely enjoyed a movie more than the book it was based on. Perhaps Lord of the Rings is the only real example (blasphemous I know). But I think that whichever comes first has the advantage. That is, there are novel adaptions to movies but I doubt they are ever as good. The original story is conceived for a specific medium, and it can do things to support that story that are specific to that medium. Once it makes the transition, those supports are lost. Sure, sometimes others are built, but it takes a lot of creativity to find supports in the new medium that hold up the old story like the original ones did.

By: Reebee7

Reebee7 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:29:00 +0000

A good article.

Unfortunately, many contemporary novels are written with screen plays in mind, which really detracts from them, I feel.

By: Jeff Hall

Jeff Hall — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:50:36 +0000

Landon – Great article, I've been saying this same thing for years. You cannot slavishly adapt a book into a film. In film, you have 90 minutes. (Or, 2 hours these days.) and in a book you have as many pages as you want.

To steal from and paraphrash Brain Wilson, "You can never create on the screen the images I see in my head."

Movies can be great, and oft times add to a book in ways I would never have dreamed. Book do the same thing but the difference is that only I can see the movie playing in my head when I read a book.

By: djjeffhall

djjeffhall — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:50:00 +0000

To steal from and paraphrash Brain Wilson, "You can never create on the screen the images I see in my head."

Movies can be great, and oft times add to a book in ways I would never have dreamed. Book do the same thing but the difference is that only I can see the movie playing in my head when I read a book.

By: nicky_cavella

nicky_cavella — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:59:04 +0000

cept for JAWS, the movie was waaay better than the novel. and that is a FACT :D

By: nicky_cavella

nicky_cavella — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:59:00 +0000

cept for JAWS, the movie was waaay better than the novel. and that is a FACT :D

By: Voltron

Voltron — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:42:02 +0000

what if i were to say "the comic was better"? for example, how do you mess up or completely change whats already drawn out, in picture and color, whats already established, (Deadpool in the Wolverine Movie, or the 3rd X-men and Spidey movies, and Daredevil and Elektra movies)?

By: Voltron

Voltron — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:42:00 +0000

By: Bethany P

Bethany P — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:16:40 +0000

thumbs up.

By: Bethany P

Bethany P — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:16:00 +0000

thumbs up.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:54:12 +0000

Most books are better than the films being that they can portray the characters much better than the actors who try and portray the part.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:54:00 +0000

Most books are better than the films being that they can portray the characters much better than the actors who try and portray the part.

By: nicky_cavella

nicky_cavella — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:01:26 +0000

when it comes to novel and film JAWS was waaaaay better than the novel

By: nicky_cavella

nicky_cavella — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:01:00 +0000

when it comes to novel and film JAWS was waaaaay better than the novel

By: Joanna

Joanna — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:07 +0000

I've often found that adaptations of Jane Austen novels cause near revolts by Jane "purists", or Janeites. As a fan of her work myself, I often find that adaptations of her novels fail to present the depth and universality of her works. That said, one of my favorite adaptations is the Emma Thompson-Hugh Grant film of Sense & Sensibility–which has a distinctly feminist bent not originally present (at least to this extreme) in the book. I find that, indeed, my desires as a film viewer and book reader have to be reconciled, but I'm willing to give the director some leeway if what he's done to the book is interesting and not just merely to 'sensationalize.' I think as a reader you're willing to forgive some changes, but not others.

By: Joanna

Joanna — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:11:00 +0000

By: JMoney

JMoney — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:28:20 +0000

I used to be one of those people who got angry when something was changed from book to film. But then I came to realize, like you say in your article, that they are two very different mediums and what works with one doesn't necessarily work with the other. So I've come to accept when a movie differs from a book. But what still angers me is when things are changed for no good reason. Like a director/screenwriter changes something just for the sake of changing it, to "make it his own" or whatever. The Da Vinci Code for example, the ending, the changes they made to who Sophie was and her family were unnecessary, the novel's ending would have worked just as well.

By: JMoney

JMoney — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:28:00 +0000

By: Rob_Hunter

Rob_Hunter — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:26:47 +0000

Stephen King tells an anecdote of fans coming up to him at signings and complaining that certain film adaptations have ruined his books. He walks them over to his section of the bookstore, points at his rows of titles, and says "Nope, they look just fine to me."