The Book Is Better Than The Movie

[Trike]

Comparison of ratings shows that people prefer the book over its movie adaptation 74% of the time.

http://www.vocativ.com/news/245040/th...

Which pretty much aligns with the rule of thumb that says, "Good book, bad movie; bad book, good movie," something that frequently holds true in my experience.

[Gaines]

I agree, generally. But now and then you see a movie that actually does certain scenes even more artfully than the author of the book actually did :-) Plus, words and images are so completely different, and both can accomplish awesomeness when sufficient imagination is applied.

[Trike]

"Sufficient imagination" is often what's lacking in adaptations.

You're absolutely right that it really does require an artful translation because the mediums are so different. The example I always use is from the Robert Townsend movie Tequila Sunrise: there is a five-second shot of a matchbook on a bar that conveys more about betrayal and trust than any five pages of dialogue ever could, but you have to build to that moment for it to land.

In a book the author is both limited and freed by description. They can literally tell you anything and it doesn't feel weird because it all reads the same. In a movie things like narration often come across as stilted because it fights with the visuals, so you have to find a way to communicate that same information visually. But as with that matchbook, you have to construct everything around it to make it work.

[Rick]

Not only are they different media, the book has hundreds of pages to convey the story, characterization, subplots, etc. A movie has 2 hours and can't do things like internal monologues, etc.

I think the books that translate best have one real plot line and focus on a handful of characters. Clancy's Red October translated really well because it's that way - the story is of a Soviet captain who steals an advanced sub and is trying to get it to the US. There are really three settings - the sub, the chase and the US people who are trying to figure out what's up (is this an attack or is it a defection?).

it's also dependent on the director wanting to respect the book. Verhoeven's Starship Troopers wasn't anything like the book (which he didnt even read) so he basically used it to make a movie on war that he wanted to make. To me, that's a violation of the implicit trust between the movie and the people who liked the book. But, it happens.

[Paul]

I don't think it's a truism that "Good book, bad movie; bad book, good movie," - probably just more of a case of reversion to the mean. I'd usually say that 95% of the time the book is better than the film, but I tend to think of it in terms of books I like, so that probably skews it.

[Trike]

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "I don't think it's a truism that "Good book, bad movie; bad book, good movie," - probably just more of a case of reversion to the mean. I'd usually say that 95% of the time the book is better than ..."

There's also "bad book, bad movie." Carl Sagan's Contact comes to mind. Or Twilight. Some things you can't polish.

[Trike]

Rick wrote: "Not only are they different media, the book has hundreds of pages to convey the story, characterization, subplots, etc. A movie has 2 hours and can't do things like internal monologues, etc."

Internal monologues and narration CAN be done well (Fight Club, Jane the Virgin), but the vast majority of the time they're used as shortcuts rather than essential building blocks of the film.

Music and sound effects are huge assists that books don't get. Can you even imagine Jaws without the music? That's a classic "bad book, good movie" example, as is The Godfather. In both cases the music is as much a character as any of the actors and in Jaws is actually integral to the story.

[Rik]

The Shining by Stephen King is a far better book than movie. The movie is just two hours of Jack Nicholson acting crazy and while he does crazy very well you need more than that to have a good movie.

Meanwhile the movie (TV miniseries) of It is far better than the book simply because the movie doesn't have the utterly creepy and pervy young teen gangbang scene in it.