Vendredi-is-Friday

Hello.

After posting on another thread dealing with books and subsequent movies based on those books, I thought about the few times in my life where I actually thought the movie was better then the book (or at least of comparable quality).

I am very much a Studio Ghibli fan, so I will have to use Howl's Moving Castle as my example. This movie was very loosely based on a book of the same name by Diana Wynne Jones.

Here is what the IMDB says about it:
(Hauru no ugoku shiro (2004) - FAQ)

Now the reason why I use this as an example is the fact that this movie does something that few film adaptions of books seem capalbe of. It "combines or discards characters and plot points as necessary." The movie becomes its own creative work. So many failed attempts at proper adaptions of books into movies I think either do not treat the original text with enough flexibility or they combine or discard characters and plot points whether it is necessary or not.

And then of course, certain films just select poor base material and so are doomed to fail, such as Earagon. No number of movie and video game contracts will save that wretched plot line. But I digress, this is supposed to be about good movies and books.

WriterDude

I think Jurassic Park fits into this category to a degree. The movie isn't better than the movie, but not worse either. It's just different. Several things were left out and some things taken from the second book, but the end result is pretty good.

And then there's The Crow, of course. I didn't like the comic book that much, but the movie is as good as they get.

__________________

Damien.

We have a lengthy thread on this somewhere.

__________________

Sam Winchester

Yes, we do, and the answer to the OP's question is: very few. Films rarely, if ever, match up to or better a novel.

One notable exception is The Bourne Ultimatum.

__________________

Perception of reality is not the same thing as reality itself.

Jocelyn

Almost always, a movie can't do a book justice, but does your answer to that question depend on whether you see the movie first or read the book first? That happens with me sometimes if I really enjoy a movie and then read the book, only to discover that the book is actually quite different.

P.S. I put The Notebook in this category.

Vendredi-is-Friday

As far as this topic goes, I think the main problem with it is that books and movies (and television for that matter) are different media forms. It is unfair, and problematic, to expect that you will have the same experience trying to cross the same material back and forth over media lines. For example, a book and a movie must use different methods to characterize due to the differences in the length of time of the narrative experience and the way the story reaches the imagination. You are able to see many things at once when dealing with images, and yet you may only read one letter at a time.

That is why I used Howls Moving Castle as my initial example. Howl's Moving Castle, the movie, took certain things from the book it was based upon, but kept in mind the fact that it was itself an animated movie, not a moving version of a book.

By the way:

I own The Notebook (the movie) and for some reason the plot of it is not coming to me just now. That shows how much I liked it I suppose.

And I am very sorry if I started a conversation we have already had before...

Sam Winchester

Don't worry about it. It happens all the time around here.

__________________

Perception of reality is not the same thing as reality itself.

lin

Done all the time, actually.

The two guys in "Bright Lights, Big City"? One of them is not in the book.

The Jack Nicholson role in "Terms of Endearment"? Mentioned only in passing in the book.

Sometimes this makes a movie better than the book ("Endearment" sure pleased people more than the McMurtry book) Sometimes it sucks (the other one)

A guy like Miyazaki is going to take ANY source material to new heights of wonder.

__________________

Vendredi-is-Friday

Yes. I suppose there is a certain requisite talent and skill to make any movie or book good or bad. And treating the source text with flexibility does not make for a good transition into movie form always.

lin

Actually, some flexibility is REQUIRED in ANY film adaptation. Movies just aren't long enough to get everything in.

__________________

Ghost.X

IMO some movies that follow the book too closely are boring. There was this one film adaption of The Lord of the Flies that's rather old. All it did is copy the book word for word, only leaving out a lot of the scenes and cutting them short. It was quite boring.

I think Memoirs of a Geisha is a great movie that does the novel justice. I'm not going to say either or are better because both are great works of their own. Anyone who has watched the movie or read the book first can still enjoy the other medium. I myself watched the movie first, and still found the book just as great. What the movie did was add a whole new set of images to the reading.

__________________

My Catch Phrases: ALIBIBIDAK! FISH'N'CHIPS! IT'SDAHBOOTIE! BOO! HIO CHANG!

SilkFX

My all-time favorite example of a movie that's better than the book: The Bridges of Madison County. The movie boils off most of the purple prose and gets down to the bones of the story, which is simply about the choices one makes and how one lives with them. I thought Clint Eastwood (as director) did a really good job with this.

__________________
you can't you can never be sure
you die without knowing
whether anything you wrote was any good
if you have to be sure don't write

Vendredi-is-Friday

I find that I enjoy reading Shakespeare well enough, and I enjoy going to actual plays of his (on stage with actors I could actually throw fruit at if I happened to have any and the acting was not to my liking). But following this same sentiment, I find many movie productions of his works to be wanting. What are especially clunky are those renditions set in modern times but they still use the original language.

But I have enjoyed a few where the movie is based on Shakespeare but not too closely. Also, I really enjoy House (the TV show) and I have heard that the show was based on Sherlock Holmes. That is a clever sort of flexibility.

Ghost.X

Sgakespeare is one of those things that you kind of expect to be played out exactly. But like you said, the other variations aren't too bad.

__________________

My Catch Phrases: ALIBIBIDAK! FISH'N'CHIPS! IT'SDAHBOOTIE! BOO! HIO CHANG!

froman

I'm not surprised about "Howl's". It is a wonderful film like all of Miyazaki's stuff. He is just a genius (I really can't say enough good things about him).

Anyway, movies that are better than the novels (I read the novels first in all cases):

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe (2005)
The book was just a fairy tale and I think the movie had a darker tone that I enjoyed.

No Country For Old Men
I liked the novel but it was written in such a spartan, script like style that the Coen bros. (who are also geniuses) had no problem turning it into a great film.

That's all I can think of right now.