A movie that is much better than the book is Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is ok, but the movie creates a visually stunning world. And Roy Batey's final soliloquy is one of my all-time favorite movie moments.
Lots of movies have been based on Dick's stories, and they're usually very good: Total Recall, Minority Report, among others. He came up with great ideas, but his books didn't usually fulfill them. I hope someone adapts Ubik one day.
I actually saw the film of The Children of Men before reading the book, which made the book’s radical differences from the film quite jarring. But I also found the book much more powerful. The dystopian elements, particularly people’s responses to the widespread infertility (such as grown women pushing prams with baby dolls in them), stuck vividly in my head. And the religious imagery was more interesting.
There are so many examples I could use, but I think the most poignant one for me was watching my daughter’s growing disappointment as she watched the movie Tale of Despereaux. She had LOVED the book. It was one of the first longer chapter books she read on her own, so she was initially thrilled to watch the movie. She was even excited for her younger siblings to enjoy a story she had enjoyed so much. She was APPALLED at the movie. I told her this was the beginning of a lifelong love-hate relationship with movies versus books.
Taking away Tan takes away the most chilling part of 'Children of Men' - the finale.
My rule of thumb is that the more I like a book, the less I will like its screen adaptation. I think certain genre authors adapt well to screen simply because of the limitations of their novels. For example, the queen of mystery, Agatha Christie. Plot outshines character building in her novels, leaving actors and directors free to fill in the characters. Also, Christie was a playwright herself, so her works seem to be written for adaptation.
The movie, The Shawshank Redemption, is a stunningly excellent film and I remember my jaw dropped on discovering that it was originally a novella written by master of horror, Stephen King. Could never make it through watching the entire movie, The Shining so I never read the book, but I may have to give that another try, too, after finding out that Stephen King abhorred Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation of his novel.
Excellent take, thanks. I love the movie Silver Linings Playbook. When went back much later and read the book, I found it fantastic but so different from the film in tone, character arc, and plot. Then there are (rare?) cases in which books are written after stage or screen, such as with Dear Evan Hansen. That book fills in gaps from the Broadway musical in ways that struck me as helpful at times but odd and unnecessary in others. Maybe I need a T-shirt that says “The Play Was Better.” 😀
Robert Ludlum's Bourne series comes to mind. I've reread the books several times: their exploration of identity, political undercurrents and the use of invisibility as weapon fascinate me. But I also love the movies and have watched them several times. They're telling a different story than the books are, retaining only a few names, and I find that I do not associate one tale with the other, but enjoy them bot
Like you, the Bourne movies came to mind for me as well. The movies are so well done, fast-paced, intense, exciting and innovative that whenever my husband and I find ourselves watching other action/drama films that followed them, we more frequently sigh audibly and wistfully say to each other, “They all want to be Bourne.” Which means, of course, they’re not. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, even when the imitators fall flat, I guess. But one other element the Bourne movies have that their followers don’t and can’t have, that makes them both so recognizable and so outstanding, is the amazing and highly original theme music, which I never tire of hearing. There are many other details that make the Bourne movie franchise a singular one, but I won’t keep going on & on. In sum, I’ll just say that I agree with you, wholeheartedly.
One great thing about movies is the pleasure of watching actors perform their craft and I have to add that I loved watching Clive Owen’s performances in the original Bourne film as well as in Children of Men. That man brings such intensity to his acting roles, he can send chills down my spine seeing him bring characters to life.
I agree that the book was better in nearly every case. The clearest exception that comes to mind is The Natural by Barry Levinson, which far surpassed the novel. To Kill a Mockingbird runs about even with the novel, but the film moves me to tears better than the novel.
Alfonso Cuarón’s adaptation of The Children of Men was agonizing. His redefinition of the Quietus was enough to ruin the film, but it was one of dozens of horrible choices. I find it amusing that a video interview thought the story was a warning against populism, which confirms my sense that the film thoroughly missed the merits of the novel.
I read the book after having seen the movie. I thought then—and still do—Cuaron’s version is more entertaining and thought provoking. Perhaps it’s because he’s a master director; the long takes of the forest attack and the final urban battle just make incredible cinema.
By comparison the books feels small. Self-contained. That’s not a bad thing, just different.
I enjoyed Julia and Julie, Meryl Streep is always great. However, when I read the book, a memoir, I found the author very unlikeable and self-absorbed, the movie was much better.
If there’s a movie I just cannot stand, it’s the putrid No Country For Old Men. IMO, it was wholly a waste of time, and airspace, for that matter. Ugh. Disgusting.
Not a film, but thought the television adaptation of station eleven was wonderful. Beautifully told, kept the spirit rather than the exact plot and injected the story with some additional haunting moments (liszt)
I totally agree about The Hobbit films (and I have endured all three). And they did heighten my sense of the considerable flaws in the LOTR movies too.
But the worst book to film adaptation of all time in my opinion is David Lynch’s ‘Dune’.
Artistic license, what book writers and screenwriters share yet through different mediums with different goals. Reading a book can fire the imagination of the reader with the wordsmithing, whereas we get the imagination of the screenwriter translated by the director and interpreted by the actors in stunning visuals requiring no imagination.
I was talking to the teens yesterday about how people used to get bent out of shape about the book vs the movie but that most people now understand it’s two different mediums using a set of ideas.
Apparently it’s still a thing Etsy!
I can’t remember much because it’s been years since I read or saw it but the book Farewell, My Lovely is a movie as Murder, My Sweet. The first sounds like a romance. The second sounds like what both are, a murder mystery. Less artsy sleight of hand but more sure tickets in hand.
A movie that is much better than the book is Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is ok, but the movie creates a visually stunning world. And Roy Batey's final soliloquy is one of my all-time favorite movie moments.
Lots of movies have been based on Dick's stories, and they're usually very good: Total Recall, Minority Report, among others. He came up with great ideas, but his books didn't usually fulfill them. I hope someone adapts Ubik one day.
Same with Dune with Timothée Chalamet
I actually saw the film of The Children of Men before reading the book, which made the book’s radical differences from the film quite jarring. But I also found the book much more powerful. The dystopian elements, particularly people’s responses to the widespread infertility (such as grown women pushing prams with baby dolls in them), stuck vividly in my head. And the religious imagery was more interesting.
There are so many examples I could use, but I think the most poignant one for me was watching my daughter’s growing disappointment as she watched the movie Tale of Despereaux. She had LOVED the book. It was one of the first longer chapter books she read on her own, so she was initially thrilled to watch the movie. She was even excited for her younger siblings to enjoy a story she had enjoyed so much. She was APPALLED at the movie. I told her this was the beginning of a lifelong love-hate relationship with movies versus books.
Taking away Tan takes away the most chilling part of 'Children of Men' - the finale.
My rule of thumb is that the more I like a book, the less I will like its screen adaptation. I think certain genre authors adapt well to screen simply because of the limitations of their novels. For example, the queen of mystery, Agatha Christie. Plot outshines character building in her novels, leaving actors and directors free to fill in the characters. Also, Christie was a playwright herself, so her works seem to be written for adaptation.
Murder On The Orient Express, the 1974 film adaptation, is a movie not to be missed, imo.
Agreed.
“Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption” is a short story by Stephen King, which is very good.
The movie, renamed Shawshank Redemption, was even better.
The movie, The Shawshank Redemption, is a stunningly excellent film and I remember my jaw dropped on discovering that it was originally a novella written by master of horror, Stephen King. Could never make it through watching the entire movie, The Shining so I never read the book, but I may have to give that another try, too, after finding out that Stephen King abhorred Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation of his novel.
Excellent take, thanks. I love the movie Silver Linings Playbook. When went back much later and read the book, I found it fantastic but so different from the film in tone, character arc, and plot. Then there are (rare?) cases in which books are written after stage or screen, such as with Dear Evan Hansen. That book fills in gaps from the Broadway musical in ways that struck me as helpful at times but odd and unnecessary in others. Maybe I need a T-shirt that says “The Play Was Better.” 😀
Agree. Read both the book and watched the movie. The movie was excellent.
Robert Ludlum's Bourne series comes to mind. I've reread the books several times: their exploration of identity, political undercurrents and the use of invisibility as weapon fascinate me. But I also love the movies and have watched them several times. They're telling a different story than the books are, retaining only a few names, and I find that I do not associate one tale with the other, but enjoy them bot
Like you, the Bourne movies came to mind for me as well. The movies are so well done, fast-paced, intense, exciting and innovative that whenever my husband and I find ourselves watching other action/drama films that followed them, we more frequently sigh audibly and wistfully say to each other, “They all want to be Bourne.” Which means, of course, they’re not. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, even when the imitators fall flat, I guess. But one other element the Bourne movies have that their followers don’t and can’t have, that makes them both so recognizable and so outstanding, is the amazing and highly original theme music, which I never tire of hearing. There are many other details that make the Bourne movie franchise a singular one, but I won’t keep going on & on. In sum, I’ll just say that I agree with you, wholeheartedly.
One great thing about movies is the pleasure of watching actors perform their craft and I have to add that I loved watching Clive Owen’s performances in the original Bourne film as well as in Children of Men. That man brings such intensity to his acting roles, he can send chills down my spine seeing him bring characters to life.
I agree that the book was better in nearly every case. The clearest exception that comes to mind is The Natural by Barry Levinson, which far surpassed the novel. To Kill a Mockingbird runs about even with the novel, but the film moves me to tears better than the novel.
Alfonso Cuarón’s adaptation of The Children of Men was agonizing. His redefinition of the Quietus was enough to ruin the film, but it was one of dozens of horrible choices. I find it amusing that a video interview thought the story was a warning against populism, which confirms my sense that the film thoroughly missed the merits of the novel.
I read the book after having seen the movie. I thought then—and still do—Cuaron’s version is more entertaining and thought provoking. Perhaps it’s because he’s a master director; the long takes of the forest attack and the final urban battle just make incredible cinema.
By comparison the books feels small. Self-contained. That’s not a bad thing, just different.
I enjoyed Julia and Julie, Meryl Streep is always great. However, when I read the book, a memoir, I found the author very unlikeable and self-absorbed, the movie was much better.
No Country for Old Men, the movie, is so close to the book probably because McCarthy started it as a screenplay. I love both equally.
If there’s a movie I just cannot stand, it’s the putrid No Country For Old Men. IMO, it was wholly a waste of time, and airspace, for that matter. Ugh. Disgusting.
Not a film, but thought the television adaptation of station eleven was wonderful. Beautifully told, kept the spirit rather than the exact plot and injected the story with some additional haunting moments (liszt)
I think there are a few movie adaptations that are far superior than the novel, like Children of Men, The Shining, and Carrie.
I totally agree about The Hobbit films (and I have endured all three). And they did heighten my sense of the considerable flaws in the LOTR movies too.
But the worst book to film adaptation of all time in my opinion is David Lynch’s ‘Dune’.
I’ve never read Dune, but Lynch’s movie is one of the worst I’ve ever seen.
Artistic license, what book writers and screenwriters share yet through different mediums with different goals. Reading a book can fire the imagination of the reader with the wordsmithing, whereas we get the imagination of the screenwriter translated by the director and interpreted by the actors in stunning visuals requiring no imagination.
I was talking to the teens yesterday about how people used to get bent out of shape about the book vs the movie but that most people now understand it’s two different mediums using a set of ideas.
Apparently it’s still a thing Etsy!
I can’t remember much because it’s been years since I read or saw it but the book Farewell, My Lovely is a movie as Murder, My Sweet. The first sounds like a romance. The second sounds like what both are, a murder mystery. Less artsy sleight of hand but more sure tickets in hand.