Books Vs The Movies

[VivaLaGore]

Nothing new here but I’d like to get everyone’s opinion on this.
Do you prefer the book to the movie, or vice versa? If so,then which?
As far as I’m concerned, it can go either way. And obviously depending on if you prefer to sit down and watch a flick or your preference is to chill reading a book is usually gonna be the decider.
I’ve always thought that the book is considered in comparison to be like the ultimate extended cut of the DVD. For obvious reasons the novel is going to be longer and more detailed, but is this always a good thing? It could be you don’t like the authors style of writing or the directors vision or technique of film making.
When you think about it there’s a lot to consider. So what’s your thoughts about particular titles?

I’ll start
The Exorcist. In this case I preferred the book. As I said above this book like many is the extended version of the film and is far superior. But I actually found the movie scarier. Maybe it’s to do with the fact I watched the movie before reading the novel that this is the case. I’ll stop here before this initial post gets too long winded. Do what’s your thoughts on either this title or any other?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

The Shining.

Stephen King's classic novel is far superior to the Kubrick film.

Although i really like the Hammer version of The Woman in Black i do prefer Susan Hill's original novel.

[nosferatu42]

"One flew over the Cuckoo's nest" is an interesting one as it's told from the point of view of the indian mute in the film, so it's an entirely different viewpoint, both are really good but i guess the film wins out due to the performances.

Also "Carrie" i would say the film is superior, the climactic death of the mother i find much more satisfying, the grave ending as well.
The book is interesting but slight, where as the film is overblown at moments but still keeps a sympathetic main character and i love the tension built up during the blood bucket scene.

[iank]

The movies are always better.


Unless it's called Phantoms.

[nosferatu42]

Originally Posted by iank

The movies are always better.

The Dark Tower and IT spring to mind from King as being better books.

Whereas Silver bullet is better as a film although i love the original illustrations

Also if you read James Herbert at all The Survivor and The Rats films are inferior to the books.

[nosferatu42]

So basically i think it can go either way, if films are respectful of the source material then i'm all for it.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

L.A. Confidential is both a superb film and book.

I generally prefer reading Ballard to watching films based on his books.

High Rise is one great example. Decent enough film, but they could never make the book as an actual film. It's simply too Ballard.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

You'd think the stories of Richard Laymon would make great horror films. Have they not been adapted because the books are just too extreme?

[iank]

Probably. We're talking hard R18+ even when toned down!

[VivaLaGore]

Originally Posted by iank

The movies are always better.


Unless it's called Phantoms.

That’s a bold statement but none the less, I applaud your honesty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk