AdrianTurner

Perhaps, but the novel had a giant squid and the film . . . didn't.

dogstar

The film of The Wild Geese is in my opinion vastly superior to the book which I remember being pretty ropey in just about every respect. The fact that I read it during a wet day on the Campbelltown peninsular whilst on holiday may have soured my appreciation of it a little but not, I think overmuch. The film is better plotted, more exciting and the characters better realised.

Generally speaking though, I think its very hard to compare books with their film versions since they are by definition different animals and require different responses and whichever one you have experienced first will automatically influence your appreciation of the other. More useful perhaps to regard them as different interpretations of the same theme rather than as mutually comparable.

batman

The book was also full of bird shit!

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

dremble wedge

I enjoyed Moby Dick the film much more than the book.

Just didn't like the book...

batman

Speaking of Peter Benchley (as we were earlier), the film-book conundrum re him is fairly interesting ...

Jaws - film is better than book
The Deep - book
The Island - book
White Shark - film (Creature)
Beast - book

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

batman

I agree with you there dremble ... I found the book to be very disappointing.

One book that has yet to be bettered by a film is 'Treasure Island', the closest to it being Fraser Heston's version.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

Windthrop

The general critical view of Moby Dick is that Greg Peck scuppered it. It is a view I have shared and have always felt it a most criminally underrrated performance.

Thats the joke that killed the Music Hall !

tgunnell

It's not always good to have read the book first because film's by their nature are condensed into approx ninety minutes .to sir with love the film was much changed from the book.and hitch hikers guide the radio series was much superior but that was hours of audio.i think its probablly best to seperate the two and just enjoy

sippog

I think another factor is cross cultural interpretation. I've got three screen adaptations of the cult Russian novel that inspired Jagger to write "Sympathy For The Devil" THE MASTER & MARGARITA; one Polish, one Italian, and one Russian. They're all interesting in different ways but the Russian one feels most authentic and adheres most closely to the book. Inevitable because only a Russian could truly understand the social and political climate in which the book was born.

In the same spirit of curiosity, I've ordered the Russian tv version of DR ZHIVAGO. I've heard the Russians didn't think much of Lean's version - and I hated the recent UK offering - so it'll be interesting to see what it's like when it finally gets here.

I've never read the Pasternak novel but I might finally get around to it. I always find it a difficult decision when given the choice of reading a highly rated book or going to see a film first. A case in point was NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN which I chose to read and am now afraid of seeing - though the Coen Bros are more trustworthy than most. (On that subject, let me make a personal recommendation: please, please read Cormac McCarthy's THE ROAD before you see the film - which is currently being made with Viggo Mortensen. The book is one of those totally accessible classics like LORD OF THE FLIES and it should, and hopefully will, get him a Nobel prize.)

BruIrn

I have to say Kes the film is better than the book A Kestrel for a Knave