Harleybloke

Here's a thought, which film do you think is better than the book, and which is worse?

Our starter for 10..............better.......

'The Great Escape'

'The Dam Busters' (Enemy Coast Ahead)

Worse.................by a Country mile.......................

'The Dogs of War'............

any thoughts................??

.....You couldn't hear it, if they were shooting at me with howitzers!

Hugo

I often find that if I read the book before seeing the film then I prefer the book and vice versa if I see the film first and then read the book I prefer the film.
The film often cuts out much of the extraneous detail and shows the basic story, once you have seen that then reading the book can be tiresome. A case in point is 'Notes on a Scandal' after seeing the film and then trying to read the book I found all the detals of the two women's lives interminable and I didn't get past about page 50.

stevie boy

Family Plot from the novel the Rainbird Pattern by Victor Canning. Novel excellent film tripe( I always regard Frenzy as Hitchcocks last film), Family Plot is hopeless. Read the book if you can

Marky B

I like all of Frederick Forsyth's books,but The Dogs Of War I found tedious.
Ta Ta
Marky B

I am special. The heavens always open for me.

Freddy

IMO Frederick Forsyth's books and the films of The Odessa File and Day of the Jackal are equally good.

The book Catch 22 for me is better than the film.

Freddy

penfold

Wrong book, really...you want The Dam Busters by Paul Brickhill, who also wrote The Great Escape...

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

batman

A small selection of books I have read over the past year or so ...

Brighton Rock - book and film about equal but the book has a better ending (the real one)
Outcast of the Islands - book
Jamaica Inn - book
Rebecca - equal
Hell Is A City - equal
Complicity - book
The Pledge (original version) - equal
The Crimson Rivers - book
Twelve Days of Terror - book (Close to Shore)

Bats.

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

ProfMarcus

I'd say Hugo had hit it on the head. I remember watching the BBC Classic Serials while I was at school and loving them, but by the end of my time at University (reading English) I thought they'd lost the knack of making decent adaptations. Then it dawned on me: I'd read the books first.

Most films of great books I've read fall into that category (and lo! The Scarlet Letter's name led all the rest!)

On the other hand, I never cared for The Pickwick Papers when I read it, but I love the James Hayter movie version.

And for a film I love from a book I love (but for entirely different reasons): Tom Jones.

. . . and new thumbscrews for me . . .

oxfam1uk

No-one has mentioned the Bond films ...

I suppose for the purposes of this discussion, only the Sixties films are worth considering. I would say that in every single case, the film was better than the book. The reason probably being that Ian Fleming couldn't have anticipated the colossal sums of money available to realise his stories.

silverwhistle

I cannot think of a single case where the film is better than the book: as good as in the best cases, but never better. But there are far too many cases where the film is worse.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"

silverwhistle

No, I think in many cases they have got worse. Fidelity to the source has in many cases been supplanted by making them "sexy" and appealing to the "youth market".

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"

batman

My personal view of the 60s Bond book/film conundrum ...

Dr No - film (the story gets a bit muddled in the book)
From Russia With Love - book (better for having no SPECTRE involvement)
Goldfinger - film (see Dr No)
Thunderball - film (book was written after and based on the screenplay)
You Only Live Twice - the best Bond book (although it has nothing to do with the film) but the worst 60s Bond film IMHO
OHMSS - book + film = equal (both superb)

This is not a criticism of the quality of the books, simply a comparison with the films. I love all the books and read them regularly. Thrillers par excellence!

Bats.

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

ProfMarcus

I couldn't agree more, silverwhistle. I still have to grit my teeth when I think back to the travesty the BBC made of The Woman In White in 1997, with Simon Callow as Fosco. In the book, Walter Hartright quits his job for the entirely honourable reason that he's fallen in love with Laura and learns that she's engaged to another man. This motive presumably wouldn't be understood by the modern generation, so they invented a servant-girl screaming the place down because he suggested she pose for him.

In the same production, the friendship between Walter and Marion is sealed when they discuss Dante Gabriel Rossetti's exhumation of his wife, Lizzie Siddall. Well and good, except that she was alive and kicking in the year that scene was set.

. . . and new thumbscrews for me . . .

silverwhistle

Yes, and also compare the more faithful 1982 version with Alan Badel as Count Fosco.

This is the problem: in some cases, superior earlier versions are not being released on DVD. They would do better to repeat them. The recent travesty of The Tudors (more to come!) is junk in comparison with the 1970 Keith Michell version, The Six Wives of Henry VIII. Thank goodness that is out on DVD! But modern audiences are, in many cases, being deprived of the earlier versions.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"

batman

A great series with superb performances .... especially from that uncredited young lad lurking about in a couple of scenes.

Bats.

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