Better than the book, worse than.....

[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................??

[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]

name='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................??

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

Ta Ta

Marky B

[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]

name='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 Dam Busters' (Enemy Coast Ahead)

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[silverwhistle]

name='ProfMarcus']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.

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".

[batman]

name='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.

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.

[ProfMarcus]

name='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".

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.

[silverwhistle]

name='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.

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.

[batman]

name='silverwhistle']Yes, and also compare the more faithful 1982 version with Alan Badel as Count Fosco.

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



Bats.

[stevie boy]

Alan Badel & James Hayter both mentioned in this very interesting thread. Both very good espcially Badel who died far too early.

[Blanche Fury]

name='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.

Far too sweeping a statement, surely. What about, for example, Kind Hearts and Coronets? I've never read the book it's based on (Israel Rank) but as it's one of the best films ever made and the book is as far as I know utterly forgotten, the film must be better than the book.



There must be hundreds of fine films based on humdrum books. This thread seems to be taking into account only classic books.

[batman]

name='Blanche Fury']

There must be hundreds of fine films based on humdrum books. This thread seems to be taking into account only classic books.

It's very difficult to compare the different virtues of a book or a film if one hasn't read the book. The possible reason for humdrum books being ignored is that no one has read them because they are humdrum and not worth reading. I enjoy the film The Towering Inferno but I have not read either of the two allegedly humdrum books that film is based on, therefore I do not feel able to make a comparison.

[Windthrop]

I tend to divide fiction books into high-plot and low-plot narratives (am a former literature graduate). The former tend to be popular fiction (crime and thrillers) and the later tend towards 'serious' award winning literature. High-plots tend to translate more easily to the screen because they have shallower characterisation and less psychological insight. I admit I am generalising to some extent but there is some truth in it.



Last Orders

Atonement both low-plotters which translated to the screen well



Where Eagles Dare is a classic example of high-plot - in fact the screenplay came first. However in the case of Maclean's very few others made the transition to screen as well as WED - The Guns of Naverone did but is inferior to the book IMHO.

[batman]

I like many of the films based on MacLean books, but few of them are equal to the books. WED is one, but as Windy said, the screenplay came first. The only one I think that improves on the the book is The Satan Bug. I found the book a bit plodding while the film fairly zips along.