AIBU to think that they're usually not as good

(70 Posts)
ZekeSnapSnap Sat 02-Nov-13 22:03:40

Just finished watching World War Z. I love the book, think it's really great but the film? Nope, not great at all, so disappointed. Now I'm hoping for a TV series instead, maybe that would be closer to the book I love.

Don't get me wrong, the zombies were freaky as hell, snapping and biting and screeching-yup scarier then the book, and faster too I think.

But the rest...no, a disappointment to me.

Which spurned the question with the three friends that I watched it with- are there any movies (or TV shows) made from books which are better then the book? Or at least as accurate?

I had to say no to the majority for myself, with the exception of 'The Shining' and Pride and Prejudice which I thought was as good as the book. I just wondered what everyone else thought, AIBU for thinking 90% of books to film/tv are crappier then the book?

Can anyone recommend any books to film which are better or the same, or does anyone want to join me in disappointing ones?

Goes to read World War Z again

FortyDoorsToNowhere Sat 02-Nov-13 22:06:34

Harry potter was a huge disappointment.

Books have no restrictions, while film do.

grumpydwarf Sat 02-Nov-13 22:11:31

Good night mr Tom! The book and the film are equally good!

AgentZigzag Sat 02-Nov-13 22:13:41

I'd love to see Brad Pitt the film, and have just listened to the audio book (which I don't think was abridged) and the two don't look anything like each other.

But as it's got Bradley zombies in it I'm hoping I won't be bothered.

What was it like as a stand alone film, ignoring the book?

With books though there's always the space to get in all the reasons why they're doing whatever they're doing, and you can hear the thoughts of the characters. Even LOTR wasn't able to get everything in in 9 hours

crazykat Sat 02-Nov-13 22:15:50

I think it sometimes depends on whether you read the book first and love it or see the film first.

I loved the book of the davinci code but the film was a bit disappointing. But I remember some reviews saying if you've read the book don't watch the film, if you've seen the film don't read the book as you won't like the second version IYSWIM.

AlexaChelsea Sat 02-Nov-13 22:16:46

I I often think people compare films adapted from books with the book too often, and it detracts from the film.

World war Z was actually a pretty good film. The book is great, but the film is based from it, it's not a visual representation of the book.

Some films are, and they are often not as good. But I think they are separate mediums and shouldn't be compared so readily.

Iamsparklyknickers Sat 02-Nov-13 22:22:23

I thought Children of Men worked well as the book and the film. I am Legend is one that definitely did not.

I think you're never going capture any book or story in a film without losing something or changing the 'feel'. Stephen King is probably a good example, out of all of his books only a few have translated really well into films, the others seem to die in the midsts of the straight to DVD bin because they just can't capture the story in quite the right way.

BatPenguin Sat 02-Nov-13 22:26:39

I liked world war z, however it is nothing like the book. Unfortunately we went in expecting it to be somewhat like the book - should have gone in with a more open mind.
PS I love you was piss poor compared to the book too.

AgentZigzag Sat 02-Nov-13 22:29:01

Obviously WWZ had to find a new take on the whole zombie thing, and I thought the book had it.

I liked the idea that they'd just rock up on beaches after being thrown overboard or whatever, and the fact that the military saw them as a difficult enemy to beat because they didn't interact or have any plans (even though that'd be easier surely? they're only driven by one thing, brains (or lack of them grin)).

I think I got this zombie survival test off here, I'll never let DH live it down that I got a significantly higher score than him grin he was far too gung ho <draws cricket bat>

missmarplestmarymead Sat 02-Nov-13 22:29:58

Not a film but Inspector Morse tv adaptation is so, so much better than the books which seem to me to be turgid and quite badly written.

TotallyAddictedToLurking Sat 02-Nov-13 22:33:42

I agree with BatPenguin about PS I Love You. It was truly piss poor compared to the book.

The only book to film that I can say I enjoyed was trainspotting. Loved both.

ZekeSnapSnap Sat 02-Nov-13 22:39:14

I have to agree on Harry Potty, Forty, especially 3 and 4.

Thanks for the recommendation Grumpy, I'll have to read and watch that one-or the other way around.

Agent, Brad was one of the good points. When he's whumped, he's pretty fine smile It works ok as a film, personally even without the book it felt a bit rushed. I know they only can get so much in but I would have loved to see more scenes of different cities across the world and had either a longer film or one split into two.

I did hear from a friend they're making more, a trilogy or something so hoping for more of the book in there.

Cat, I haven't seen the De Vinchi code but i agree, reading the book first does make the film seem naff. I might watch first them read. I have Game of Thrones and the Hunger Games on my Kindle, I'll hold off until I've watched I think.

snozzlemaid Sat 02-Nov-13 22:40:17

The Green Mile. Both film and book equally brilliant.

TreaterAnita Sat 02-Nov-13 22:41:05

Captain Corelli's Mandolin practically made me want to slit my wrists. Louis De Bernieres is an exceptional writer IMHO and I find it depressing that someone made such a shit film from his book (though not his very best in fairness, the South America books are fantastic and the huge Birds Without Wings made me cry like a baby).

Genuinely I really can't think of a book which has been better adapted as a film. I think the written word is more powerful and allows for the reader's imagination. The best films come from original screenplays.

I was left strangely cold by WWZ the movie - I didn't even know that there was a book blush.

I tend to avoid book adaptations, whether film or TV: they usually leave me a bit flat, mainly because I imagine the characters/setting a certain way in my head and then find it 'wrong' when the movie set are (of course) different.

I am quite happy to watch book adaptations and then read the book, just not the other way around.

GoT the books were amazing - really carried me away. Watched Season 1 after I read the books - meh.

The HungerGames - loved the books. The movie - not bad, passed the time, but had nowhere near the emotional impact.

TreaterAnita Sat 02-Nov-13 22:45:11

Oh, I need to retract that last statement because I agree that Trainspotting the film was bloody genius. Only one I can think of though.

Generally I agree that films of books are disappointing, but agree with snozzlemaid, the film of the green mile stands out as an excellent interpretation of the book.

ZekeSnapSnap Sat 02-Nov-13 22:47:05

Alexa, I think I expected too much of it. The other three friends hadn't read the book and one loved the film while the other two though it was nothing special. Because I love so much I was so excited but it was another 'Autumn' all over again sad

IamSparky, I have to agree on I am Legend (there's a theme with my reading choices here), that was butchered. Children of Men I saw the film of and loved it, may have to check out the book. I do think you're right, I think the readers imagination also makes things more interesting and film just can't do that to everyone's taste.

BadPenguin, I will be avoiding that one, thanks for the heads up.

Agent, the WWZ film zombies were more terrifying, they were proper freaky and that's one thing that will chill me more when I read the book again with that in mind. Lol, smart zombies are pretty damn freaky too, I'e seen that in a few books and it never ends well. I'm going to do the surival test in a bit but i didn't get far with the Walking Dead one!

MissMarple, Really? That's pretty cool, it's not often the other way around. It makes sense if the books are a bit rubbish.

Totallyaddicted, ok definitely avoiding then, 2 bad reviews within an hour-not good.

Mike, I like the film, I haven't read the book...yet goes to amazon kindle

stargirl1701 Sat 02-Nov-13 22:47:37

Lord of the Rings is better as a film. Tolkien needed a better editor. All those bloody songs.

Thurlow Sat 02-Nov-13 22:48:27

GoT is amazing both as a book and a series, but that's a rarity.

I thought the BBC's North and South was better than the book.

WWZ would have been an amazing TV series angry

Thurlow Sat 02-Nov-13 22:49:05

Oh, and DP still can't decide whether The Walking Dead series or comics are the best.

ZekeSnapSnap Sat 02-Nov-13 22:50:18

snozzlemaid I haven't read or watched that one! goes back to kindle

TreaterAnita Yikes that is a bad bad reaction, may well avoid that one.

PacificDogwood, I think watching first is the best way. The book is fantastic, it's here. It's written in the future, an investigative journalist is travelling around documenting the war and so many of the stories overlap and give you different perspectives. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-Z-Max-Brooks-ebook/dp/B003WE9TU8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1383432559&sr=1-1&keywords=world+war+z)

Thanks for the link, Zeke.

I am currently actively avoiding CloudAtlas the movie as I don't want CA the book somehow lessened grin[pathetic]

And I disagree about LotR shock - genius books, vaguely entertaining films, but nowhere near the same impact.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now