Support NeoGAF

[dorkimoe]

This has been driving me crazy for awhile. Every time I go to IMDB to check out some reviews on tv shows (Because I generally trust average users over paid reviewers) I notice all the negative reviews on a show are because the books were better. Ok cool we got it, I have no desire to read the book so just focus on the show. The show in question was “the passage” on fox, I didn’t even know it was based on a book and every single review that wasn’t about the books the people seemed to enjoy it. I’m not even saying the show is a great show but it doesn’t need hundreds of book babies complaining about it. Honestly if you love the book of something and haven’t learned by now to avoid a movie/tv show version than you deserve to hate it. Is there anything that actually has a better movie/tv show version over a book anyway?

 

[EviLore]

Books are better.

 

[dorkimoe]

Books are better.

Prove it

 

[prag16]

Because the books typically ARE better. (Though it's generally not exactly an apples to apples situation, to be fair.)

People don't read enough anymore.

 

[brap]

The manga was better.

 

[prag16]

The manga was better.

Now, this I can guarantee is almost never true.


(Joking, kind of, but I really truly can't remotely understand the appeal of anything anime related. My son watches this "Beyblade" garbage on Netflix and it may be the most horrendous media I've ever seen in my life. And now he wants to buy all the associated toys and wants to have a Beyblade themed birthday party. I guess this is some kind of karmic retribution for my decades of strongly disliking anime.)

 

[dorkimoe]

Because the books typically ARE better. (Though it's generally not exactly an apples to apples situation, to be fair.)

People don't read enough anymore.

Not disagreeing they aren’t better. I have bad adhd so I can’t focus on a book. I just got really annoyed that I had to flip through 20 some reviews that only talk about the book. I’m trying to find out if a show is good as a stand-alone.

 

[EviLore]

Prove it

Not disagreeing they aren’t better.

 

[prag16]

The problem with reading these days is that you can't simultaneously shop online on your laptop while also thumbing through facebook nonsense on your smartphone when reading a book. You can do this with a movie / tv series, which is key for a lot of people. And I'm not even remotely kidding. Not to minimize people with actual diagnosed ADD / ADHD, but in the general sense, this trend is kind of sad.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Baseball>Movie/show>book

 

[Pagusas]

My dream retirement is owning a isolated cabin on a lake, with a huge study filled with books to read.... and also to constantly post about how much better books are to insure the OP never forgets it.

 

[brap]

Now, this I can guarantee is almost never true.


(Joking, kind of, but I really truly can't remotely understand the appeal of anything anime related. My son watches this "Beyblade" garbage on Netflix and it may be the most horrendous media I've ever seen in my life. And now he wants to buy all the associated toys and wants to have a Beyblade themed birthday party. I guess this is some kind of karmic retribution for my decades of strongly disliking anime.)

Tbh Beyblade is one of those anime made for young kids to sell toys. Surprised it's still popular I remember watching it when I was a kid lmao. Get him that Beyblade birthday and LET IIIIIIT RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

I'm generally a purist in that I think something is usually best (or most pure) in its original media. Moving a work from one media to another always involves making concessions, and it is possible to give up the soul of the work in translation. It's also possible to gain more than you lose, so it isn't a hard and fast rule. And since I can't read, I'll take being able to experience the work over not.

...but the tv show version of Game of Thrones is a travesty that can not be undone. The books aren't just better, the tv show makes it impossible for people to actually enjoy or respect the books. You can only experience the Red Wedding for the first time once, and you want it to be the book version. The books are fourth dimensional calculus, while the tv show is a connect the dots picture on the back of a kids' menu.

 

[Nymphae]

Is there anything that actually has a better movie/tv show version over a book anyway?

I thought the movie Wanted was far more entertaining than the comic it was based on.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I'm generally a purist in that I think something is usually best (or most pure) in its original media. Moving a work from one media to another always involves making concessions, and it is possible to give up the soul of the work in translation. It's also possible to gain more than you lose, so it isn't a hard and fast rule. And since I can't read, I'll take being able to experience the work over not.

...but the tv show version of Game of Thrones is a travesty that can not be undone. The books aren't just better, the tv show makes it impossible for people to actually enjoy or respect the books. You can only experience the Red Wedding for the first time once, and you want it to be the book version. The books are fourth dimensional calculus, while the tv show is a connect the dots picture on the back of a kids' menu.

I rather see tits on tv than read the description of those same titties in a book

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Is there anything that actually has a better movie/tv show version over a book anyway?

Fight Club. If you have the DVD, you can watch the commentary between Chuck Palahniuk and the screenwriter. The screenwriter goes into deep detail about the metaphorical ramifications of the mental state of all the characters, pointing out and explaining a deep considered understanding of the book. Then Palahniuk will go, "Oh, I hadn't thought of that. I just put this part in because I knew a guy who made soap from human fat and thought it was cool." The book is almost identical to the movie in plot except they have different endings, but I think the movie has a better ending, and the direction of the film is rather exceptional.

Also, The Shining. The book is boring as fuck and spends two hundred pages on cleaning out a wasp's nest, while the movie is one of the creepiest and most unnerving horror films ever created.

The Ring. Not only is the US version of The Ring better than the Japanese movie, it's better than the book as well. I guess when it comes to horror, you really can't underestimate a good director's touch.

Anything by Philip K. Dick. I'm sorry. He's got good ideas, but his stories just suck. Like Total Recall ("We Can Remember It For You Wholesale") is about a guy who gets a magic wand from aliens that causes him to become an assassin so the aliens wouldn't invade Earth.

I rather see tits on tv than read the description of those same titties in a book

This is probably the only time you'll ever see me disagree with this statement.

 

[hecatomb]

Too be fair, theres a lot more in books, that are not in movies. Like Lord of the rings movies are good. Though if you want the real story you have to read the books. And the hobbit movies are full of non sense that has nothing to do with the book. Also the Lost World movie is really nothing like the book. Also Disney movies are all made up non sense also, and nothing like the real stories.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Like Lord of the rings movies are good. Though if you want the real story you have to read the books.

The movies are better simply on account of having no Tom Bombadil.

 

[Shifty]

Tilting at windmills, OP?

Baseball>Movie/show>book

The baseball adaptation of Lord of the Rings was a sight to see, let me tell you what.

The moment when Frodo hits the winning homerun off the peak of Mount Doom and the crowd goes wild...

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

The moment when Frodo hits the winning homerun off the peak of Mount Doom and the crowd goes wild...

 

[BurstZyn]

Is there anything that actually has a better movie/tv show version over a book anyway?

I heard that the SnowPiercer movie was actually better than the book it was based on.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

okay if there is material the thing is based on do you really expect people not to compare the 2. its going to happen no matter what so i guess youll just have to suffer forever

 

[hecatomb]

The movies are better simply on account of having no Tom Bombadil.

Lord of the rings books are the real story, you have to watch the like uncut remastered versions, to see what they cut out. Also the Hobbit is a lot better then the movies, they just threw in a lot of stuff that didn't need to be there, like the elf girl and legolas were not even in the hobbit. Battle of the 5 armies was just a CGI video game battle.

Now as for jurassic park and lost world, there were only 2 books. So after that they just made up a bunch of non sense, cause there was only 2 books. And both books are nothing like the movies.

 

[Dark Star]

depends on the book/film and what the goal of franchise has become over time ...

for example :

original harry potter book fans are like 30 years old now. the films, when released, were catered towards a much younger audience. if you grew up watching the first 1-3 films BEFORE reading the books, chances are the films are BETTER to you, because that is the image you have in your head of harry potter. This goes especially for the Fantastic Beasts, which is totally out of the realm of HP. But if you grew up reading the books FIRST, then you have a much more individual/self driven idea of the characters.... the films don't live up to your expectations in terms of plot/depth. it's entirely subjective.

when you look at more timeless books like LOTR or The Witcher, the fans aren't as divided. It's more of a "who is more into the lore" type of thing. Everyone enjoys the films and videogames, but each can clearly appreciate the DEEP lore of the novels if they decide to go on the journey. It's a much more mature experience catered toward a much more mature audience. But even then, the spin-off video games like Shadow of Mordor are aimed at a totally different audience of consumers who mostly don't care about the hobbit.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

If the people are saying that about American Psycho or game of thrones you can safely assume they are a pretend intellectual because those two cases are factually wrong

 

[Z..]

Is there anything that actually has a better movie/tv show version over a book anyway?

Plenty of examples. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, A Clockwork Orange, Berlin Alexanderplatz, Satantango, Ghost in the Shell, Psycho, Dr. Strangelove, The Godfather, Misery, Silence of The Lambs, Jackie Brown, Children of Men... hell, the list is endless.

If the people are saying that about American Psycho or game of thrones you can safely assume they are a pretend intellectual because those two cases are factually wrong

Wrong.

 

[Grinchy]

I don't know if I've logged a ton of examples of this in my life, but I still haven't watched something based on a book that I read beforehand where I liked the movie/show version at all, let alone more than the book.

Though, sometimes the opposite is true as well. I saw Jurassic Park when I was young as hell. I tried to read the book like a year later and couldn't get into it because it was so different from my expectations. Though it could have also just been that I was so young.

 

[bilderberg]

How the hell can words on a page be better than visually seeing something? Reading sucks. You know it, I know it, quit pretending.

 

[Z..]

The Ring. Not only is the US version of The Ring better than the Japanese movie, it's better than the book as well. I guess when it comes to horror, you really can't underestimate a good director's touch.

God no. The fact you go on to praise Verbinski's direction in lieu of Nakata's is the most disturbing part of your post, though. -.-'

Never read the book and wasn't even aware it was based on one, though. While we're on the subject, I'd rate the Fight Club film and novel equally.

How the hell can words on a page be better than visually seeing something? Reading sucks. You know it, I know it, quit pretending.

I know you're being sarcastic but I suppose that is precisely why literature is a richer art form than film for many... you get to construct your own version of events, each and everyone of us will visualize the same book in a different way.

 

[bilderberg]

God no. The fact you go on to praise Verbinski's direction in lieu of Nakata's is the most disturbing part of your post, though. -.-'

Never read the book and wasn't even aware it was based on one, though. While we're on the subject, I'd rate the Fight Club film and novel equally.

He's right. After years of being told how good the Japanese version is and finally seeing it...it's shit. I have a feeling their must be Japanese cinema snobs who will go on and on about "oh the US version of The Ring is so much better than the Japanese version." You're all just cultural contrarians.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

The reason why that is is books are free to take as much time as they want in telling their story, but a movie typically has to be less than 3 hours long or if it's a TV show everything has to be condensed into hour long episodes with a beginning, middle and end, which isn't quite how book chapters usually work.

So you know, often times when a work is condensed you lose a lot of detail and overall flavor that can make a work shine, if you're familiar with the book oftentimes the movie can just feel like nothing more than a cliff notes of the book.

Jurassic Park, the book and the movie is a fascinating case study of how to adapt a book and the pros and cons of movies vs books.

Jurassic Park was obviously a story just BEGGING for visualization and that alone give it a huge advantage over the book, but the book has a lot more going on, a much deeper story and can get away with something the movie couldn't, namely gore, which balances out the lack of visualization by making the dinos in some ways even more intimidating in the book (the Nedry death scene, book vs movie, is a perfect example, the movie plays it for comedy, the book plays it for horror,)

Basically imagine if the JP movie actually showed dinos munching on people's guts rather than just implying it.

But Jurassic Park was very, very cleverly adapted into a film, while the very broad outline of the story is the same, the Jurassic Park movie was more of an adaption of the "premise" than it really was an adaption of the book itself, which frees up the movie to be more of it's own thing and I think that's the best way to do it, adapt the premise and the broad outlines of the story, not just a condensed, abbreviated version of the book.

So consequently both Jurassic Park the book and the movie are equally worth experiencing, neither is really better than the other, they're just two good takes on the same basic idea.

However it's a tricky challenge to make something that can stand toe to toe with the original book, for another Spielberg example you have Ready Player One, which the RPO movie removed almost everything that was interesting about the book (and it wasn't a GREAT book to begin with) resulting in a movie that to me was just an inferior version.

RPO was a story that actually favored being a book over a movie, because you don't have to worry as much about copyright like the movie did and you can get into a lot more nitty gritty detail of the world and how it functioned.

 

[bilderberg]

God no. The fact you go on to praise Verbinski's direction in lieu of Nakata's is the most disturbing part of your post, though. -.-'

Never read the book and wasn't even aware it was based on one, though. While we're on the subject, I'd rate the Fight Club film and novel equally.



I know you're being sarcastic but I suppose that is precisely why literature is a richer art form than film for many... you get to construct your own version of events, each and everyone of us will visualize the same book in a different way.

Why the hell would i wanna do that? If i was better than the author at constructing events I'd just be an author myself.

 

[Z..]

He's right. After years of being told how good the Japanese version is and finally seeing it...it's shit. I have a feeling their must be Japanese cinema snobs who will go on and on about "oh the US version of The Ring is so much better than the Japanese version." You're all just cultural contrarians.

The original set the template for an entire movement and solidified an aesthetic that still endures 20 years later. The remake waters the experience down and achieves very little by pandering to western tastes. It's not a bad remake by any stretch of the word, but it fails to live up to the original's foreboding tone.

Snobs aren't discussing either version if we're being honest... Hideo Nakata isn't exactly Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Dario Argento when it comes to film buff cred.

Why the hell would i wanna do that? If i was better than the author at constructing events I'd just be an author myself.

I'm not saying it's "the way to go", merely telling you why some prefer books. But again, I'm well aware you're just being sarcastic... ^^

 

[bilderberg]

The original set the template for an entire movement and solidified an aesthetic that still endures 20 years later. The remake waters the experience down and achieves very little by pandering to western tastes. It's not a bad remake by any stretch of the word, but it fails to live up to the original's foreboding tone.

Snobs aren't discussing either version if we're being honest... Hideo Nakata isn't exactly Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Dario Argento when it comes to film buff cred.

What I say y'all.

 

[Secret_Lover]

I´m not the biggest GoT fan in the world or anything but the show is still eons ahead of that mundane collection of thesauruses (thesauri?) masquerading as fantasy literature. I would really fucking dig it if we could just move it along with the narrative here but unfortunately its imperative that we spend another seven pages of bible font dwelling on the general plumpitude of this characters bosom. I gave it two books to go somewhere and it didn´t. Fortunately the fine folks over at HBO were kind enough to provide us with a visual summary.

Also, "manga was better" is hot nonsense. I don´t want to experience a version of Hajime no Ippo that doesn´t include the sounds of tire squeals and jet turbines and you shouldn´t either.

 

[RedVIper]

I´m not the biggest GoT fan in the world or anything but the show is still eons ahead of that mundane collection of thesauruses (thesauri?) masquerading as fantasy literature. I would really fucking dig it if we could just move it along with the narrative here but unfortunately its imperative that we spend another seven pages of bible font dwelling on the general plumpitude of this characters bosom. I gave it two books to go somewhere and it didn´t. Fortunately the fine folks over at HBO were kind enough to provide us with a visual summary.

Also, "manga was better" is hot nonsense. I don´t want to experience a version of Hajime no Ippo that doesn´t include the sounds of tire squeals and jet turbines and you shouldn´t either.

How exactly did you read two got books and came to the conclusion that "they went anywhere".

The first few seasons follow the books almost religiously, so if the books didn't go anywhere then neither did the show.

Do you'll have ADHD

 

[Greedings]

I’m not a big reader of fiction. One of the key parts everyone talks about is how you see things in your minds eye when you read.
That never happens for me. I don’t imagine anything. My visual imagination is atrophied to the point of no return. So I get why people like the books more, but for me they’re just boring.
I’ve tried but it just doesn’t click for me. Probably because I never read as a child. Such a shame, my parents should have forced me.

Non-fiction I devour though. No documentary has ever been as good as a history book.

 

[Z..]

No documentary has ever been as good as a history book.

Lies. The Great War, The Ascent of Man, Civilisation, The World at War or Ken Burns' Jazz just to name a few are vastly superior to the majority of books written on their respective subjects. Not to say there aren't books that are respectively superior historical documents when compared to each one of them but your blanket statement is incorrect.

I´m not the biggest GoT fan in the world or anything but the show is still eons ahead of that mundane collection of thesauruses (thesauri?) masquerading as fantasy literature. I would really fucking dig it if we could just move it along with the narrative here but unfortunately its imperative that we spend another seven pages of bible font dwelling on the general plumpitude of this characters bosom. I gave it two books to go somewhere and it didn´t. Fortunately the fine folks over at HBO were kind enough to provide us with a visual summary.

This is illustrative of the problem most people seem to have with books nowdays... we're a generation that has been formatted to only care about plot and therefore struggles to find value in anything else. It's a damn shame, especially so since it means most mainstream media rarely ever dare venture outside the established safe paths.

Also, "manga was better" is hot nonsense. I don´t want to experience a version of Hajime no Ippo that doesn´t include the sounds of tire squeals and jet turbines and you shouldn´t either.

Ironically, shonens (not HNI, though) are usually much better in manga form than anime form since the anime adaptions usually get stretched out to the point of ridiculousness. Action scenes are almost always superior in animated format, though.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

i only read books if they have pictures in them. choose your own adventure books are pretty tight. wait till hbo gets choose your own adventure technology

 

[bitbydeath]

I can think of a few examples where the movie is better... Total Recall for example (the Arnie one). Even a few Stephen King movies I prefer to watch than read.

They’re not all better though and often lack a lot of details that books cover.

i only read books if they have pictures in them. choose your own adventure books are pretty tight. wait till hbo gets choose your own adventure technology

Netflix got it then Choose Your Own Adventure sued them lol.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Do I wish to be shown a story, or do I wish to show myself a story through my own imagination?

Different mediums serve different purposes. The main flaw with cinema is that you cannot convey inner thoughts very well unless you resort to "floaty inner dialogue". Often, a reader will get an impression of a character that includes all their inner arguments and concerns and motivations. This is rarely translated to the on-screen performance, so something is missing other than some scenes or some snippets of dialogue.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

Beach is better.

 

[Airola]

How the hell can words on a page be better than visually seeing something? Reading sucks. You know it, I know it, quit pretending.

Books are way better at telling people what characters are thinking and feeling.

 

[Secret_Lover]

The first few seasons follow the books almost religiously, so if the books didn't go anywhere then neither did the show.

Correct.

 

[dorkimoe]

Good discussion going on.

I guess I just wish people who read the books would realize that not everyone is going to read the books so the movie or show might be still good to someone who didn’t read.

I love the Harry Potter movies. I know the books have more content. But now I don’t wanna ruin the movies for myself.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

I´m not the biggest GoT fan in the world or anything but the show is still eons ahead of that mundane collection of thesauruses (thesauri?) masquerading as fantasy literature. I would really fucking dig it if we could just move it along with the narrative here but unfortunately its imperative that we spend another seven pages of bible font dwelling on the general plumpitude of this characters bosom. I gave it two books to go somewhere and it didn´t. Fortunately the fine folks over at HBO were kind enough to provide us with a visual summary.

I’ve never seen someone just come out and admit that they were stupid in public before. This kind of self awareness is pretty rare. I’d say you should take pride in it, but you obviously already do.

 

[Rock And Roll]

Baseball>Movie/show>book

Have you read The Glory of Their Times or Ball Four? Your statement is incorrect

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Have you read The Glory of Their Times or Ball Four? Your statement is incorrect

Baseball games>Ken Burns Baseball (all 12+ hours)> baseball books

You can’t deny it

 

[Mr Hyde]

I think the Lord of the Rings-movies are better than the books, which is ironic since Tolkien believed the books to be unfilmable. Jackson cut out a lot of meat and imo, focused and/or enhanced the good parts. Tolkien approached the story in a very slow and methodical way, with loads of backstory on the smallest of things, to the point it was almost detracting from the overall narrative, resulting in a very uneven pace. Jackson on the other hand paced it very good and along with the visuals and excellent casting I prefer the movie-versions over the books. Although I love the books too for a variety of reasons.

American Psycho is another example of a book where I prefer the movie-version. This is mainly because it left out the extreme violence and gore from the book, which I felt were repulsive and so utterly detailed it made my stomach turn. I know the violence serve a big purpose of the novel but toning it down in favor of focusing on the shallow nature of the characters and the world they live in, gave the movie a notable upperhand. It felt more focused and tonally consistent. And together with Christian Bales phenomenal turn as Patrick Bateman, the movie stands out even more.

The last example of a movie which I find better than the novel, is The Shining by Stanley Kubrick. I know Stephen King hated it, and I completely understand why (I would be furious too if something I wrote got changed so fundamentally) but Kubricks chilling take on the source material ramps up the horror in a way that´s not really been challenged since. It has such an eerie vibe too it, one that even King himself couldn´t capture in the novel, that makes the movie more memorable than the book. The visual imagery is outstanding and Jack Nicholson is so bat shit insane that he haunts every frame. It differs so much from the novel but Kubrick shows here that he was a sort of mad genius by cutting out the sombre parts of the novel just so that he could deliver a terrifying experience that attacked the senses and scared the shit out of you in a way King couldn´t. And I think that is what mostly bothered King about the adaptation. Kubrick made horror better than he did. King is still the undisputable champion of horror though.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I think the Lord of the Rings-movies are better than the books, which is ironic since Tolkien believed the books to be unfilmable. Jackson cut out a lot of meat and imo, focused and/or enhanced the good parts. Tolkien approached the story in a very slow and methodical way, with loads of backstory on the smallest of things, to the point it was almost detracting from the overall narrative, resulting in a very uneven pace. Jackson on the other hand paced it very good and along with the visuals and excellent casting I prefer the movie-versions over the books. Although I love the books too for a variety of reasons.

American Psycho is another example of a book where I prefer the movie-version. This is mainly because it left out the extreme violence and gore from the book, which I felt were repulsive and so utterly detailed it made my stomach turn. I know the violence serve a big purpose of the novel but toning it down in favor of focusing on the shallow nature of the characters and the world they live in, gave the movie a notable upperhand. It felt more focused and tonally consistent. And together with Christian Bales phenomenal turn as Patrick Bateman, the movie stands out even more.

The last example of a movie which I find better than the novel, is The Shining by Stanley Kubrick. I know Stephen King hated it, and I completely understand why (I would be furious too if something I wrote got changed so fundamentally) but Kubricks chilling take on the source material ramps up the horror in a way that´s not really been challenged since. It has such an eerie vibe too it, one that even King himself couldn´t capture in the novel, that makes the movie more memorable than the book. The visual imagery is outstanding and Jack Nicholson is so bat shit insane that he haunts every frame. It differs so much from the novel but Kubrick shows here that he was a sort of mad genius by cutting out the sombre parts of the novel just so that he could deliver a terrifying experience that attacked the senses and scared the shit out of you in a way King couldn´t. And I think that is what mostly bothered King about the adaptation. Kubrick made horror better than he did. King is still the undisputable champion of horror though.

I swear that I was going to post about LOTR too. I agree. I also feel same way about Game of Thrones (a show, movie, but same idea).

I used to feel the same about The Shining but I after re-reading the book I changed my mind. A large aspect of “the shine” isn’t present in the movie. In the book, the hotel is the villain, in the movie, Jack is the villain. The hotel is truly alive in the book.

I agree about American Psycho.

I used to feel same about Fight Club.

Minority Report is a much better movie than the short story IMO.