Cambridge Library Online Bookclub discussion

This thread is about adapting the written word to the big, or little, screen.

Let everyone know if you preferred the movie or book better :) Also if you think it's better to watch the movie or read the book first, which one had the better ending and why did they choose this actor to play that role (and maybe who they should have picked) let the group know here.

For example the book Jaws by Peter Benchley is great, a thrillingly sharp story with great characters. However, the film adaptation definitely had more bite to it.

I recently saw the adaptation of The book thief by Markus Zusak.

I thought the book was better than the film. The film while enjoyable, particularly on a 43 degree day. However, I felt it lacked some of the progression of the novel.

The occasional switching between German and English was a bit strange and obvious. I thought the voiceover of Death in the film was excellent though.

hii everyone i am new to the group,infact this is the first ever group that i am joining,i hope it will be a nice expeience.thanks

for me reading the book is far more enriching and satisfying,because theres lot more to the book and enough food for thought.also a film is a visual treat and its authenticity lies in how well it is shot,whereas with books we have the power to visualise and be creative.

Does it not ultimately depend on the particular book and film? Some books do not make good films, while other film adaptations exceed the book's quality (whether due to any changes or otherwise). Generally, if I know a film is based on a book, I do try to read the book first.

Admittedly, I tend to enjoy a book more than a film that is adapted from it. I think it just comes down to fact that a movie is a 90 to 120 minute experience, whereas most books will be in your life significantly longer. You tend to live most books for a week or two or three (depending on how quick of a reader you are), whereas with a movie you experience for only a short period of time. Although, with the medium of television seemingly taking front-of-stage at the moment, this could easily change.

In saying this, I would have to agree with what Ernest is saying, that it depends on the film and book that is being adapted. I have seen some movies I've enjoyed more than the books. Psycho immediately comes to mind (I found the book a bit boring and obvious), and The Godfather, or Atonement, and even (blasphemy!) the first 2 Harry Potter films.

Guess it just comes down to personal preference, who's writing the book, and who's involved with the film.

It is hard to say exclusively one is better than the other, because it does depend on the film adaptation and how it is done. For the most part I prefer the books, but some adaptations are great in their own right too.

I recently saw the adaptation of We can remember it for you wholesale, Total Recall, which I thought was horrible. So many Philip K. Dick adaptations have missed the point of his writing it is disheartening. Themes and subtext have been completely overlooked. Though on the other hand Blade Runner was a great film.

I also saw The Book Thief movie adaptation, and I agree with @Darren. The switching between German and English is very off-putting and it does lack the development and slower progression of a 800 pg book. That said, I think some books adapted for film can be very well done.

Hitchcock's adaptation of Du Maurier's Rebecca, Cukor's Philadephia Story and Orson Welles' adaptation of Kafka's The Trial and the Third Man are all good examples.

Russell makes a good point though, books do stay with you longer and in terms of the physical item, books are more tangible and personal. With films, you might own a copy of a film, but you need technology to view it.

Also, of course, all books that are plays like A Streetcar Named Desire, Miss Julie, Hamlet etc are written as a performance text, so are much better in film than in written form.

http://www.popsugar.com.au/celebrity/...

An article I saw on the weekend that is pretty relevant here. There does seem to be a flood books to film adaptations at the moment. I did see another on popsugar that listed 100, but can't find it now. Will post later.

Why do you think there is such a trend for book adapted into films? My cynical side thinks it's all about making more money.

Definitely $$ related. It's because in the current "uncertain financial climate" most production companies aren't willing to take risks, so they choose projects with an already established audience, ie. books/plays. Also, even if the movie is terrible, fans of the book will still hand over their $$ to see it (and most likely just as happily rubbish it). This is why I reckon they have all the tied-in comic book movies too. Action-based ideas with established audiences=$$$$. Good example, the recent and widely panned adaptation of TMNT. Though, I am still pumped to see it!! It's the Ninja Turtles after-all. Cowabunga!!!

I agree with Russell regarding film companies wanting to tap into an already existing audience - from their prespective, it is about trying to reduce financial risk.

I've also recently (and finally) seen The Book Thief (film) and agree with Darren that the book was better than the film.