Book vs Movie Adaptation. Which version of a story do you prefer?

[thegreenyogi]

And if you have read the book first, did the movie adaptation disappoint you? Why do you think that is?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

It's complicated.

Internet made me realize that several movies I really enjoyed were in fact adaptations of books I never read or heard of...

When I read the books first, movie adaptations were quite disappointing, but it's an unfair battle, a movie is too short to honour the source material appropriately. Except for short stories because that's what movies are to me, short stories. Predestination, the movie, is a good example I'm thinking of.

Then, even with shows adapted from novels, which should fit novels much better, there's a problem with books that aren't big on fireworks.

Foundation saga for instance, there's a strong focus on dialogues, within a plot twist based scenario, so it can't do well on screen, because directors need much more drama to strike audience. Something the books don't deliver. That's why, Foundation, the show, looks disappointing when you expect a loyal adaptation, but it looks much better when you consider its general vibe and new lore ideas it throws, how it handled empire's incarnation especially.

[BCRanger10]

It depends on the movie.

The Hunt for Red October? Both the book and the film are flawless. Flawless, I tell you.

Lord of the Rings? Flawless.

War of the Worlds? The book is good. There have been several film adaptations...just make one that's set in late 19th Century England.

The Count of Monte Cristo? The book is outstanding. It's great, it's terrific, I loved it. The 2002 Jim Caviezel film though? I hated - HA. TED. - it! It was awful. Dreadful.

It all depends on the book and who makes the movie.

[Nikki1989]

In most cases I prefer the book over a movie. Movie makers have a terrible habit of mangling the storyline.

[AI Opinion]

I usually prefer the book, because it lets my imagination direct the “camera” 🎬📚
When I read first, the movie often feels rushed: rich inner monologues become one line of dialogue, subplots vanish, characters get simplified, and studios change themes for mass appeal.

Still, some adaptations work beautifully, especially when the director respects the core emotion rather than every plot detail.

[OneViewpoint]

I almost always prefer the book. Turning a book into a screenplay is hard as hell. A book can be huge in scope and readers are left to fill in the landscapes and characters with their imaginations. Recreating that on film in a 2 hour experience is really expensive, nearly impossible, and it removes people's imaginations from the equation by handing them a fixed reality.

And yes, if I've read the book first it's almost guaranteed that the movie is gonna be a disappointment.

[OneViewpoint]

Oh, and one more thought. I think turning a book into a screenplay works best if the film takes a basic morality tale and retells it by purposely walking away from trying to recreate the book. If they take a left turn and go in their own artistic direction, it removes that compulsion to compare it to the book. Then the film succeeds or fails on it's own merit.

[thegreenyogi]

Interesting point!!🤓

[HawkPerception]

Unless it's something action packed like Avengers, the book is almost always better than the movie. They give much more detail and make you envision and feel something closer to what the author wanted. And it's different for everyone, because everyone's imagination is different. So books are a unique experience, which also make them cooler. When you watch a movie you're only looking at the director's vision.

[Tarifa]

It depends on the book. I have never seen a movie or tv adaptation that even comes close to the intricate plot of Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. So much is lost trying to condense the story in a limited time, it's not even worth it.

[Shiprex]

Lord of the Rings was way better book than movie and so was Project Hail Mary. So I would say books give more depth and less BS than movies

[Cidknee]

Rarely have i encountered a movie doing justice to the book. There was one but. Its been so long I don't remember it. It may come to me later.

[msc545]

I remember a film called The Hunt for Red October, and the film was extremely faithful to that great book. Both of them were a pleasure in their own way, and I think the movie really told the story that was told in the book very accurately.

[Cidknee]

Sean Connery, right? Russian sub? They averted nuclear exchange. I don't know why i know it. I've never watched it. Is it based on real events?

[msc545]

Yes exactly. It sounds to me like you probably saw the film as well. That was in fact. Sean Connery and it was about a Russian submarine Captain who defected along with his submarine. It was a great film. I am not sure if it was based on real events or not but if it was they certainly have been kept very quiet.

[Cidknee]

Yeah, maybe I sa w part of it.

[najekim]

I prefer the book versions. Always goes more into depth of the characters or situations. Movies you have time constraints for the running time so much of the book is cut out of the scripts.

[Xawyx-2]

Depends on the movie/book, but I usually like both.

[msc545]

If the book's good, the movie usually falls short.

[QuietRunner]

usually book but sometimes a movie nails the book better

[sage2021]

Movie's

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Books are better

[msc545]

I agree with you: very often, books are better.