The diiference.

[rug]

[enough]

1. Very good.

I just recently had an example of this. Several years ago I saw the film "Winter's Bone," which I thought was really wonderful. Then a few weeks ago I happened to read the book by Daniel Woodrell. It was so good I turned around and read it again immediately. I loved the book so much I figured I would watch the movie again, so I Netflixed it.

I could not believe what a dim, disappointing, dull, sad, cliched, stereotyped, stilted, almost pointless, affair the movie seemed to be in contrast to the book. And this was even though I had originally thought the movie was really interesting and gripping. It was a very good movie. It simply did not hold a candle to the book.

[TeamPooka]

2. a great example of this is THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP by John Irving

wonderful deep rich book.
craptastic movie.

[kentauros]

3. Well, I know most writers won't agree with me,

but I feel that both are forms of art in their own right, and to compare the two does a disservice to both at the same time.

For example, upon finally reading The Wizard of Oz a couple of years ago, as I was reading I could understand why some things weren't included in the film. And yet, I loved both the book and the movie, even if I've seen the movie countless times and only read the book once. Both are works of art and treasures of their own genres.

And then there's the idea that some of us found reading the books quite difficult, such as with A Clockwork Orange. I never could get into it due to the almost requirement of learning the slang before reading it. Whereas the film explains things and you're able to pick up what the slang terms mean through the visuals of that medium.

Yes, sometimes the movie isn't directed in a way that carries the story well at all. And sometimes the book wasn't nearly as good yet the movie depicts the story better than the writer could. The only example of that I can remember is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clarke is a good writer of stark science-based fiction, yet his characters are sometimes difficult to connect with, or just plain flat. Even though that book was written after the movie it's still not as well-written as it could have been. It read like Clarke rushed through it just to cash in on the popularity of the movie.

[SheilaT]

4. Usually, but not always.

They are two different art forms, after all.

I would love to take a class, maybe at my junior college, titled "Novel vs Film", the idea being you read the book and you watch the movie and then discuss.

An example of a film that is as good as the book, but in different ways, is "Terms of Endearment". The novel is by Larry McMurtry, whom I quite fond of. His books anyway. But the novel of that name would not have worked if simply filmed as is. The shift of emphasis in the movie from the mother Aurora (played by Shirley MacLaine) to the daughter, Emma (played by Debra Winger) makes the movie much better than it otherwise would have been.