"But the book was better!"

[Joanne Collins]

>This is an issue I have always been interested in.  When I was much
younger, I would read a book and then  watch the movie, or, if I saw a
movie and loved it, I would read the book in order to get a deeper
understanding.  

I will always do that. If I love a movie, I *want* to read the book whether
it's a tie-in release or a novel that existed before, I want to read it if
I love the movie. I'm currently reading the novel that the movie To Die For
was based on.

>But sadly, most of the movies are VERY lacking.  

This is sadly true.

>Very often the movie is disappointing.  If i haven't read the novel first,
I don't tend to notice as much, but if I have, I'm always upset by what is
left out of the story and how the characters are portrayed.

For me, it depends on what has been changed and the reasons for it.

There are sometimes things that *cannot* be translated from the print
medium to the film medium, but it is still possible to film the books.

A few cents' worth on some book-to-movie or movie-to-book experiences of my
own.

Little Women: I'm fondest of the Katharine Hepburn version of the three
I've seen (Winona Ryder's and a seventies adaptation that I can't recall
the cast of), but the book is still better than all of them. I read the
book first.

American Psycho: The movie could have been horrible, but instead was (IMO)
quite hilarious if one is into black humour (I am). This was a movie that
hinged on the performance of the lead character, and Christian Bale did an
amazing job. I hadn't read the book before seeing the movie, and I did read
it later. There were parts of the book I found horrible, but they were
supposed to be.

Rounders: For the most part, the movie was better. I think this was a
tie-in novel, but the main thing I didn't like was that the movie ended
optimistically and the book ended pessimistically. I read the book after
seeing the movie.

Danielle Steel's Secrets: This was that rare case, a movie that was better
than the book it was based on. I watched the movie and devoured the book,
because I'd enjoyed the movie so much. The book was negative where the
movie was positive.

The Talented Mr Ripley: I saw the movie first, and I hunted for the book,
because I knew I wanted to read it. There were characters and plotlines in
the movie that weren't in the book, but I think they worked for the movie.
The character of Ripley in the books is much colder and more amoral than
the movie version. The character of Peter (my favourite :) is almost
non-existent in the book, but on the other hand, he doesn't have the fate
he does in the movie in the book, so it's a trade-off, though both work.

Here's a question relating to this thought: How do you feel about changes
from movie to book if they develop a character/concept you would like to
see more of in the book?

>My greatest dream is to have Cameron Crowe's job.  To be a writer and
director would be heaven.  

It would be. And that's one movie I *loved* when I saw it recently, Almost
Famous. Then again, I'd go to any Jason Lee movie even if he only said one
word in it. Actually, he wouldn't even need to speak.

Joanne.

-- 

Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way. In twenty
years, if you're still livin' here, comin' over to my house to watch the
Patriots games, still workin' construction, I'll fuckin' kill you. That's
not a threat. Now, that's a fact. I'll fuckin' kill you. Chuckie (Ben
Affleck) Good Will Hunting