Locus points to a NYT article called When the Film Outshines the Novel which offers the interesting opinion that film adaptations sometimes surpass the books on which they were based.

I say “Hogwash!” (Mostly because I never get a chance to say “hogwash”. What the heck is hogwash anyway? Ah, bless the Internet!)

Movies are almost always inferior to books – at least for the story that the book tells. They are different mediums and books offer a more comprehensive canvas on which to tell the story. In fact, it is the resulting literary goodness that made some Hollywood suit notice it in the first place. Books can get inside the characters’ heads; movies are relegated to the spoken inner dialogues of Dune.

That’s not to say, of course, that all adaptations suck. Actually, many adaptations succeed quite nicely and should not be offhandedly dismissed. However, anyone who favors a movie over a book is missing out.

Seriously, can anyone name a film adaptation that was superior to the book?

[Hmmm…I know this is a loaded question since there are bound to be some people who disliked some author’s writing style but found the 90-minute film version more than watchable. So, go ahead. Edumacate me.]

Filed under: BooksMovies

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!