h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am a voracious reader. I have read LOTR in a weekend and generally read a novel a week. I also like films and have seen many adaptations of books as films as I have read book adaptations of films.

This is a 'tough' question; there are so many variables it will be difficult to come to a consensus, however here am my comments.

Some directors like can take a particular authors novel and capture the essential plot detail and characterisations readily on film. Blade Runner, The Shawshank Redemption and 2001 (to name a few) are in my view all good examples of book adaptations.

Other directors seem to focus on other areas of the book such as trying to capture the scenery and background, thus loosing the plot and characters against what might be a fantastic backdrop. Dune springs readily to mind as a classic example.

Unfortunately the book adaptations of films all seem to add very little. The Alien series, Cocoon, et al are all marginally more than detailed scripts.

However readers/filmgoers also bring their own take on a movie or novel.

Some people either choose not to or naturally don't visualise the novel they are reading. Thus the film they see of a book they've read is a familiar plot but with entirely new characterisations and scenes. On the other hand others will claim that the casting was wrong and didn't meet their expectations. I doubt whether anyone would have envisaged Conan to be anything like Arnie.

You might as well as whether a sequel can be as good as the first film (Alien vs Aliens?).

LOTR is attracting a lot of comments and rightly so. This has the potential to be the most disastrous adaptation ever made, purely because of the wealth of writing on the background, history, language, customs and people of Middle Earth. It also has the potential to be as memorable and ground breaking as the original Star Wars movie (a fairly average book). From the trailers I have seen I would question the casting of Aragorn (Sean Bean would probably be closer to most peoples views) and Boromir (Viggo Mortensen would seem more suitable), however I am open to being proved wrong.

So my own view is yes, you can make a film better than or at least as good as a book, but you need the right frame of mind on the part of the audience and desperately need the right director.

I agree its a tough question, with lots of widely varying situations. But a quibble, "Blade Runner" is probably not a good example of a book adaptation. As I recall (going from memory here, always risky), it was based very loosely on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Phillip K. Dick. I also vaguely recall reading the story and thinking that "very loosely based" is an overstatement. More like a concept that led to a screenplay that led to a memorable movie. Or something.

The Philip K Dick original was a short story which I seem to recall was amazingly bleak. I read this first

Personally I liked the film and the story but have always considered them to be seperate entities.

Cpt S

Going back to your original question "Is the movie ever better than the book?" - I have been racking my brains and cannot think of one example.

I think 2001 was close, but did the book come first? (Please don't flame me , I just can't remember). David Lean's "Great Expectations" is a great film but it doesn't top the original Dickins novel.

Trainspotting is probably more accessable than Irvine Walsh's original book but I am not sure if it is better.

I can readily think of TV series that are better than their source book or book, (Inspector Moorse) but movies are really tricky.

CS