I’m not sure if there’s an exception out there (and if so, let me know), but every time a book is made in to a film, anyone who has read the book and seen the film inevitably says, “The book was better.”
It seems somewhat par for course now that whenever a film comes out, it is often novelized to boost sales. So if the movie comes first, does that mean it would be better than the book? Or is it a case that the original artistic vision, whatever the medium, remains the better offering?
For your viewing pleasure, here are 10 movies that would make awesome SF novels.
One instance I already know of this conversion is actually a BBC television series that was later written into a book–and the book was still better! I’m talking about Neil Gaiman‘s Neverwhere, which first ran as a six-part series. I watched and read both versions, and I would say that while the show is entertaining and fun, the book leaves so much more room for imagination and little details that can’t quite be captured in a film format.
A few of the movies on the list include: The Fountain, Primer, and Twelve Monkeys. Take a look at the other offerings and see if you would agree. Are there any movies you think should be added? And finally, the all-important question: If a story is presented in film format to begin with, is anyone going to take the time to follow-up and actually read a book version to compare the two? It seems that it is more the book-loyalist camp that has already gone through the text who feel it is vital to hold a film translation up to the original piece to see how much the movie director got wrong. Whaddya think?
I see that smile.
A book can hold so much more story than a movie; I think it’s inevitable the book would seem richer in comparison.
However, I read the novelization of Underworld: Evolution, and I can’t imagine the movie being worse. *bites tongue*
Also, a movie can provoke more awe in me than a book can–especially the ones with great special effects. I’m such a sucker for teh pretteh.