The Princess Bride

[jpskewedthrone]

I have just finished reading the book "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman and thought I'd take a moment to talk about books, movies, and just stuff.

First off, I saw the movie a long time ago (and have seen it repeatedly since) and so reading the book turned out to be . . . disappointing. Oh, it was certainly well written, but in the end, the movie and the book are close enough in plot and character that it became just another version of the movie. There were a few things in the book that weren't in the movie of course. In fact, there was one entire scene near the beginning of the book where I burst out laughing and couldn't stop for the next page or two because the hilarity continued. But most of the good points of the book were also in the movie, so these "extra" moments were rare and few and far between. Of course, this got me thinking about whether movies or books are better, and why, and wherefor, and then of course the obvious question anyone will ask at this point: Was the book or the movie better?

And of course I'll say the movie. But I only say the movie because I saw the movie first and didn't read the book first. It's impossible for me to "remove" the movie experience from my head and attempt to place a judgment on the quality of the book without that experience there . . . but I'll try anyway. *grin*

If I had read the book before seeing the movie . . . I'd say that the book was good. I'd recommend it to friends. I would not have said that the book was spectacular.

So in a strange case (because typically it's obvious that the book was better than the movie or vice verse), I'd say that the book and movie were both good and that they complement each other. I think this is extremely rare. If you've seen the movie, you should read the book; and if you've read the book, you should really see the movie. They go well together.

As an aside, in the edition of the book I bought, there's the first chapter of the sequel to the Princess Bride called "Buttercup's Baby" and I'd have to say that the sequel did not feel the same as the rest of the book. Goldman actually points out that it's different in tone and feel because Morgenstern wrote them so many years apart, which is of course the reason they feel different. But based on what I read of the "sequel", I'm not sure I would pick it up if it ever came out. (This is a little tongue-in-cheek here, since that's what the tone of the entire book is like.) I mean, there were moments where I felt like I was back in The Princess Bride again, but there were also quite a few moments that didn't have the same feel, the same . . . ease and innocence of The Princess Bride. Or perhaps I mean the same simplicity. The story of The Princess Bride is excellent because it is so simple, in such a complex way. The sequel (the one chapter provided) just didn't have that same simplicity of plot. In one chapter, it already felt more convoluted and complicated than the entirety of The Princess Bride.

In any case, I'm glad I read the book. If you haven't already, you should. If you haven't seen the movie . . . blasphemy! Everyone should have seen the movie!! It's a classic that will never die!!!

(Memorable Quotes from The Princess Bride here.)

Comments

[wldhrsjen3.livejournal.com]

I know *exactly* what you mean. I read the book last summer with a similar conclusion. Although, I'd have to say, I might actually like the movie better. (gasp! I know - I *always* like books better, except this time!) I just loved the characters in the movie, and while the book is charming and fun, it lacked the...vibrancy? of the movie version for me. And I did not like Buttercup's Baby.

And now I feel a strange urge to watch the movie again, for perhaps the 475,628,219th time. :D

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I believe I do like the movie better, but it may be a case of "I saw it first" only.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Of course, that is a movie far, far beyond the average movie! It's one of the few cases I can think of where I'd say, if you can do only one, see the movie.

But you're right, both is best.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I now need to see the movie again. I wonder if it's one of the ones that survived the flood . . .

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

Now I never have to read the book. I'm not sure I could stand the disappointment. I'll just watch the movie another twenty-five thousand times.

Some of us have decided that Westley and Inigo have ruined us for real men forever. I'm pretty sure that's true.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that real men have been ruined forever because of them.

[bookaddict88.livejournal.com]

I loved the book, but this is one of the rare cases where I might actually like the movie better. But then, the fact that William Goldman wrote the screenplay for the movie definitely helps!

I didn't like the Buttercup's Baby excerpt.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I certainly wasn't thrilled with the excerpt. I saw potential, but it wasn't quite there yet. I also sensed possible disaster, which is never good.

[misunderstruck.livejournal.com]

The only other complementary book/movie combination that I can think of off the top of my head is Christopher Priest's The Prestige. Of course, the movie departs a bit from the book, but does so in a way that makes the story work better in the chosen medium.

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Having just finished THE PRESTIGE yesterday, I'm right there with you. They both *work*. They both work really well. They tell the same story (with the obvious exception of the modern storyline being excised from the film). I can't say which one I like better, because they both work so *well* for what they're doing.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I've seen the movie but have not yet read the book. Now I may have to.

Book better!

[spiderweb888.livejournal.com]

This must be a case of whatever came first is best.

I read it first and I think that the book is definitely better than the movie. How can a movie be better than anyone's imagination?? However, I admit this is one of the *very few* movie adaptations that didn't totally suck. One of the problems with the movie is none of the characters look as I'd imagined.

Re: Book better!

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I believe it is a "whatever came first" scenario, yes.

[ebenstone.livejournal.com]

I use "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" at least once a week in school!

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

I'm a copy editor. For scholarly journals. I say that to someone practically every day :P

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I'll have to keep this in mind for my math classes. . . .

[welshbard.livejournal.com]

The book/movie combination that I find complementary is 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke. Both outstanding, both helpful for understanding and enjoying the other.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Ooo! Another good example.

[tchernabyelo.livejournal.com]

I've seen the movie many times, and still love it - definitely in my top five of all time.

I have never read the book. And I suspect I won't, for the reasons you cite. I was discussing a similar phenomenon (in a writing context) just last night, which is that you can play with people's beliefs by pacing the delivery of contrasting information. Basically, if you are told "thing A is true", and then some long time later told "actually, thing A is not true", you will tend towards believing that thing A is true, because it had become part of your accepted world-view. If, however, you are told "thing A is true" and then almost immediately "thing A is not true", you will tend to believe that thing A is not true - you trust the accusation more than the assertion, because it comes quickly (assuming there is no counter-accusation). So if you saw the movie and then IMMEDIATELY read the book, you might well think "it's a shame this wasn't in the film... ohh, they didn't do this as well as they could..." and so forth. But over time (and multiple viewings, which also help to set the "truth" of the film, then the book becomes unable to cmopete.

It's fun using this in fiction, to set expectations so that surprises come as eral and genuine surprises to the reader, who will be reluctant to accept counter-truths (which should mirror the characters' experiences).

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

What you say is true, and I think I'll always love the movie slightly more than the book because of it.

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

I've seen the movie about ... ∞ times, and read the book once. So it may be for that reason that I like the movie better. But you're right, they actually are a good combination -- complementary, not contradictory -- which is very rare IME.

A couple of years ago I happened to be visiting my parents while my mom was teaching a six-week English immersion course (which she has done every May and June since I was very small); she was looking for an English-language movie for her (beginner) class to watch, one they would enjoy and appreciate and not have too much trouble understanding, and from which she could generate some good related activities. DH had packed our brand-new special-edition DVD of The Princess Bride. Poof! By the next day we had come up with a whole list of activities, discussion questions and writing topics (which of course required watching the movie a couple of times ::shifty::). The class LOVED it.

The Princess Bride as adult-ed curriculum ... soon it will conquer university-level math, too ...

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Hmm . . . *looks forward to showing The Princess Bride in math class as an educational experience* . . .

[sylvia-rachel.livejournal.com]

You could have them all count Count Rugen's fingers ::ducks and covers::

Or, um, determine the ratio of "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." to "Inconcievable!"

[libwitch.livejournal.com]

(You do realize that there is no such person as Mortensen, right? Just checking) I am a huge fan of the movie - I own it, and have watched it over and over and over....but I loved the book. I thought the made up story behind the story was just hysterical. And all the true extras were fantastic - for instance, the slapping of the Andre the Giant.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Yes, I realize there's no Morgenstern. *grin* (That's what the tongue-in-cheek comment was for in my post.)

[libwitch.livejournal.com]

Oh, but I in general, I am all about the book - even, I have found, if it is a novelization of the movie (since they usually work in the deleted scenes - trust me, River's pebble line after the reaver fight during the robbery makes much more sense if you read the novelization)

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I'm usually more about the book as well.

[ceibhfhionn22.livejournal.com]

My sister made me say, "I am Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die!" about a million times with a Spanish accent because 'if you know Spanish, you should be able to do a Spanish accent.' whatever. It was funny the first three times. The movie is really good. I haven't read the book...yet.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

What, you mean you can't speak with a Spanish accent if you know Spanish? This isn't a given?

[ceibhfhionn22.livejournal.com]

Well, the Spanish accent as a Spanish or Mexican would speak. (extremely fast, I can't understand a word you just said) I only have two years of Spanish under my belt and I start my third year this school year. But I guess the accent is sort of a given, though, there is probably an American twang? when I speak Spanish. I haven't had to use it on anyone yet.

[rugor.livejournal.com]

I read the book when I was about 12 and loved it. I saw the movie when I was about twice that age and loved it.

Having thought about it, I like the movie better.

It was long enough after reading the book that the characters looked right for me-- and everyone's delivery is so good that it just hooked me.

(I honestly think that it's not just the great lines-- but that overall the delivery is just so good.)

It Depends,

[vespican.livejournal.com]

I guess on the particular book/movie one refers to. I cannot make a call on THE PRINCESS BRIDE, as I've only seen bits and pieces of the movie and have never read the book. All in all, however, I would say that I usually like the book better. That especially true if the book was written first and later adapted for the screen. I've seen some changed so much that it is no longer the same story. I understand the idea of "artistic license" and the fact that certain aspects of a written story do not translate well to a strictly visual and aural medium. Yet it seems some film versions of various books don't even attempt to follow the basic story.

For those books that are written after the movie, often written from the screen-play, I think the corrolation between the two is much closer. The biggest difference might be inclusion of scenes in the book that do not make the final cut in the film. I would think that if the writing of the book could wait until the final version of the film is ready, that those scenes would disappear from the manuscript as well.

While I usually wish the movie and the book to follow one another quite closely, there are a few instances where the changes made to bring the book (or series of books) to the screen do not readily distract from the basic story. In one instance I'm thinking of the Horatio Hornblower movies made for A&E a few years ago. A few things were changed...Captain Pellew always seemed to be Hornblower's superior and mentor, while in the books a variety of captains and admirals filled this position. I suppose that simplified a lot of things for the production crew, including fewer roles to cast. Nevertheless, I thought the overall effect of these TV Movies was consistent with the character and times created by C. S. Forester.

In the same genre or category of writing and movie making, there is the famous movie, Master and Commander; The Far Side of the World. This film was evidently based on the twenty some Aubrey/Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian. However, the film's story line did not directly follow the plot line of any or any combination of the books. It was, to the best of my knowledge a compilation of them all, using scenes from various books to create an entirely new story.
Because of that, I should probably state that I did not like the movie. Truth is, I enjoyed it, possibly because I saw it before reading the books. And even though the film story differs so much from the books story, the producers did a wonderful job of creating the atmosphere and tone of the printed works. (I do question the use of "Master and Commander" in the title, as all through the film, Jack Aubrey was a Captain of at least three years seniority.)
Dave

[steve-buchheit.livejournal.com]

Love the movie, now I guess I don't need to read the book (well, possibly will anyway). My favorite story about the movie is sitting in "Survey of Art History 2." A class that began at 6:30pm and went to 8:30. Two hours of mostly sitting in a darkened theater, looking at slide after slide of art, all after eating dinner, and with a professor that could put rocks to sleep (actually he was pretty funny, but with a very dry delivery, it was just the circumstances). Fortunately we artists can be a funny group, an dI had the fortune to sit among many clowns. As we're going through the Pre-Raphaelites, before break and my mid-evening Mt. Dew boost, just as my eyelids are dropping toward nappy-time, from behind me, in perfect imitation voice, comes, "Marriage. Marriage is what bring us to together today."