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
It Depends,
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