Book vs Film infographic

[barney_rebel]

http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/books-vs-films-the-infographic

 

Missing a whole slew of good ones.

[Babycat]

Is it because there is more imagination in a book, that you can visualise, more than you can with a movie?

[Segue Myles]

Personally I think a lot of the problem is the talent behind the camera.

 

Books like Schindler's Ark, The Lord Of The Rings and Gone With The Wind measure up to the source of the material because the directors had a vision, a passion for their project.

 

Harry Potter, Twilight and a myriad other adaptations fail because, lets face, they are factory made, often beautifully but ultimately hollow.

 

I mean Harry Potter has the potential to make a Grade A film series in the hands if a man like Peter Jackson, but alas this eluded the films because the directors just didn't measure up.

 

As for Schindlers List, having read the book I can safely say Spielberg hands down bettered it. The story is a great one. The writing was confused and inconsistent (is it a novel, is it a biography? Is it a mess? A definite "YES" to the latter!).

 

Other fantastic adaptations that for me matched the book were Never Let Me Go (Kazuo Ishiguro's masterful sci-fi fable never struck me as particularly filmable, but I was delighted to be proven erong!), Atonement (stunning! And the book is 10/10 as well!) and Ben Hur (the book has aged terribly, but the story hasn't!).

 

Books that truly deserve a new adaptation are A Tale Of Two Cities, Dune (not a single movie though), and a faithful, Victorian era War Of The Worlds (with a score inspired by the musical).

 

And on a personal note, I would love Harry Potter to be serialized in animated form, old school style and not watered down for kids.