said discussion comprised the words ‘the book’s better’. whoever typed those words (i don’t know him, he’s a friend of a friend) obviously didn’t get the memo. proclaiming the book is better than its film adaptation, true or not, makes you sound like a pretentious twat.
wow. you read? you must be, like, super smart.
the thing is, the book usually is better than the movie, isn’t it? i used to think (but chose not to express to avoid aforementioned twatiness – it’s a word) the same thing. that was until i read the boy in the stripped pyjamas last year.
in this case, i had already seen the movie and had been inordinately moved by it. the book, although touching in its own right, did not live up to my expectations.
was that because the movie was better than the book? perhaps. but maybe it was simply because i had seen the movie first. my ideas of how that scene should look or how that character should behave were all based on the movie because it got in first.
thinking back, i cannot find an example of when i have liked the second instalment – be it the book or the movie – better than the first. you?
and, of course, we almost always read the book before we see the movie so it is only natural the former would win the bulk of the accolades.
for the record, the most disappointing adaptation – for mine – would have to be the beach. i don’t even remember why but i hated the movie yet adored the book (which, of course, came first).