"Where the Wild Things Are" is both a great book and film.

Published Oct. 18, 2009 at 7:04 a.m.

4 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...

Posted by Falconcrest on Oct. 20, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (report)

I'm dating myself, but I always thought the movie version of "Jaws" was better than the Peter Benchley (sp?) novel. Ordinarily, I prefer the book for many of the same reasons mentioned by others. It is possible to enjoy both. (Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Harry Potter books and movies). I've also read "Last of the Mohicans," and enjoyed the Daniel Day Lewis movie version immensely, but a few years ago, I saw a serialized version on PBS that stayed much closer to the novel's original plot, and thought it was quite good as well. The novel, at least for the modern reader, suffers from Cooper's style. The plot itself wasn't bad. To see Cooper really taken to task, try to find Mark Twain's essay on the literary misdeeds of James Fenimore Cooper. It's absolutely hilarious.

Posted by llpierce on Oct. 19, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. (report)

The movie is never better than the book, so sayeth the bibliophile. The movie can be as good as the book (see Shawshank Redemption, Misery, Lord of the Rings Trilogy), but never better. That's just my opinion, but then I've always preferred reading the book because there are more little things to enhance the story that the movies can't often get, for whatever reason.

Posted by MilwaukeeBrewerGal on Oct. 18, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (report)

Sometimes it can be...but also sometimes a good movie can be an interpretation of a book, even if it takes liberties, it can still get the point across...Good examples of great movies based on books that did the book justice (or short novels), 'Sense and Sensibility', 'Emma', 'Brokeback Mountain', 'All The President's Men', 'The Age of Innocence'...'Band of Brothers', was a miniseries but it definitely counts...'All Quiet on the Western Front'.... 'L.A Confidential'....'Stand By Me'.....'Shawshank Redemption'.... One of my favorite examples of a movie being WAY better than the book is 'Last of the Mohicans'...I read the book when I was a kid and HATED it...it was pompous and just...ick...(and I majored in English)...but the movie???? AWESOME!! One of my favorites of all time...

Posted by Stoddarschmidt on Oct. 18, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. (report)

I think folks get too wrapped up in trying to decide which is "better", when it's difficult to compare the two. A good book does not necessarily make a good movie--there are so many more restrictions on film (time, budget, marketability), that many are doomed from the start. If someone is willing to give up the fact that a movie will almost never be able to show every bit of information from the book, then the opportunity exists for the movie to simply be a good movie. A movie shouldn't fail simply because it didn't visualize every element from every page (mind that one, Harry Potter fans). Along the same lines, books can't match the immediacy of emotion that films can give us with their visual component. Although our imaginations provide limitless potential for "seeing the book in our head", a talented film crew can create beautiful images that are packed with so much more than just the action of the characters. Subtleties of light, shadow and expression that are worth a thousand words. I think we should enjoy good books as good books, and enjoy good movies as good movies. Even at their best, film adaptations would be hard pressed to be called "better" than the book, because you can't compare the two--they are good for different reasons. Some examples of what I thought were great books and great movies: Most of the Harry Potter installments, The Hunt For Red October, House of Sand and Fog, The Lord of the Rings, Adaptation, Fight Club, The Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Princess Bride.