>All the recent comments about Starship Troopers made be think of the
>question regarding books and movies of books, movies and books of
>movies.  Which is better?
>
>In general it seems to be that whichever comes first is better - the
>movie of ID4 is better than the book, the book of Starship Troopers is
>better than the movie.  The question is, is this universal, or are can
>anyone cite an exception?  One I can think of off hand is "The Princess
>Bride", where (IMO) the movie and the book were pretty much equal - and
>where the movie did a very good job of capturing the atmosphere of the
>book.  Another is "Fantastic Voyage", where Asimov's novelisation is an
>improvement on a B-grade movie.
>
>Any others?
>
>Barry Haworth.
>
Very few movies from original novels are better than the books they are
based on. Two exceptions that I can think of offhand are THE POSEIDON
ADVENTURE and THE GODFATHER. At the same time, earlier is not always
better. It was the third film version of THE MALTESE FALCON that was the
classic (John Huston-directed Bogart version), and the third version of
FRONTIER MARSHALL (better known as MY DARLING CLEMENTINE) was by far the
best. THE MALTESE FALCON and TRUE GRIT are two of the very few movies that
perfectly capture the book they are based on. (I suppose LOVE STORY as
well, but that does not make it any good). By the way, although my opinion
was unsolicited, I think THE PRINCESS BRIDE is a better book than movie. I
enjoyed the movie, but every once in a while the film relied on schtick
(e.g. Billy Crystal's scene) that did not work so well, though I enjoyed
both. And of course, sometimes it is a matter of taste. Some people prefer
"I Shot the Sheriff" by Eric Clapton more than by Bob Marley. Some people
like Dylan performed by other artists than Dylan. It's all a matter of
taste.