So I watched Blade Runner this Saturday, mainly because I’d decided to finally read the book on which it was (loosely) based, Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, that past week. And it got me thinking. Generally speaking, when films get compared to the books from which they’re made, the books come out on top. “Oh, the movie was okay,” someone will invariably say, “but the book was so much better.”
But I happen to think Blade Runner is much better than Dick’s original book. For all of the interesting ideas in the book — some that were carried over in the adaptation, some that were not — it’s a little confused, just a litle dated, and not terribly exciting. So, for all its flaws — and Ridley Scott’s film is not without flaws — I just like the movie better.
Same goes for Wonder Boys, which I also watched earlier last week. It’s one of my favorite movies, and, as much as I love Michael Chabon’s work, I think it significantly improves upon the original novel.*
Some of this, I’m sure, owes itself to the fact that I saw both of these movies for the first time before I’d read the book. (In the case of Wonder Boys, Curtis Hanson’s film was my first introduction to Michael Chabon’s writing.) Had it been the other way around, I don’t know if I’d feel the same.
But, leaving aside for the moment why I prefer one to the other, my question is this: are there movies that you prefer to the books on which they’re based, books you either read before or after you saw the film? Why do you like one better than the other?
* Well, okay, there’s probably one major scene near the end that I wish had made it into the movie, but you can’t have everything.