The novel is better than the movie

I finished reading the book about 2 months ago and I feel like it was more in depth with characters like Johnny Fontane and Albert Neal.
The movies (1 and 2) are great.But not as good as the novel.

I would agree with you on that. Overall the novel does go into more depth and the movie does totally capture the mood of the novel or Vica Versa, but I do think there were parts in the book that were not added. The Luci Manceni part, was the romance of the book and clearly put in to add a new element, but did detract from the rest of the boko in terms of flow.

The novel has much more detail, but the films are more polished works. And some of the details in the book (like Lucy and Jules, Nino and Johnny, etc.) add nothing.

to each his own UK. what i like most from the book is Lucy, Sonny(how they were meant with each other or how they become compatible. lol!) Johnny, Al and Luca Brasci how bad are they. . .

GoodFella

An opinion I don't share. Yeah, the novel adds a lot of depth to the characters, but it wasted too much time on unnecessary stuff (like Johnny Fontaine, Nino, Lucy Mancini and her big -----, and Dr. Jules Segal).

Don't get me wrong; I like the book, but I LOVE the movies.

But it would have been neat to have the Luca Brasi/midwife scene imo.

I can see both arguments. But I like the way we get to hear about in depth, Al Neri, Luca Brasi, and especially how we hear about Sonny being prince of the city.

But you can't ever fit a whole book into a film. It's been done well only a very few times.

I haven't read the Lord of the Rings, but I hear it was done very well. GF obviously.

Being too lazy to read everyone's replies...I am a bit like Santino. Luca Brasi's soul was dead before he was killed. That is probably why he was such a good soldier.

About your post title...I always found books to be one hundred percent better than their movie versions. Problem is that books take time to get interested in. Education and reading experience, too, play a role.
I chose to read more because a relative of mine said, "Books raise IQ points."
Well, I read a lot and I still feel stupid all the time.

Try reading books with hard language. Those tend to boost your vocab. For example, Dante has taught me to understand shakespearean english a lot more, by Dante, I mean The Divine Comedy. He was the first to write in a language other than greek or latin in Europe.

I hope you ingested all that. Take care, and have a peace of mind.

The ironic thing is the Movie did immortalize the book. The book was great, but it did have extraneous parts and as such didnt'have as a good of a flow as the movie does. Then you have the preformances, just fantastic. The movie didn't detract from the book, it made the book experience better. SO I think the irony here is the book has become a great companion of the film as is the case otherwise usually.

I think the movie is better, at least in my opinion. It catches the book, and makes it come alive. The music, the camera made it all work nicely. I loved the flashbacks in #2 soo much. I love all of the Vitos. sometimes movie renditions put a damper on the book, but it made it all the better. what you do with movies you can't do in books. and vice versa. but I like more of the good things that come with making it a movie. Al Pacino and Marlon Brando are the main reasons.

I am reading the book my self and I think it great its got more deltail then the movie. But I think the movie is more exciting.

I'm also part way through my first reading of the book and I'm enjoying it...every gritty detail, every over indulgent character development, every nuance that becomes an integral part of the movie. But I do find myself constantly comparing it to the movie. It's hard not to picture the cast as we know them while reading the book. And even projecting the cast into the parts of the book that never made it into production.

I believe my point of view will always be clouded by the fact that I saw the movie before reading the book. And in some ways, I find myself wishing I had read the book first.

I think there are things in the book that could have been incorporated into the movie but couldn't be achieved through dialog. Puzo is heavy on narrative which contributes to the progress of the novel, but wouldn't translate well on the screen. Moreover, how much longer could you make the run time for each of the two movies? I guess if Robert Evans really had his way, they would have checked-in at around five hours!

Turnbull's frequent references to the book motivated me to visit my local public library for a copy. I think you have a greater appreciation for the casting and the screenplay while becoming much more critical of the movies once you read the book. But I would guess virtually all of us have seen the movie first and our opinions will always be just a little bit biased because of that.

tony b.

I just finished my first reading of the book and I think the movie was much better.

Keep in mind I have watched the movies (part 1 and 2, but not 3) several times, so maybe my judgement is clouded.

The book, aside from the last two chapters, is pulp fiction. The dialogue is stilted and unconvincing. The sex scenes were tawdry, more suitable for a bodice-ripper romance. The side stories with Johnny Fontane, Luci and Niccolo (?) were a waste of ink.

The don in the book was a 2 dimensional cartoon character; Brando made Vito flesh and blood.

The book was a good read, but it's something I'll have forgotten by tomorrow. The movie, by contrast, is a monument in film, an experience you can never forget.

Normally I like the books better than the film versions. But not this time.

I look at the book as kind of a "reference text" for the movies, providing background and details you don't have time for on screen.

There is plenty of plot material in the unused chapters to form the basis of additional GF film sequences.

The Jules/Lucy Mancini segment has been rendered totally moot by GF III, so I basically just don't pay any attention to it. It's kinda like a Bobby Ewing Dream Sequence.