[cs702]

I read "Bonfire of the Vanities" many years ago, and thought it was fantastic -- does an incredible job of portraying the different social/ethnic/economic groups in New York during the 1980's, and how these groups view, think about, and interact with each other. Hollywood turned the book into a terrible movie that ruins the story; I would avoid the movie if you have any interest in reading the book.

[mattzito]

My recommendation would be to read the book, then read the book "The Devil's Candy", which is about the making of the film, and then see the movie.

The Devil's Candy is about how a writer was given full, uncensored access to the production from inception to release, because everyone thought it was going to be a puff piece of a book about how great everyone was. But in reality, the author got to see how a combination of creative egos and studio mismanagement (plus bad casting, a compromised script, I mean, EVERYTHING) created one of the biggest hollywood flops to that point. It's such a good read.

[drblast]

Second "The Devil's Candy," even if you're not interested in Bonfire of the Vanities at all.

I haven't read the book or seen the movie (yet) but The Devil's Candy was an incredible look into how badly things can go in Hollywood. You can probably generalize it to any large project where multiple competing interests all have a stake.

[xsmasher]

"The Devil's Candy" changed my attitude from "Why do they make bad movies?" to "It's a miracle that anything screenable get made at all."

[mikepurvis]

It's very funny and engaging, but I first read it young enough that I still expected that kind of story to include some kind of redemption and turn-around— in reality the characters (esp Sherman) basically spend the whole time making a bad situation worse and worse and worse, continuing to double down on their mistakes and ultimately bury themselves.

Not that this is at all bad, but it was a change from what I was otherwise used to reading as a teenager.

[JackFr]

It was astonishing that the movie was so bad.

The book was pure capture-the-moment 1980's New York City, and the movie captured none of that and featured Tom Hanks' worst work since Bosom Buddies.

[rhapsodic]

>Hollywood turned the book into a terrible movie that ruins the story; I would avoid the movie if you have any interest in reading the book.

I saw the movie when it first came out but never read the book. I thought the movie was good and couldn't understand why it got so many bad reviews. What made the book so much better?

[macintux]

I can't speak to either the movie or the book, but I've found it interesting that whenever I see a movie before reading the source, I'm pretty happy with the movie, but rarely am I satisfied with the movie when I've read the book first.

The subtle nuances and key moments that I love are rarely translated to the screen. It's perfectly understandable, because they're two very different forms of fiction and the movie rarely has time to be much more than the Cliff's Notes version, but it's still disappointing.

When I've seen the movie first, I can appreciate it for its own sake.

[baud147258]

One I remember rather well was the last Harry Potter movie. I had read the book a few years earlier when it was released. I was it a first time in a cinema and was rather disappointed, compared to the experience of reading this part of the book. But then I saw it again one month later and, expecting the movie instead of the book, had a much better time.

[krylon]

I had the experience. When I see the movie first, it is alright, but when I have read the novel first, the movie is usually disappointing.

(So far, I have had one exception: No Country For Old Men - I think the movie captures the book just perfectly.)

[wj]

My one exception is Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

[krylon]

Thanks, I will put that on my to-read/to-watch list!

[ghaff]

The book was brilliantly written and really captured a time and place. The movie was just meh.

Maybe, absent a book, the movie was just mostly forgettable. There were better films involving 80s financial types like Wall Street. But we’d probably remember Bonfire as a minor film that largely wasted star power through miscasting etc. rather than a bomb.