I just got through reading Chris' article
Horror Literature v The Movie His teaser tag says "Which is better: a horror movie or a horror novel? Why does literature have more of an after effect than a film and are the characters and plots woven better in the written word?"
I think the reason lit has a longer effect than movies is because it is our own imagination supplying the "visuals" to go along with the action - instead of someone else's idea of what we should be seeing.
I always think of Stephen King's
"IT". That was the first (and only) book I have ever read that I had to actually put down for a couple of ays because it disturbed me and gave me honest to goodness nightmares. (OK, since then the movie "Event Horizon" but we won't go there).
But it was because the monster in that book was too horrible for description.
It was described as sometimes an evil clown, sometimes a spider-like thing, and sometimes something they couldn't fathom. That just freaked me out - cause my brain kept coming up with these horrific monsters that I think I have blocked out of my concious mind.
Then the mini-series comes along and the clown is played by Tim Curry (although I do love him, especially his voice) and the spider creature was just silly. It ruined it for me. And then the courage displayed by the kids didn't seem anywhere near as convincing on screen as it seemed in my mind.
But I think that's what goes wrong in all books-turned-movie, the producers can't compete with our own imaginations. And if they can, then we need to work on our imaginations!