Fight Club the movie is on-par with Fight Club the book. It's not better, and it is different, but they are both at the same level.
Printable View
Fight Club the movie is on-par with Fight Club the book. It's not better, and it is different, but they are both at the same level.
Only one I can think of is Clockwork Orange.
My friends used to go on about the book all the time, saying it's way better than the movie. I kept meaning to read it but never got around to it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
The book is different than the movie. The movie is just an exercise in (at the time) state of the art amazing CGQuote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoBMy friends used to go on about the book all the time, saying it's way better than the movie. I kept meaning to read it but never got around to it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
Three come to mind immediately for me. Gone With the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, and A Clockwork Orange.
The Godfather - decent but pulpish book, bloody classic movie.
Always watch the movie first! Otherwise all you think about is how lame it is when they have to cut stuff out :(
Gone with the Wind is crap. The book and the movie. The sooner people admit this, the better. Anywayz, American Psycho and Trainspotting are ones that come to mind.
I liked Tuck Everlasting much better as a movie, but that's not really saying that much. I think Stardust was about the same book/movie but it's been a while since I read it.
Personally, I liked To Kill a Mockingbird better as a book.
Though, if we're just going books vs. movies I say any book based off a movie tends to be crap. For example if anyone hasn't read the book Serenity you should only do this if you want to go through literary torture.
Anybody ever read star trek books? They're usually pretty lame except for a few writers. I've heard it said that Forest Gump was a pain to read. Also I like "A Christmas story" the movie to the book. I can't imagine the book being able to capture what the movie did.
NOTE: Star TREK books Not wars.
Lord of the Rings movies were fantastic. But nothing compared to the book.
Harry Potter films are mediocre, at best. Books are quite good. To me, at least, the books have got boring as I've read them too many times. Good books, but they seem to have little re-read factor.
The Prisoner of Azkaban was amazing as a film. It was the only one to actually capture something that the other movies didn't have. It was great artistically. It's just completely different from the book. Too bad Alfonso Quaron can't do any more of the HP movies - PoA had the best atmosphere... And they should bring John Williams back as the composer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harle-Quin
Some of the James Bond novels are surprisingly trashy... but then, some are brilliant too. The movies basically rival them in that way.
I dare say the recent Casino Royale was better than the novel. It was an adaptation in the loosest sense, but they did a fantastic job of updating the plot forty years and expanding on the novel (which was quite short) to include scenes and events which had only been implied. It was fantastically well done, and while I like both, the movie was absolutely brilliant.
Come now, Forrest Gump is far superior as a movie than as a book, at least from what I've almost universally heard. I've not read it, though, but at least from what I hear, the book was not very good, and I think the movie is incredible.