Printable View
Usually books are better than the movie. I am Legend, for example.
I'm looking for a list of movies that trump the books. In my opinion, Lord of the Rings movies are better than the novels. I'm not decided about Harry Potter though -- the books are great and the movies are great too.
What aboot you guys?
You haven't read that book.
I would say they're different, not better...but I could write reams on that subject.
Possibly The Outsiders, though that's a pretty tough call. :jess:
I read the wikipedia article which means I'm an expert on the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
Im not sure if it counts as a "book" but i know watching Shakespeares works in play form or movie form is damwell better than reading them! Which makes me wonder why we even read them instead of watching them for school because they were clearly written to be watched, not read.
But for me that only goes for litteral versions of the play, none of that 'interpretation' tomfollery.
Movies only, or TV?
Season 1 of the Dexter TV series is way better than the book it was based on, although the second Dexter book (Dearly Devoted Dexter)trumps both.
I kind of wish Hollywood would cut back on the book-to-movie crap and come out with more original stories.
The majority of movies, good or otherwise, have been based on books since Hollywood started..Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
Either way, I agree.
The best book-movies I've ever seen are easily the LoTR movies. However, the book was so freaking incredible that I just can't rank the movies over it.
Debbie Does Dallas. The novel just sucked. I did like its footnotes, however.
I would actually welcome more book-to-movies, but less on the comics-to-movies and sequel extravaganza. I can think of tons of books that would make awesome movies that haven't even been considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
I say Dexter also. Holy crap what an amazing TV show. The books were okay until the third, and at that point it's hardly readable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys
Yes, although the movies are amazing, the books are still better.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guru
Honestly, I can't think of a movie that's better than the book it's based on. At least not right now.
I actually proffered the movies, but thats due to my dislike of Tolkeins more poetic writing style.
Not a big fan of that kind of writing.
I can't think of a single book-to-movie where the book isn't better. Of course, I wouldn't know much, since to my memory the only books I read before they were made into a movie were LotR and those books are simply outstanding. Too much was missed out for the movies so the entire story was not told, therefore to me the books are undoubtedly better on that reasoning alone. The writing style is, of course, excellent as well.
I loooved the movie The Hours, and I thought it was better than the book. The book was boring, and most people would argue that the movie was boring. But the movie had some of the most riveting scenes - acting wise - that I've ever seen on film. Nicole Kidman in this scene was astounding.
The movie feels very much like a book come to life, and the brilliant performances in the movie elevate it to a level that's greater than the book itself in my opinion.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one of those books that benefits from seeing it all come alive. The book was fantastic, but the movie was just so incredibly vibrant and amazing. It was one of my favorite films as a kid.
I've never read the book version of Jurassic Park, but the film version is damn good. I can't imagine the book being better than what Spielberg managed to capture on screen.
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.
Forest Gump, Pride & Prejudice, and... there was one more but Spuuky made me forget it.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Books tend to be better cause if you were to make them into movies verbatim then theny would take more time than most people have the attention span for. Movies tend to come out as the Reader's Digest version of the books. They take the core elements and leave out all the details and nuances that make the stories amazing. Movies are trash anyway...
Can't believe I forgot Pride and Prejudice! The 2005 version was sooo good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor PlumForest Gump, Pride & Prejudice, and... there was one more but Spuuky made me forget it.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
It was! I read the book and it was just dull compared to the movie. In the movie they added desire and passion that the book was too "proper" for.
And then the hardcore Austen fans complained about the lack of accuacy. Screw those guys! It was hot!
Can i get the Bourne series?
Meh, if it is anything like Timeline then I'd say the movies are better. That being said, Timeline made a far better movie than it ever did a novel.Quote:
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
Crichton's original Jurassic Park is pretty solid. The dinosaurs are less like savage monsters and more like actual animals. The gore is much more intense and frequent, though, and the characterisations are often very different. There's also the small matter of the near-complete reversal of who lives and who dies.
Worth a read if you found the film too lightweight.
Too lightweight? Oh my god, the movie was just about the scariest thing I had ever seen in my life at that age. I was like... 7 years old or something. And it practically made me pee my pants. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Big D
I watched it with my mom when I was four. I was obsessed with dinosaurs at the time, and I'd been begging her to let me watch it for ages. She finally cracked at like two AM when I refused to go to sleep. "Now, Zach, if it ever gets too scary, just tell me." She stopped the movie three times because she was terrified.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirielToo lightweight? Oh my god, the movie was just about the scariest thing I had ever seen in my life at that age. I was like... 7 years old or something. And it practically made me pee my pants. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Big D
I thought it was the most awesome thing ever.
Winner. I'd say Jurassic Park counts, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
Wow. I don't think I could disagree with you more. O.O That movie was horrible, and I loved the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan
I think Jurassic Park is the only good book-to-movie adaptation of Michael Crichton's works. Granted, they're nothing alike, but it's probably the only movie that I don't mind the changes made.
I've never read the book, but the 2005 movie was really great. Although the book's a classic I doubt I'd enjoy it more than the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirielCan't believe I forgot Pride and Prejudice! The 2005 version was sooo good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor PlumForest Gump, Pride & Prejudice, and... there was one more but Spuuky made me forget it.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Books are a lot better than the movies. Hollywood puts too much into them and switch them around too much to try to make them more exciting, when it just normally bombs, like how Annete Curtis Klause's book Blood and Chocolate has a different ending than the movie portrayed.
But there are some movies that are excellent, like The Notebook.
It just depends on who makes them. But They should stick with the books fully.
The films would be good if they stopped unnecessarily changing the plot and the sequence of events. Book to film does need some work to make it shorter etc., but most of the stuff changed in HP was complete bollocks and needless.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_White_Wizard_of_FynnThe 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
Plus, the crappy actors. Well, "child" actors. Rupert Grint = good. Dan Radcliffe, Girl-who-plays-Hermione, pretty much everyone else = crap.
3 was awesome because of Sirius, or should I say the magnificence that is Gary Oldman. <3
I couldn't finish the book. I just could not get into it. I am not saying the movie was amazing just that I enjoyed it more than the book thus for me it was better than the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germ HameeWow. I don't think I could disagree with you more. O.O That movie was horrible, and I loved the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan
I think Jurassic Park is the only good book-to-movie adaptation of Michael Crichton's works. Granted, they're nothing alike, but it's probably the only movie that I don't mind the changes made.
Also, Fellowship of the Ring made a good movie. I found the novel much more boring than the other two.
Practical Magic is horrible, stupid, disappointing book. The movies owns it so hard.
I've heard the Fight Club movie is better than the book, but I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet. I guess it's a matter of opinion.
Timeline is the most horrible movie I have regret to say I have ever wasted time on. I liked the book immensely. Jurassic Park was also a good book, but I might have to say that the movie was better.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of LeviathanMeh, if it is anything like Timeline then I'd say the movies are better. That being said, Timeline made a far better movie than it ever did a novel.Quote:
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
whichever movie inspired the book.
Jackie Brown was based on a short story (not that it was a faithful one) and I thought the movie was infinitely times better than the short story.
"The Phantom of the Opera" made a much better musical/movie then a novel. I did not like the writing style of the book, nor the pace.
I'm a damaged individual with no imagination. When I read a book, I just see words, no pretty pictures and characters and places. The only exceptions I can think of are Carrie and Island of the Blue Dolphins.
Therefore, the movie is always better for me.
If TV shows count then "Cristy" was way better as a show then the book. "Pride & Prejudice" was a better movie then a book, so was "The Scarlet Pimpernel."
But then you won't enjoy the book as much because you'll know what happens. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪
The shining. I read the book first, and didn't see why everyone claims it's such as brilliant film. [The woman who plays Wendy for example, was naff]
Well Stanley Kubrick did supposedly at one point put Shelley Duvall through 100 takes. I'm not surprised she might have given up eventually. She's not as bad as all that anyway, it's just her role calls upon her to do little but snivel and scream.Quote:
Originally Posted by NecronBut then you won't enjoy the book as much because you'll know what happens. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪
The shining. I read the book first, and didn't see why everyone claims it's such as brilliant film. [The woman who plays Wendy for example, was naff]
The Shining is a tricky one as the book and film are so different.
Nice to see someone bring up Fight Club in this topic! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Personally, I enjoyed the movie far, FAR more than the novel. The novel is fun, but it contains a number of redundancies and pacing issues. There are reasons I've never read the novel more than once, but have watched the film some odd twelve times. They're different, but in my opinion the film gets it right. It trims the novel's fat, becoming a much faster-paced experience, and makes several improvements, such as the new ending that I vastly preferred.
The film version of A Clockwork Orange doesn't hold a candle to the book for me. As violent and appalling to some people as it was, the film was noticeably toned down in darker content. Having read the book first, I was probably biased going into it, but when I anticipated certain scenes and they completely changed them for content, I was disappointed. Not to mention the vast difference in the amount of Nadsat each used. Obviously the book is allowed to use it much more freely simply because it is of the written medium, but come on. Still a great movie, but not even close to the book in my mind.
I think the Harry Potter books are much better than the movies, they seem to be improving though. :)
Starship Troopers. Way better than the book.
I'm currently reading Pride & Prejudice because I've seen the tv Drama over 100 times. I'll see which is better when I finish. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Professor Plum