Books VS Movies

[Buffanator]

I love movies; I am a huge collector of movies (& TV shows) and I also love books. Some books I have read several times.

I think most people would agree that when they read a book & really enjoy it, they get all excited to know a movie is being made, but when they go see it, they are utterly disappointed, because the book is ALWAYS sooooo much better.

This, of course, is the case most of the time. My favorite book of all time, The Prince of Tides (which I have read about 12 times) was made into a movie starring Nick Nolte & Barbara Streisand. GEEZ DID THAT MOVIE EVER SUCK MAJOR BUTT!!!! I was actually ANGRY when it was over; angry that I spent my hard earned MONEY to watch the stupid thing.

Another movie that comes to mind that really sucked but the book was great was The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. While I have been disappointed in nearly all books-to-movies, there are TWO movies that I actually enjoyed MORE than the book.

The World According to Garp (starring Robin Williams & Glenn Close)

and

Forest Gump (starring Tom Hanks)

Have you seen any movies that you liked better than the book?

 

[white avenger]

Yeah, the books are almost always better than the movies, and yet we keep hoping that Hollywood, or whoever, will by some miracle get the next one right. Sadly, they never do. No actor can ever measure up to the writer's image. Whether it's Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Rhett Butler, or James Bond, they just never quite measure up. Of course, if they ever did, we wouldn't have any reason to read in the first place, and I personally would hate that, because, like you, I love to read.

 

[Karol]

I know that your saying... I always think the books are better than the movies ¬¬

The Lord of the Rings is a good movie, but the books are soo muchs better!!

Theres a movie that I liked, and it is as good as the book o/
One of my favorite books (I love all the Chronicles *_*) is Interview With the Vampire. The movie is great, of course its different from the book, some parts are cut off but its great, even Anne Rice (the author) loved!

 

[Blondie Bear]

I liked the Forrest Gump movie better than the book, too. The character was much more endearing (and the constant gratuitous cursing was gone).

I liked A Walk to Remember as a movie better than the book, too. And again, it's because the characters were more endearing and made more sense to me.

There are others that are comparable, if not better. The Ruins was a MUCH better movie than I thought it was going to be, and managed to be almost as creepy as the book. The Lord of the Rings was very well made; I don't think they could have done any better, personally. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was awesome (though Prince Caspian didn't quite stand up to the first movie, let alone the book).

 

[Washburne]

I know that the LOTR books are great. But they weren´t written in my kind of style, so I had to force myself to read them all. I just had to have read them. So I can easily say that I enjoyed the movies more, way more.

Other than that, none that I can think of. But then again there are a lot of movies based in books that I haven´t seen or movies I haven´t seen then one´s been made. So I´m really not an expert.


edit: Maybe I should try to read them in english. Then again I know there´s a new translation (in swedish) that is suppsed to make it easier to read. Might give them a chance some day.

 

[Bluebird]

I also have to agree that Peter Jackson did a great job on LOTR. A lot of stuff from the book was left out of the film but I think the essence and the spirit of the book was captured perfectly.

I really like the Discworld novels too and a few of them have been made into TV features (the last one with Sean Astin in it) but I really didn't like them. The whole thing just felt like an episode of a bad sci fi/fantasy TV show. I can't really put my finger on it but as a fan of the books I didn't like them at all.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I also have to agree that Peter Jackson did a great job on LOTR. A lot of stuff from the book was left out of the film but I think the essence and the spirit of the book was captured perfectly.

I really like the Discworld novels too and a few of them have been made into TV features (the last one with Sean Astin in it) but I really didn't like them. The whole thing just felt like an episode of a bad sci fi/fantasy TV show. I can't really put my finger on it but as a fan of the books I didn't like them at all.

I agree about the Discworld tv adaptations. They were so full of promise, and they seemed to be almost getting it, but it just didn't quite work. They were just a bit too silly.

I did also love the LotR films. I think it's mainly because they decided from the beginning to make a film, not a moving book. That's what made the difference. Plus, Ian McKellen.

 

[Blondie Bear]

I haven't seen the Discworld things, but I can't see them working. I think so much of the funny was in puns and stuff that wouldn't translate to screen that it . . . wouldn't translate to screen. Kind of like trying to make a movie out of Tanya Huff's Keeper series. The humor just won't work in a visual medium.

 

[InsaneMystic]

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was awesome (though Prince Caspian didn't quite stand up to the first movie, let alone the book).

Would have given you karma, but you were the last one I gave it to...

I've just seen Prince Caspian today in the cinema, and you're right. I still hold it's a good (though not great) movie quite undeservedly slashed by the critics and I very much enjoyed watching it, but it isn't nearly as touching as the first one and takes quite some liberties with the story - though, granted, the book probably didn't provide enough material for a full length movie without some "filling", and the short cameo scene by Tilda Swinton was very well done IMO even if it's not that way in the story originally. But I would really have loved to see more Aslan scenes instead of all the battle sequences; especially missed the Aslan-Susan interaction from the story. 🙁

Well, I guess we'll be back on the mythical aspects of Narnia with Dawn Treader... I guess that would logically be the next one they'd produce, and I heard the next movie's expected to come out in late 2010.

 

[Blondie Bear]

^ I think the issue was that the plot of Prince Caspian (the book) is a bit convoluted, and the whole bacchanal scene is kind of weird. It probably wouldn't translate well to screen. So they hacked all of that out, but then had to push Aslan's arrival back, but then had to fill in the gaps with SOMETHING. I adored Reepicheep; I think they captured him perfectly. I have high hopes for Dawn Treader; the plot is much more straightforward. It might be a bit long for a movie, though; they'll probably have to hack some of it out (if it were me, I'd take out the whole thing with the Dufflepuds).

 

[InsaneMystic]

Still I miss the second part of the bacchanal scene, when they're going through the village and all these changes happen magically. But I agree with you - I can't see either how they could have made that work on screen. At least they kept the River God in (and man, was that an impressive special effect! :buble_eye ).

And yes, I loved the Reepicheep scenes (and you can't help but LOVE that wonderful character, anyway!). I was so happy they adapted the full scene when he lost his tail and all of those brave little follower mice want to cut theirs off. And that one with the castle cat... although I felt sorry for it (I'm a big cat lover), it really made me laugh out loud!

EDIT: If the Dufflepuds should get cut, I hope they at least leave in Lucy in that Sorceror's Mansion. Losing that passage would be major disappointment for me...

 

[Schillaci]

The only movie that I've liked, that was originally a book, was .. Watership down. I mean its like a cartoon movie, but I loved it when I was a kid.


I loved, really loved the Lord of the Rings when I was a kid too. I read Lord of the Rings when I was in primary 6. Which made me like nine, or ten. And it really served as a template for all books to come and be sort of graded by. If Lord of the Rings was a ten, any book that I graded a five was a masterpiece that I read numerous times.

I pretty much stopped reading fiction about 15, 16. Any book I read after that had to have a brilliant and completely enthralling beginning or I would discard it. Labeling it as trash.

Then they made the movies, and I kid you not. Going to see the Fellowship of the Ring for the first time I think I was more afraid, more nervous than I have ever been in my life. And the beginning, when it talked about the first age, and the making of the rings, I do not lie. I had a lump in my throat and I needed all of my masculinity to hold back tears.

Unfortunately, I really began to dislike the first movie. I hated the second. Didn't go see the third.

Worse than all that it affected how I view the books. Growing up, I could just pick up the LOTR, open it at any page and just start reading. I did that so many times, it didn't matter where I opened the book, I coudn't stop reading until I had finished it.

Now though, I pick up the book I can't start reading it. Any sentence I read I just see the most twee, campest book ever.

I completely blame the movies for destroying one of my fondest memories. Ruining one of the greatest books ever written.

I plan to get some sort of memory killing surgery. I would kill to see the books how I once saw them. For them to give me the inspiration they once did, and for those books to open up my imagination one last time.

I fear the memory of the films will forever stay with me, blighting my imagination, stunting its greatness with horrible moving images.

 

[MSchett]

books are better because your imagination is better then real life

one book that ive read and then saw the movie was eragon didnt like the movie at all but the book was great

but with Harry potter the books are so close to the same that when i read the new ones i actually imagined the actors while reading the book

 

[Tranquillity]

The one Book to movie where i liked the movie better was 'About A Boy' - thye made some big changes to the movies and it was just more endearing. The book was good, but i liked the movie better.

'Room With A View' is the best book adaptation i've ever seen - both book and film are equally enjoyable and the film captures all the feeling and emotion of the book and doesn't change the story at all.

sidebar: I just did a display in my library called 'Seen the movie? Now read the book' - based on the whole principle that books are usually better than the film.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

The only movie that I've liked, that was originally a book, was .. Watership down. I mean its like a cartoon movie, but I loved it when I was a kid.


I loved, really loved the Lord of the Rings when I was a kid too. I read Lord of the Rings when I was in primary 6. Which made me like nine, or ten. And it really served as a template for all books to come and be sort of graded by. If Lord of the Rings was a ten, any book that I graded a five was a masterpiece that I read numerous times.

I pretty much stopped reading fiction about 15, 16. Any book I read after that had to have a brilliant and completely enthralling beginning or I would discard it. Labeling it as trash.

Then they made the movies, and I kid you not. Going to see the Fellowship of the Ring for the first time I think I was more afraid, more nervous than I have ever been in my life. And the beginning, when it talked about the first age, and the making of the rings, I do not lie. I had a lump in my throat and I needed all of my masculinity to hold back tears.

Unfortunately, I really began to dislike the first movie. I hated the second. Didn't go see the third.

Worse than all that it affected how I view the books. Growing up, I could just pick up the LOTR, open it at any page and just start reading. I did that so many times, it didn't matter where I opened the book, I coudn't stop reading until I had finished it.

Now though, I pick up the book I can't start reading it. Any sentence I read I just see the most twee, campest book ever.

I completely blame the movies for destroying one of my fondest memories. Ruining one of the greatest books ever written.

I plan to get some sort of memory killing surgery. I would kill to see the books how I once saw them. For them to give me the inspiration they once did, and for those books to open up my imagination one last time.

I fear the memory of the films will forever stay with me, blighting my imagination, stunting its greatness with horrible moving images.

That's a shame for you. I did go through a period where the books and the films got all cofused in my head, and I didn't like it at all. I've managed to seperate them now though. I see the films as very good films. But not adaptations of the books. They are inspired by them and have lots of nice references, but they are a different beast entirely. I like them for completely different reasons.

The books though... I totally agree. I first read them when I was seven. Not that I particularly understood them properly, but it got me over the archaic language and mythic style of writing. That puts a lot of people off, but I never knew anything different. I've read them so many times since, and they are some of the only books that, despite the length, I always read very slowly. You just have to take it all in, you know?

I also love all of the other stuff that Tolkien wrote on Middle Earth, Valinor, Numenor, Beleriand... It goes so deep. I don't understand why people say The Silmarilion is a difficult read. I couldn't put it down! Now I hear Jackson and del Torro are doing a film based on some of the stuff from The Silmarillion, but I haven't really been keeping up with what's happening with that. It could work....maybe.

 

[InsaneMystic]

but with Harry potter the books are so close to the same that when i read the new ones i actually imagined the actors while reading the book

Are you serious? ??? Aside from the first one - which I loved to bits - I don't think the HP movies do the books justice at all!

 

[MSchett]

Are you serious? ??? Aside from the first one - which I loved to bits - I don't think the HP movies do the books justice at all!

I thought they were good the actors look like their descriptions and it sticks to the plot... Whatd you think was wrong with them?

 

[Aethra]

I read the Lord of the Rings books many years ago, but I just didn't love them. I had problems with the style, and the wordiness. And since the movies are fantastic (Fellowship is on the AFI top 100 list, even), I say those were better than the books for me.

I can't think of any others at the moment, but I'm sure there's like, one.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I thought they were good the actors look like their descriptions and it sticks to the plot... Whatd you think was wrong with them?

I used to be really dissapointed with them, but they've grown on me. It's just, when you have read the books (read: when you are obsessed with the books) the slightest change just seems wrong. But once you get over that, it's certain things that don't hang together that cause problems. Mainly changes in characterisation. Like Gambondore. Just, eugh. Then there's Little-Miss-Exposition Hermione, and silly Ron. They just don't quite hold up to Rowling's characters.

They did pick the actors very well though. I do see and hear most of them when I read the books now. It's only Gambon I take issue with. He's just not Dumbledore.

 

[SC7 Fan]

the slightest change just seems wrong.

I know what you mean, when the Harry Potter movies first came out, I was wondering where's Peeves? For some reason it bugged me that Peeves wasn't in it.