Books vs. the Movie - Blu-ray Forum

deckardp · 10-14-2009, 02:10 PM

So recently I started thinking about books that have been made into movies and trying to think if their are any that I had truly thought were better than the book. I was really struggling to come up with any examples of this. Some of the worst movie adaptions have come from Stephen King novels. I never get the same feeling from the movies as I do from the books. They always feel lacking. That's just one example. I'm sure there are plenty more I could come up with. I would like to hear others' opinions on this though. Let me know of a movie that is better than the book.

Moefiz · 10-14-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deckardp

So recently I started thinking about books that have been made into movies and trying to think if their are any that I had truly thought were better than the book. I was really struggling to come up with any examples of this. Some of the worst movie adaptions have come from Stephen King novels. I never get the same feeling from the movies as I do from the books. They always feel lacking. That's just one example. I'm sure there are plenty more I could come up with. I would like to hear others' opinions on this though. Let me know of a movie that is better than the book.

This is a tuff one, so far I don't think there was ever a movie that was better than the book..

cathexist · 10-14-2009, 02:14 PM

There are a lot of books that I have read AFTER watching the movie...and that usually makes me like both of them.

Timeline is by far the worst film adaptation of a book I have ever seen.

Christine was pretty bad too...but at least the car effects were kind of cool

Riff Magnum · 10-14-2009, 02:24 PM

I personally like the movie adaptation of "the Shining" better than the book, but i agree most other King adaptations are painfully bad. It seems almost half the movies coming out are based on short stories, comics, or graphic novels so it's getting hard to keep up with both sides.

Steve · 10-14-2009, 02:33 PM

While there have been some very good film adaptations of books, I can't think of a single one that I think is actually better than the book.

uziel5000 · 10-14-2009, 02:34 PM

I try to look at them as seperate things as it is very difficult to be 100% faithful to a book. When people start saying they didn't like a particular adaptation because they didn't include/changed a particular scene, what they are saying is they are pissed they didn't include/changed a part of the book they really liked so it is really a subjective thing.

Using Stephen King as a prime example, these things are hit or miss. A person's post above says he hates Carrie but others love it. It really depends. My favorite adaptation is my favorite all time film, The Shawshank Redemption. It is NOT completely faithful to the book but I think the changes made the film better than if they were.

Riff Magnum · 10-14-2009, 02:37 PM

Totally forgot about Shawshank. Add that to the list of "better" than the book.

deckardp · 10-14-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Totally forgot about Shawshank. Add that to the list of "better" than the book.

Have to agree there. I liked the original short story and they did a great job in expanding on it.

P@t_Mtl · 10-14-2009, 02:45 PM

They are two different things. You can't compare a 700 pages long book with a 2 hours movie. Of course the movie will have things missing but it at least give's you a chance to see your favorite book come to life. I always look at them as two different things.

vega2K · 10-14-2009, 02:48 PM

I thought both Blade Runner and Minority Report were better than the short stories they were based on. But then again, I don't think short stories really qualify as books. But then again, I think comparing a short story to a movie is more fair than comparing a book to a movie.

uziel5000 · 10-14-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

They are two different things. You can't compare a 700 pages long book with a 2 hours movie. Of course the movie will have things missing but it at least give's you a chance to see your favorite book come to life. I always look at them as two different things.

Absolutely.

The Harry Potter films are good examples. I have liked them all so far. The first couldn't be more faithful to the book even if they handed out the book while at the line to get into the theater. As the books got more complex (and much longer) the films have shifted and have added and substracted as needed to keep the films pacing flowing. In both accounts I feel they have succeeded.

Blu-Benny · 10-14-2009, 02:55 PM

normally i like the books better than the movies, but i watched Lord of the Rings before i read the books. i've only read LOTR once through but @ this time, i prefer the movies.

but, when i was reading the books, i was putting in 20+ hours of OT here @ work and was falling asleep a lot more while trying to read them.

i do have to say i did not care for the Tom Bombadill character in the book though.

P@t_Mtl · 10-14-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uziel5000

Absolutely.

The Harry Potter films are good examples. I have liked them all so far. The first couldn't be more faithful to the book even if they handed out the book while at the line to get into the theater. As the books got more complex (and much longer) the films have shifted and have added and substracted as needed to keep the films pacing flowing. In both accounts I feel they have succeeded.

I agree IMO they have done a good job with Harry Potter plus considering how young the main part of the cast is, they surrounded them with very good veterant actors and just made the world of Harry come too life.

I think you should judge a movie on the acting, direction, camera work and not on the book it came from.

P@t_Mtl · 10-14-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

normally i like the books better than the movies, but i watched Lord of the Rings before i read the books. i've only read LOTR once through but @ this time, i prefer the movies.

but, when i was reading the books, i was putting in 20+ hours of OT here @ work and was falling asleep a lot more while trying to read them.

i do have to say i did not care for the Tom Bombadill character in the book though.

LOTR the book is difficult to read for those who saw the movie first. It's a high fantasy book written more then 50 years ago by a guy who wasn't technicaly a writer. It as some long passage that yes could be very boring for certain people. I read LOTR almost 30 years ago the first time and just loved it, was a different time of course.

That being said, they did a amazing job on the movies, not just Peter Jackson but everyone, from the actors all the way down to the last crew members. It was truly a work of love.

deckardp · 10-14-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think you should judge a movie on the acting, direction, camera work and not on the book it came from.

That is pretty hard sometimes, especially when you are talking about a book you really love and then see it turned into a horrible movie.
The Harry Potter movies are obviously ones that had to be cut down to be turned into movies and were done very successfully. That doesn't make them better than the books, just really good movies on their own.

SillyMammo · 10-14-2009, 03:01 PM

I'd think in most cases the book is better than the movie. Though the previous posters have given good examples being otherwise.

FindYourWay · 10-14-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

They are two different things. You can't compare a 700 pages long book with a 2 hours movie. Of course the movie will have things missing but it at least give's you a chance to see your favorite book come to life. I always look at them as two different things.

I agree completely. Books and film are two different mediums, like the difference between a pumpkin and a pumpkin pie.

P@t_Mtl · 10-14-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deckardp

That is pretty hard sometimes, especially when you are talking about a book you really love and then see it turned into a horrible movie.
The Harry Potter movies are obviously ones that had to be cut down to be turned into movies and were done very successfully. That doesn't make them better than the books, just really good movies on their own.

I am usualy very good at spliting myself between the book and the movies. I read, I read a lot

I would say that I have over 1000 books, either scifi, fantasy and manga and lot's of history books.

If I were to pick one movie that as disapointed me compare to the book, it's 2001 A Space Odyssey. I first read the book when I started highschool in 1980, it was in the school library. I saw the movie after that. But I think mostly my problem with the movie is Stanley Kubrick. I know a lot of people love him but I do not and none of his movies ever appealed to me.

deckardp · 10-14-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am usualy very good at spliting myself between the book and the movies. I read, I read a lot

I would say that I have over 1000 books, either scifi, fantasy and manga and lot's of history books.

If I were to pick one movie that as disapointed me compare to the book, it's 2001 A Space Odyssey. I first read the book when I started highschool in 1980, it was in the school library. I saw the movie after that. But I think mostly my problem with the movie is Stanley Kubrick. I know a lot of people love him but I do not and none of his movies ever appealed to me.

I like most of Stanley Kubrick's movies, but the first time I had seen the Shining I had hated it. At the time, having read the book first, had thought that it was just not the same at all.

Grand Bob · 10-14-2009, 03:11 PM

Although I certainly enjoyed Arthur C. Clarke's novel, I thought "2001" the movie was far better than the book.

"Star Wars" IV, V, and VI movies were definitely better than the book counterparts; haven't read the novel versions of I, II, or III.

Regarding Stephen King movies, I thought the movie versions of "The Shining" and "It" (with the exception of the lame ending) were better than the book versions.

Lord of the Rings book was much better than the movies, despite the fact that the movies were among the best ever made.

10-14-2009, 02:10 PM	#1
deckardp Special Member Member since:Feb 2009 Location:Northern Virginia Home Theater Gallery:17 Blu-ray collection:40	Books vs. the Movie So recently I started thinking about books that have been made into movies and trying to think if their are any that I had truly thought were better than the book. I was really struggling to come up with any examples of this. Some of the worst movie adaptions have come from Stephen King novels. I never get the same feeling from the movies as I do from the books. They always feel lacking. That's just one example. I'm sure there are plenty more I could come up with. I would like to hear others' opinions on this though. Let me know of a movie that is better than the book.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Prospero's Books	Wish Lists	Dubstar	4	01-14-2021 09:25 PM
Books Into Movies	Movies	Sain4847	40	11-06-2013 01:39 PM
Looking for books about this....	General Chat	Groo The Perverted	1	02-06-2010 06:37 AM
Who feels the need to have the comic books AND the movie?	Movies	starbase_62	10	01-02-2010 05:20 AM
Movie Trivia Books	General Chat	HiDefPhan	0	05-31-2008 06:18 AM

10-14-2009, 02:14 PM	#3
cathexist Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Aurora, CO 4K collection:302 Blu-ray collection:1253 DVD collection:73 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:8	There are a lot of books that I have read AFTER watching the movie...and that usually makes me like both of them. Timeline is by far the worst film adaptation of a book I have ever seen. Christine was pretty bad too...but at least the car effects were kind of cool

10-14-2009, 02:24 PM	#4
Riff Magnum Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Apr 2008 Location:The Island Blu-ray collection:149	I personally like the movie adaptation of "the Shining" better than the book, but i agree most other King adaptations are painfully bad. It seems almost half the movies coming out are based on short stories, comics, or graphic novels so it's getting hard to keep up with both sides.

10-14-2009, 02:33 PM	#5
Steve Blu-ray Knight Top ranked HT gallery Top contributor Member since:May 2008 Location:Anna, TX 4K collection:128 Blu-ray collection:416 Trading Score:41	While there have been some very good film adaptations of books, I can't think of a single one that I think is actually better than the book.

10-14-2009, 02:34 PM	#6
uziel5000 Expert Member Member since:Jan 2009 Location:Vega Alta, Puerto Rico Blu-ray collection:103	I try to look at them as seperate things as it is very difficult to be 100% faithful to a book. When people start saying they didn't like a particular adaptation because they didn't include/changed a particular scene, what they are saying is they are pissed they didn't include/changed a part of the book they really liked so it is really a subjective thing. Using Stephen King as a prime example, these things are hit or miss. A person's post above says he hates Carrie but others love it. It really depends. My favorite adaptation is my favorite all time film, The Shawshank Redemption. It is NOT completely faithful to the book but I think the changes made the film better than if they were.

10-14-2009, 02:37 PM	#7
Riff Magnum Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Apr 2008 Location:The Island Blu-ray collection:149	Totally forgot about Shawshank. Add that to the list of "better" than the book.

10-14-2009, 02:45 PM	#9
P@t_Mtl Blu-ray Duke Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Montreal Home Theater Gallery:4 Blu-ray collection:452 DVD collection:513 Trading Score:3	They are two different things. You can't compare a 700 pages long book with a 2 hours movie. Of course the movie will have things missing but it at least give's you a chance to see your favorite book come to life. I always look at them as two different things.

10-14-2009, 02:48 PM	#10
vega2K Blu-ray Samurai Top ranked HT gallery Member since:Jan 2009 Home Theater Gallery:68 Blu-ray collection:345 Trading Score:228	I thought both Blade Runner and Minority Report were better than the short stories they were based on. But then again, I don't think short stories really qualify as books. But then again, I think comparing a short story to a movie is more fair than comparing a book to a movie.

10-14-2009, 02:55 PM	#12
Blu-Benny Michael Bay's #1 Fan Top contributor Member since:Aug 2008 Location:Wisconsin Home Theater Gallery:39 Blu-ray collection:552 DVD collection:108 Trading Score:138	normally i like the books better than the movies, but i watched Lord of the Rings before i read the books. i've only read LOTR once through but @ this time, i prefer the movies. but, when i was reading the books, i was putting in 20+ hours of OT here @ work and was falling asleep a lot more while trying to read them. i do have to say i did not care for the Tom Bombadill character in the book though.

10-14-2009, 03:01 PM	#16
SillyMammo Expert Member Member since:Aug 2008 4K collection:426 Blu-ray collection:1086 Trading Score:2	I'd think in most cases the book is better than the movie. Though the previous posters have given good examples being otherwise.

10-14-2009, 03:11 PM	#20
Grand Bob Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Seattle Area Home Theater Gallery:9 Blu-ray reviews:1	Although I certainly enjoyed Arthur C. Clarke's novel, I thought "2001" the movie was far better than the book. "Star Wars" IV, V, and VI movies were definitely better than the book counterparts; haven't read the novel versions of I, II, or III. Regarding Stephen King movies, I thought the movie versions of "The Shining" and "It" (with the exception of the lame ending) were better than the book versions. Lord of the Rings book was much better than the movies, despite the fact that the movies were among the best ever made.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals