Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Has there ever been a movie BETTER than the book?
The trailers were rubbish, don't blame the movie :) The book was never about a fantasy adventure that the trailers made it seem to be. It was just a tale of a young boy learning to cope with loss and attaining maturity, and Jess and Leslie's wonderful friendship. I was very put off by the trailers but the movie was wonderful.
Terry Gilliam's Tideland was so much better than the book by Mitch Cullin. The book was short and it didn't compare to Gilliam's vision.
I enjoyed the film version of Ghost World way more than I did the original graphic novel by Daniel Clowes. Same thing happened with A History Of Violence. Although I haven't read the book, I've heard Blade Runner is considerably better than Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?
Oh, and Great Expectations. Alfonso Cuarón's film is one of my all time favorites, but I've started to read the Dicken's novel several times only to abandon it because it's. Such. A. Bore.
Fight Club anyone?
Rahul wrote: "Fight Club anyone?"I love both the film and the book
The Notebook is way better as a movie than as a book! And I think it is the best Nicholas Sparks book to movie yet. All the other movies can't even compete.
The Princess Bride-the book was totally confusing and didn't make sense at all.
How To Train Your Dragon -- dumb book, amazing movie.
I agree with the lord of the rings.. i started the first book, but it was really hard to keep reading. it wasn't as fun as the movies. I never finished the first book though..
Practical Magic. I remember now. I liked the movie better than the book, though I liked the book, too.
Yes, Silence of the Lambs is the first one that springs to mind. Similarly, the Dexter TV series is miles better than the first Dexter novel (in my opinion).
Brittney is right. Eastwood vastly improved Bridges of Madison County. I almost didn't watch the movie because I disliked that book so much. But it was a lovely film. And Meryl Streep....well, what can I say? She's Meryl Streep.
Josiane wrote: The Lord of the Rings (but there is NO WAY IN **** you can get me to read/watch The Hobbit...horrible thing)
I liked the movie version of The Hobbit better. It fixed a lot of the issues I had with the book. Not sure splitting it into three movies was a good idea.
Tolkien seems to greatly improve with the recent movies. I like Tolkien, but his pacing, lack of characterization of most characters, and inability to write fight scenes frustrate the hell out of me when I read him.
Gregg wrote: "I thought Steven Spielberg's Jaws was better than the Peter Benchley novel."Absolutely agree with that.
Atonement. I loved the movie so much that I went and borrowed the book by Ian McEwan the library from the next day. I found the movie to be a much more moving rendition; I really found it to be better.
Bridge to Teribithia: In the book all it says is they fought imaginary foes and armies. Movie shows battles.The Road: No puncuation at all in the book and you had to reread lines to figure out who started a conversation.
Robinson Crusoe (with P. Brosnan): In the first of the book I heard three times about the doe goat and kid and bee's wax candles. And the simplest thing: Yesterday said "Many men come on big boat" and then Defoe broke that down so we could understand it. "Many men will arrive on a ship".
I personally liked the movie HOOT better than the book, but it's not like either were particularly stellar or anything.
"The Children of Men". The book was so tame.
Well, Alan Dean Foster wrote the novelization of the movie Alien. In this case, the movie came first. I kinda like the novel, but maybe it's because it was the first "adult" novel I read as a teenager.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead was far better as a movie than as a play. In the play, a sad and defeated little boy, about eleven years old, is offered sexually to the two title characters. They changed that for the movie.
Two 'modern classic' films come to mind:Out of Africa
The Long Goodbye
These are both favorite books of mine as well, but the films are told also by master story tellers who not only comprehend the source, but add to it.
Out of Africa is epic as a film. The visuals of any African story can outstrip the rest of the text and if for no other reason, OofA has magnificent shot from the air scenes that enrich the story in a way that few writers will ever equal.
The Long Goodbye is a film to watch uncut, unedited, uninterrupted and in a darkened room. Its pacing, dialogue, settings, and business(as in stage business) are superb. It is a chase movie as well as a mystery story and uses many unexpected elements to their fullest extent including low key, but deadly, obsession.
Both books have at least slightly different story lines and or outcomes. But not enough to be radically different. The filmmakers in both instances knew their business so well that the stories are not only faithful to the original but richer and ultimately more satisfying.
The books and the films in these two cases are truly complimentary of each other.
Meryl wrote: "People will probably flay me for this, but I thought The Hunger Games movie was better than the book.I liked them equally, which led me to the conclusion that the more I love a book, the more potential the movie has to disappoint me. I love the Harry Potter books much more, and though the movies were fun and all, they just don't reach the quality of the books. Not so with "The Hunger Games," though.
While in most cases books are better, there are some notable exceptions where the author has some decent ideas for characters and plots but is just a hack at the actual writing. Then the movie can't help but be an improvement. This is true of ALL Harry Potter movies (J.K. Rowling not only couldn't write well, but didn't know when to stop!) ALL John Grisham novels (great plots, lousy grammar, lousy sentence structure, disappointing endings that Hollywood usually changed for the better) most Tom Clancy Novels (e.g., Hunt for Red October reads like an instruction manual, but plays like an action thriller; and what could be better than Harrison Ford!) some Michael Crichton novels (spare me the biogenetics lesson and just show me the dinosaurs) and most George Lucas films (a truly great filmaker who should always leave the screenplay to someone else.) Granted these are more what you'd call pop culture than fine literature, so the writing really wasn't the thing anyway. In these cases, perhaps film was just a more appropriate medium for the message.
Megan wrote: "J.K. Rowling not only couldn't write well, but didn't know when to stop!"I think you'll find yourself very much in the minority with that opinion. I'll agree that the special effects in the movie made scenes like Diagon Alley and such better than I could have imagined, but the dialogue didn't measure up to the books.
Not that I have come across.However, the book and movie of 'War Horse' are on a par, as far as I'm concerned - neither were very enjoyable.
Other movies based on books are generally not equal to the books.
I would agree defintitely Hunt for Red October, which is one of my favorite movies, is an unnecessarily detailed book. The screenplay is excellent because it has all of the wheat and none of the chaff. Alex Baldwin is probably at his best in that one. Also for me Hunger Games is better and the last book, Ugh! The movie has to be better!
JK Rowling is not a great grammarian, but she is awesome with Characterization, Story, and structure. I would rather read a great story with so-so grammar, than a so--so story with great grammar.
Aurora wrote: "I personally liked the movie HOOT better than the book, but it's not like either were particularly stellar or anything."I agree.
I must disagree with the Hunger Games. I was a little let down with the film, and especially Jennifer Lawrence's acting. I loved her in X-Men, and was super stoked when she got cast as Katniss, but she just... didn't feel like Katniss to me. She had zero chemistry with Hutcherson on-screen (they act like BFF's in real life, so why couldn't that transfer into the movie?).
I dunno. I'm seriously hoping Catching Fire will be much better, but then again I re-read the Hunger Games recently and the writing was pretty poor.
--
I've actually read all the Twilight books (I hated it), and the movies were all garbage. I could have made a better movie than that bullcrap called Breaking Dawn. Seriously. It was awful and painful to watch. I found myself taking out my phone in the middle of the film to check the time.
Actually, all the Twilight films were awful. The books weren't much better, but they were a bit easier to endure.
I dunno. I'm seriously hoping Catching Fire will be much better, but then again I re-read the Hunger Games recently and the writing was pretty poor.
--
I've actually read all the Twilight books (I hated it), and the movies were all garbage. I could have made a better movie than that bullcrap called Breaking Dawn. Seriously. It was awful and painful to watch. I found myself taking out my phone in the middle of the film to check the time.
Actually, all the Twilight films were awful. The books weren't much better, but they were a bit easier to endure.
A Clockwork Orange (although the book was still great, but the movie was beyond amazing.) and Boy in the Striped Pajamas (didn't like the book that much but the movie was amazing.)
The Woman in Black by Susan Hill.
Stephen King's "It". The book took me 3 tries to get through, way to much stuff not needed IMHO. I enjoyed the movie better.
Sophie wrote: "Hmm... not that I can think of. The thing that annoys me about this is though....*scenario*Person - *watches movie* "Wow! That was amazing!"
Me - "You should read the book then! The book is way ..."
THIS.
I haven't seen one better than the book....but there are quite a few movies that I think add to my book experience. Meaning....sometimes I have aha moments when I reread the books, or have a different take. I love that books let my imagination create 'who' the characters are...but often times I enjoy having a face created by the movie to put with the book.
Megan wrote: "While in most cases books are better, there are some notable exceptions where the author has some decent ideas for characters and plots but is just a hack at the actual writing. Then the movie can'..."Dead on.
An unfortunate trend in more and more novels these days is that the author is writing a screenplay, not a book. Don't describe every flower on the wallpaper or set every scene for me. Since I get most of my literature through audio books these days, this trend is particularly noticeable, and annoying, because you can't skim through the junk to get to the story the way you can when reading hard copy. Give me some credit for being able to imagine the characters, or to read between your lines to get the real story. The best authors do this, giving you the story with innuendo and suggestion and irony, and making you feel superior for getting it.
all the movies based on novels by nicholas sparks are way better than the actual books, in my opinion.
Stardust has always stuck out in my mind, I love NG but could hardly finish the book but I loved the movie.
Mrs. Doubtfire...! Terrible book, but Robin Williams made that movie!
The only movies I've seen that were better than the books are the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I forced myself through the first 1 and a half books and I just couldn't do it. To date, and I've read hundreds if not thousands of books in my life, Two Towers is the only book I physically could not finish. I've read other books I've thought were bad, but I always finished them regardless. But with Two Towers I could not, and couldn't subject myself to attempting Return of the King.
Rachel wrote: "I think the Narnia movies are better than the books. But that's just me. There's also one other book that I know of, but I can never remember what it is."
I actually think the Narnia books are much better than the movies -- but that's interesting, that you think the films are better.
I did totally love how they did the Eustace/ Reepicheep relationship in the third movie -- that was actually "better" than the book. But other things were worse, and still more just the same.
They were good movies, on the whole.
I wish you could remember what that other book was -- I'd be interested to hear.
(As for me, I think the Flambards series was a little bit better than the book -- but just a little).
Charlie and the Chocalate Factory, the movie, is better than the book.
I think that will be The Great Gatsby haha :) not sure yet though. But all in all, I have never seen better movie based on a certain book I read.
Sophie wrote: "Hmm... not that I can think of. The thing that annoys me about this is though....*scenario*Person - *watches movie* "Wow! That was amazing!"
Me - "You should read the book then! The book is way ..."
Happens ALL the time.
A movie that I found to be better than the book it was based on was 'kiss kiss, bang bang' Based on the book,'bodies are where you find them.' admittedly, the book TITLE is awesome, but the book itself, not so much.
The Millennium Trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest) were all fascinating as movies -- I watched the European versions which were amazing!I haven't been able to get through the books, and that is sadly my own failing. So I was really excited when the movies came out!
Jurassic Park is the only one I can think of. I LOVE the movie- the book was just ok.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Last of the Mohicans (other topics)
The Lucky One (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
Stardust (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Aquamarine (other topics)The Last of the Mohicans (other topics)
The Lucky One (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
Stardust (other topics)
More...
I thought the Bridge to Terrabithia was rubbish. :/
The trailers and reviews made it out to be like the Narnia Chrinicles, but it was just their imagination. Really wish that they didn't advertise the film like that.