Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Has there ever been a movie BETTER than the book?
The Hobbit.I found the book to be quite silly after reading LotR. Too childish. But Peter Jackson made the movie wonderful.
I thought the Narnia movies were atrocious adaptions, bearing only the most vague resemblances to the book.The Lord of the Rings movie were adequate, especially the extended editions, which explored Aragorn's Numenorean heritage and expounded on some of the history of Middle-Earth (i. e. Beren and Luthien).
The Hunger Games was okay, but didn't really capture the post-apocalyptic desperation that Panem was suffering. "The Road" did a much better job at capturing the spirit of life after a cataclysmic event. I was physically exhausted after both reading that book and after watching the movie.
Although much of the plot was axed to accommodate the movie, I thought the Harry Potter movies we adequate adaptions.
The litmus test to me is whether the director was able to catch the spirit of the book. In other words, do you feel like you looking through a window into the world you read about? Lord of the Rings? Yes I felt like I was gazing upon Middle-Earth. Narnia? I am not sure what that world was supposed to be? Definitely NOT Narnia! I retch just thinking about the Narnia movies. Prince Caspian was like being tortured with a rusty spoon. Of course, I am a C. S. Lewis fanatic. Focus on the Family's Radio adaption of Narnia is sooo much better than the Disneyfied Narnia. Harry Potter? To various extents, I did feel like I was peering in on the real Hogwarts. Changing Dumbledore's actor didn't help, although both actors did a superb job. Harris passed (who, incidentally, played Abbe Faria in "The Count of Monte Cristo", another lousy adaption, but a decent movie nonetheless), between #2 and #3 of the HP series.
There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a movie that is better than its book. Movies are digested through the actions and words of characters. Books can take you into their psyche. No movie can ever explore characters like books can.
Prince, The Hobbit was written for a child... Tolkien's child, Christopher, when he was very young. Therefore, it is more infantile than the other books of the Middle-Earth Legendarium. That is part of the beauty of The Hobbit. In a world as complex as Middle-Earth, to pull such a blithe and whimsical thread out of the whole cloth is truly remarkable.
I would have to say that the movie version of Alice Hoffman's Practical Magic was superior to the novel. The story in the film adaptation is much different, but this is just my opinion.
Meryl wrote: "People will probably flay me for this, but I thought The Hunger Games movie was better than the book. I think Jennifer Lawrence made me like Katniss more than the book.
I think part of the reaso..."
And I thought I was the only one that thinks this!! Though I absolutely LOVE the book version of The Hunger Games, I think the movie really brought it all to life. I felt a lot more sympathy for Jennifer Lawrence's portrayal of Katniss than the book character. She gave Katniss that edge that I admire about her. And for me, Rue's death scene was more upsetting in the movie adaptation.
Well as far as Harry Potter goes, I thought Deathly Hallows was pretty close. But that's probably because they split it into two. But I think the Half-Blood prince was by far the worse book to movie adaptation in the series. Any other books... Uhhh Hunger Games is the only one I can think of that comes close. I can't think of any other movies better than their book counterparts though...
Samantha wrote: "Meryl wrote: "People will probably flay me for this, but I thought The Hunger Games movie was better than the book.
I think Jennifer Lawrence made me like Katniss more than the book.
I think par..."
I agree. To be honest, I hated the Hunger Games books because I could not for the life of me relate or connect to Katniss, so I liked the movie much better.
I think Jennifer Lawrence made me like Katniss more than the book.
I think par..."
I agree. To be honest, I hated the Hunger Games books because I could not for the life of me relate or connect to Katniss, so I liked the movie much better.
The Wizard of Oz was much better than the book.
Kristen wrote: "The Wizard of Oz was much better than the book."YES! Definitely! Didn't think about that one...
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 ..."
yes...that's annoys me too...i think it's annoys all of the book addict like us...
Wm. Scott wrote: "I thought the Narnia movies were atrocious adaptions, bearing only the most vague resemblances to the book.The Lord of the Rings movie were adequate, especially the extended editions, which explo..."
I agree, but I had no idea of this while reading The Hobbit. And since I picked it up after LotR, I really was expecting something a bit more epic. It turned out to be too breezy. Didn't leave much of an impact on me.
I don't know about better, but I think that The Hunger Games and The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas were both as good as, if not better than, their books.
It's all just a matter of personal taste, but generally, I find a movie to be just a snack, and the book is a tempting and filling buffet. I do have one movie that I like maybe a little more than its book, and I truly adore the book - The Count of Monte Cristo. The book is longer, much more complicated, has many more characters and plot lines and has a completely different ending - and I really love the movie ending. It wraps everything up so neatly. I got to the end of the book and said, "And then what?" What happens to Max & Valentine? Does Albert come back? This is a rare case wherein a book of 1,000 or so pages is NOT LONG ENOUGH.
I almost always enjoy the book more than the movie, but the two that stand out the most for me are:"Last of the Mohicans"- the Daniel Day Lewis version is WAY better than the James Fenimore Cooper novel.
"Fight Club" - Sorry Palahniuk, but the visual presentation on the big screen far surpassed what the book had to offer. *Spoiler* The whole split personality angle is difficult to portray in a novel.
Geefukes wrote: "all the movies based on novels by nicholas sparks are way better than the actual books, in my opinion."I've only ever read one Nicholas Sparks - The Lucky One. My experience of that was just the opposite. Sparks does a thing in the last chapter and the epilogue that creates an incredible amount of suspense and tension, and there was just no way for that to translate adequately to the movie. I liked the movie (the adorableness of Taylor Schilling and Zac Efron helps a lot), but I love the book.
The Lord of the Rings
The Chronicles Narnia
Stardust
Coroline
The Chronicles Narnia
Stardust
Coroline
Prince wrote: "I agree, but I had no idea of this while reading The Hobbit. And since I picked it up after LotR, I really was expecting something a bit more epic. It turned out to be too breezy. Didn't leave much of an impact on me. "Interesting. I agree that it is better read before the heavier "Lord of the Rings". "The Hobbit" serves as a kind of primer for the more grandiose "Lord of the Rings". But still, I have no problem contriving the same scale in "The Hobbit" as I do in "Lord of the Rings".
Maybe I am only filling in the blanks with my imagination, since I have read the entire legendarium, and trust the pictures my mind is drawing. As I heard it said in the recent past, every good story deserves embellishment. ;)
Katrina wrote: "How To Train Your Dragon -- dumb book, amazing movie."This. I love the movie, and never really got the book.
Should I bother reading Fight Club?
I don't like it when the screen writers change the books into something that is their own and not following the actual book. Movies recently have made children in the movies very disrespectful and horrible. Like "We bought a zoo". The kids were great in the book. I don't even know if the writer of the movie even read the book. BOOKS ARE USUALLY BETTER!!
Izzy wrote: "Jurassic Park. Come on, the film was pretty good. The CGI alone is impressive."NO WAY...in the book they have the whole thing with the Teradactyls...had me on the edge of my seat while reading...I couldn't put it down...no Teradactyls in the movie unfortunately.
Karen wrote: "Izzy wrote: "Jurassic Park. Come on, the film was pretty good. The CGI alone is impressive."NO WAY...in the book they have the whole thing with the Teradactyls...had me on the edge of my seat whi..."
Totally agree with Karen. Though Spielberg made a great effort, the book is simply unputdownable (that's not a real word, is it?). With 'The Lost World', this gap widens even more with the movie being almost bland compared to the action in the book.
Logan's Run. The book was okay, though kind of weird, with random plot twists, but the changes the Hollywood writers made boosted it up to a classic.
Ryan wrote: "I think the shawshank redemption movie is better than the book it is based on"I agree!
Samantha wrote: "Meryl wrote: "People will probably flay me for this, but I thought The Hunger Games movie was better than the book. I think Jennifer Lawrence made me like Katniss more than the book.
I think par..."
I also got much more upset watching the Rue scene in the movie than I did reading it in the book. I still like the book better, but reading about a child dying is less upsetting than seeing it, even though we know the movie isn't real.
The Secret Garden. It was a veteran bore as a book.
Karen wrote: "Izzy wrote: "Jurassic Park. Come on, the film was pretty good. The CGI alone is impressive."NO WAY...in the book they have the whole thing with the Teradactyls...had me on the edge of my seat whi..."
I have to agree. Although I loved the film, I think the book made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up more. Great book!
The Bridges of Madison County. Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood!
Brittney wrote: "The Bridges of Madison County was much better in a movie than the book. Eastwood changed the story in important ways to improve it. I know many people don't care for the movie because they are used..."Amen, Sister.
Books invariably give more pleasure than movies because we use our own imagination and not rely on other peoples'. Hard for non-readers to understand. However Jaws and The Exorcist were great movies but awful books. On a par was the awesome novel and film, Atonement.
Yes, Babe the Galant Pig.The movie is miles better than the book, namely because it is longer and more detailed. Credit to Dick King-Smith for the original story, but the movie has a lot more content, more characters, and more tear-jerking moments.
Life of Pi. Hated the book thought the movie was alright.
I heard a lot of people hated that book.
I personally think the 'Salmon Fishing in the Yemen' film is better than the book, simply because the ending of the book disappointed me so much :P x
I think the Godfather is a better movie than the book.
Sparrowlicious wrote: "Stardust. I liked that one better than the book but then again, I heard there was also a comic adaption which was also different. Then again, Neil Gaiman appearently approved the changes from book ..."I agree! I thought the ending was a millon times better in the movie. They pretty much Had to change it.
I thought the Hunger Games movie was better than the book. The book just irritated me, but I enjoyed the movie.
Brokeback mountain was a much better movie than a book in my honest opinion. Other than that, I don't think there is many other, if any, movies I like better than the books.
Yes Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Howls Moving Castle
The Princess Diaries
Rahul Nath wrote: "Oh yes, The Silence of the Lambs. Surprised no one has mentioned it yet."This was my pick! Amazing movie. Eh as a book.
Isabella (All Da Ladies Luv Leo) wrote: "The closest I have seen is the Lord of the Rings movie, which I liked the same as the book. HAS there ever been a better movie?"
Stardust. The movie was WAAAAAY better!
Im sorry to say so, but I like the twilight movies way better than the books. I don´t think Stephenie Meyer write well.
This is only a matter of opinion, but I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings and Perks of a being a wallflower films more than I enjoyed the books.
Although, the only reason the Perks movie is so enjoyable is because it comes from such wonderfully written and developed material. Just because I enjoyed the movie more doesn't mean the book isn't better, as i think it is. That probably makes no sense but I understand in my head!
I thought Stephen King's "The Shining" film adaptation was far better than the book but that's just my opinion.
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 felt that Stardust the movie had a more 'popular' ending. But I love the line "Have been unavoidably detained by the world, expect to see us when you see us", and we would never have gotten that without Neil Gaiman's ending.