Books N' Music discussion

Book And Movies > Books That Were Better Than The Movie

Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

♥♪♥Beth♥♪♥  Bunch (BoudreauxB) | 17 comments Oh this is the easiest, the Hunger games and Catching Fire. Of course the movies were amazing but the books were unbeatable.

message 2: by beth, Mrs. Hood-Simpson (new)

beth (beth01) | 335 comments Mod
Most books are better than the movies. They just have so much more detail!

message 3: by Caru (new)

Caru If I Stay and Percy Jackson. The movies were such a dissapointment.

message 4: by Lauren (new)

Lauren Stoolfire Harry Potter and Percy Jackson

message 5: by Reann (new)

Reann The Mortal Instruments and The Host. The movies were decent but the books are always better.

message 6: by Lauren (new)

Lauren Stoolfire Reann wrote: "The Mortal Instruments and The Host. The movies were decent but the books are always better."

I haven't read or seen The Host, but I definitely agree with you about City of Bones. Could have been so much better.

message 7: by Reann (new)

Reann The actors were okay, I mean I liked the actors for Jace, Simone, Alec and Magnus, but I didn't really like Clary. Their making it into a TV series with all new actors.

message 8: by Lauren (new)

Lauren Stoolfire Robert Sheehan as Simon was easily my favorite actor of the group. I also liked Aidan Turner as Luke. We don't see him all that much, but he's a very good actor (have you seen Being Human?). Godfrey Gao as Magnus was the biggest disappointment for me - he just seemed far too wooden for a favorite character. Jamie Campbell Bower as Jace just didn't seem quite right - there were only a couple of times where I could look at the character and say, "That's Jace!" Alec by far got the short end of the stick in the movie.

message 9: by Artsygal402 (new)

Artsygal402 | 2 comments The first Hunger Games movie was horrible. It can't compare to the book, or to anything, really. It was hard to understand, whether or not you've read the book, because it changed so much. I mean, I have to give them credit, though. It's a pretty hard book to turn into a movie, considering a lot of important details in the book are Katniss's own thoughts, and not many people like movies with a bunch of narration, so they had to cut it. But they also cut out characters(Madge, and they had the soup lady give the mockingjay pin to her instead of Madge), and they cut the scene where Peta lost his leg. And I think they may have cut the scene where Katniss loses her hearing and had to have surgery, but I'm not sure. I've only seen the movie once. People say that Catching Fire is way better, but they're probably just thinking about it in terms of the plot, because it's a lot more suspenseful, and for the people who like the small romantic parts of the story, it has more of that, too. But the Hunger Games book, in my opinion, is just as good as the Catching Fire book. But the first movie sucked. Although I honestly wasn't surprised when it won a bunch of awards. I was definitely disappointed, though. And I'm not sure if I can watch Catching Fire, now. I mean, Peta having a fake leg slows them down in the book, and made a cute scene in the snow in the beginning, so what did they do for the movie? I might watch it just out of curiosity, but I'm really disappointed when I hear someone say that the Hunger Games is the best movie ever, whether or not they've read the book, because if they've read the book, that just shows how they don't pay mush attention, or how I shouldn't value their opinion on movie adaptations, since they weren't annoyed by how much they ruined a great book. And if they haven't read the book, that's just ignorance, well, that and the fact that they didn't want to read the book, which also annoys me, because I love books. So, yeah, that long paragraph just shows how much I disliked the Hunger Games movie adaptation.

message 10: by Erlyn (new)

Erlyn (18es01) | 16 comments I think that books ruin movies and movies never follows the books... sometimes

message 11: by Sofia (new)

Sofia (sofibooklioness21) The Percy Jackson books were WAY better than the movies! It makes me sad that some people won't read the books, after watching the movies. READ THE BOOKS! :)

message 12: by Reann (new)

Reann Vampire Academy. I watched this movie the other day and I almost couldn't even get to the end of it. It was so bad. I loved the books so so much and I was excited for the movie because my friend said it was bad and I don't listen to people until I've tried it for myself, worst mistake I've ever made. I personally, honestly think it is the worst movie adapted book I have ever seen.

message 13: by A.M. (new)

A.M. Kuska | 34 comments Blood and Chocolate. The entire point of the story was the werewolves should be with werewolves, and humans with humans. So what do they do in the movie? Total opposite. -.-

message 14: by antoanaxo (new)

antoanaxo | 21 comments I liked the Divergent movie,my favourite book,but I think it needed a bit more detail.

message 15: by beth, Mrs. Hood-Simpson (new)

beth (beth01) | 335 comments Mod
Sierra wrote: "Divergent movie: Four (even though he was super-hot) was a little...idk...just...different...and not as cool as he was in the books...Peter was not as mean and stupid in the movie as he was in the ..."

This is Al. Goodbye Al xD

message 16: by Kacey (new)

Kacey (okacey) | 28 comments divergent,falt in our stars and lots more

back to top