For The L♥ve of Reading discussion
Discussions
>
Books are Always Better than the Movie
date
newest »
newest »
i find I always like the book better and in some cases reading the book first makes the movie better. In that instance I will use Twilight as an example. i was late to read the books and actually watched the Twilight movie first and found I didn't like the movie all that much. I then read the book and watched the movie again and found that i had much more knowledge of the story that I liked the movie a lot more (given that the movie isn't actually the greatest...sorry to all you Twilight movie lovers). I also felt similar about The Time Traveler's Wife. I read the book first then watched the movie and watching the movie I feel as though I would have not liked it without reading the book first and again because without all the little extra information that is left out of the movie from the book can make the movie hard to follow.
thats a good point.however sometimes i feel the exact opposite, for example, Percy jackson, i read the book before seeing the movie and i thought it sucked.i mean, its more like fanfic that anything else since they changed everything but thats not what im saying here...hmm, talking of that, I absolutely hate it when they change the story line! i think thats why pride and prejudice is one of my favorite movie adaptations - its very much alike.another thing i want to say is about movie better than book - the only time i think that happened was with sense and sensibility: the book sucked, the movie was good
I know what you mean... I haven't read Percy Jackson yet on my TBR list but I have seen the movie and I guess since I haven't read the book I really enjoyed the movie. But it really sucks when they change the plot for the movie from the book. If they are going to do that what is the point of doing an "adaptation" of the book. Just make the movie and give it a different name then cause it is different!!
i think if they are going to change the plot, why bother making the movie? for example, the english patient, which i despised, is nothing close to what the book is about at all! i mean that movie makes up about twenty pages of text. i could care less about the love story. it was the minor characters that were of importance and they were not represented in the movie.
I think I am iffy on this one. I love the movie the notebook. The actors are great and it is just a sappy love story, which I normally don't watch. I'm more of a war, battle movie girl. Anyway, I haven't read the book. I want to but yet I'm afraid it will ruin the movie for me.
My friends dragged me to Twilight. I liked the movie ok that I borrowed the books to read. After reading the books I hated the movie because there were so many changes. I should also mention that my Edward is much much hotter. LOL!
I made myself read the Da Vinci Code before I can watch it. I like both book and movie. I liked the bookAngels and Demons better but have yet to see the movie for comparison.
My friends dragged me to Twilight. I liked the movie ok that I borrowed the books to read. After reading the books I hated the movie because there were so many changes. I should also mention that my Edward is much much hotter. LOL!
I made myself read the Da Vinci Code before I can watch it. I like both book and movie. I liked the bookAngels and Demons better but have yet to see the movie for comparison.
❤ ☠ Elyssa ☠ ❤ wrote: "I think I am iffy on this one. I love the movie the notebook. The actors are great and it is just a sappy love story, which I normally don't watch. I'm more of a war, battle movie girl. Anyway,..."lol My Edward was much hotter too:)
In my opinion, most movies just ruin it. I can only think of one book-based movie that did not mess it up- A Separate Peace. The movie version that I saw was very close to the book, and it kept it very interesting.
The Lord of the Rings was very close to the book, but for every movie that is, I can show you three movies that aren't.
I feel that the Lord of the Rings films are very close to the spirit of the books, and it's true that some scenes are faithful to the source material, but many changes were still made. I know what you mean though, when the films are compared to some other adaptations. Still they're nowhere near as faithful to the books as the first two Harry Potter films tried to be.
I loved the book the Devil Wears Prada and P.S. I love You. I wasn't as in love with the movie. I had to read the book Atonement in order to understand the movie. There are two that I felt got it about right or did the best they could. The Pelican Brief is one the movie is almost exactly the book except for a few minor changes. The Other Boleyn Girl had a lot of material to cover and could have probably done a sequel to cover the second half of the book.
Pandy wrote: "I feel that the Lord of the Rings films are very close to the spirit of the books, and it's true that some scenes are faithful to the source material, but many changes were still made. I know what you mean though, when the films are compared to some other adaptations. Still they're nowhere near as faithful to the books as the first two Harry Potter films tried to be."True. Whereas Eragon didn't try at all. *shudder*
I never read P.S I Love You, but I love the movie. (Yes, I've become one of those)
Jencey wrote: "I loved the book the Devil Wears Prada and P.S. I love You. I wasn't as in love with the movie. I had to read the book Atonement in order to understand the movie. There are two that I felt got i..."i felt the adaptation of Atonement was nowhere near the spirit of the book. i totally didn't buy the love story based on the movie. i had read the book long before the movie came out, but i still knew i really liked the book and found the movie screenplay left much to be desired. i hit fast forward many a time during this viewing.
The reason I think that I like books more then movies is I like the detail you get in the book, you will never get the detail of the harry potter books in a movie you just wont
I felt the adaptation of Atonement was nowhere near the spirit of the book. i totally didn't buy the love story based on the movie. i had read the book long before the movie came out, but i still knew i really liked the book and found the movie screenplay left much to be desired. i hit fast forward many a time during this viewing. Elizabeth I saw the movie Atonement and ended up having to read the book in order to understand the movie. I wasn't really impressed with either.
I watched Dear John the other night and the movie of course same generally story line but movie and book soooo different in the smaller factors. But there so many differences that it just wasn't the same. However the movie was still good and my husband enjoyed it as well. The book also good but I thought both could have been better all the same.
How did the actors do in Dear John?
Aha! Thought of a movie that I preferred over the book...The Princess Bride. But then again, it's probably because I saw the movie many, many times before I read the book...
The actors in Dear John did pretty good. The acting could have been a little better but I may think that only because I thought the movie itself could have done better. But I will say for sure Channing Tatum looked fantastic!!!!! yum
(hi) Well i think i haven't foud a movie that is better than the book. there are movies that are just as good as the book (in their own field, great movie, great book). Like The Lord of The Rings, even if it's not exactly like the book, it's a great movie. But there are movies that are PAINFUL to watch, like Eragon for example, it's like they destroyed everything that was so great in the book to end up with something no one actually liked x_x
oh i got it xD well i meant no one who read the book xP my brother also liked it
I know I have watched Eragon but the movie couldn't of been good because I remember nothing about the movie. It had no impression on me.
i don't remember much either, and it's not like i'll EVER watch it again xD
Sometimes the book can follow the movie too well. The DaVinci Code was so by the numbers I found myself simply waiting for the next act, the next scene, the next line. You shouldn't be quoting actors lines in your head when watching a screen adaptation.
Elizabeth wrote: "The book reads like a screenplay."I never thought of it that way until you mentioned it. When I read The Pelican Brief, I knew I was reading a screenplay.
Thank you! I almost ALWAYS read the book after I see the movie. It is my rule and anyone who really knows me knows that.I've found movies that are vey good in their own right--Harry Potter for example--but I still want to read after watching.
The few times I've read a book before, I've deeply regretted it. Jurassic Park comes to mind. I love the movie now, but hated it the first time because I really enjoyed the book so much.
Elizabeth wrote: "i think if they are going to change the plot, why bother making the movie? for example, the english patient, which i despised, is nothing close to what the book is about at all! i mean that movie..."OMG I felt that way about "My Sister's Keeper". GAH such a disappointment. Even though I cried during parts.
Headacheslayer wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "i think if they are going to change the plot, why bother making the movie? for example, the english patient, which i despised, is nothing close to what the book is about at all! ..."You make a good point. Sometimes a director can go too far with artistic license. On the other hand, a key change here and there can work sometimes. Even though Angels & Demons ends up at the same place, I found the plot changes in the last quarter of the story intriguing. I had to go back to the book to clear my mind!
Here's my two cents for what it's worth. I didn't go see the movie My Sister's Keeper because I heard that they changed the ending and the ending is so unexpected in the book that any other ending wouldn't do. I agree that if they are going to change a major point in the movie then call it something else because it is not that story any longer.I tend to read the book and not mess with the movie. There is so much more depth and detail in a book that just can't be put in the movie especially in two hours. So I read the book and don't worry about how good or bad the movie is. Also, like others have said I get a picture in my head of what the characters look like and it usually is not what actor they pick to star in the movie.
One exception for me is Gone With the Wind. Fabulous book, I have probably read it a dozen times in my lifetime. The movie is spectacular and Rhett Butler looks just like Clark Gable and Scarlett is Vivien Leigh. I read the book first and the movie does not disappoint.
Another one of my all time favorite books is Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. I think I have seen all the movies and although they are okay the book is much more satisfying to me. And in none of the movies are the characters like I see them in my head.
What I do use movies for is the classics. I just cannot get myself to read Dickens or Twain no matter how hard I try and so I have watched some of the movies (especially the old ones) just so I will know what these classics are about. I really want to read Dickens but his books bore me to tears. I have tried time and again to read Jane Austen and I just can't get through one of her books. I also haven't watched movies of her books--does anyone have any recommendations for movies that might get me into a Jane Austen frame of mind?
I enjoy the books because its my eyes I see it through not some director who probally never even read the story. For some reason once I read the story I have a really hard time with the movie it seems like all I do is pick out things that the movie is missing that the book has. Dont get me wrong I love movies but I much prefer reading.
lol i know, me too, but dont you have any exceptions? eg, I didnt like Sense and Sensibility (book) but loved the movie and I also prefer alices adventures in wonderland on screen
okay yea exception would be along came a spider (james patterson) I will say the movie kept me way more involved than the book did :) and i did not pick this one apart.lol
ah lol do you recommend JP? I have 1st to die waiting for me on the shelf but I'm ind of reluctant
리오노어_ 莱昂纳 wrote: "ah lol do you recommend JP? I have 1st to die waiting for me on the shelf but I'm ind of reluctant"
Some are okay I am not a huge fan but witch and wizard was good I usually borrow his book not some thing I would buy but also not some thing I would snub. lol
I have always felt that American Psycho made a better movie than a book. The book was a really uncomfortable read while the movie had some seriously offbeat dark humor. I did, however, watch the movie (many times) before I ever read the book. I can't say if my opinion would have been different had it been reversed. Most of the lines in the movie were direct quotes from the book and I found myself reading it in Christian Bale's voice. If I hadn't already had that image, I'm not so sure I would have enjoyed it at all. Classically, Jaws is better received in movie form rather than book form. Jaws by Peter Benchley is the first book I can really remember reading and I hold it true to my heart, but even I admit that the movie runs circles around the book.
TV shows though, that is a different story. Dexter makes a much more enjoyable character on the screen rather than on the page. Although I love my Sookie Stackhouse novels to bits, nothing compares to watching True Blood play out. It is so smart and funny and visually amazing. The Vampire Diaries books were not among my favorite vampire novels... by far. The series does it a world of improvement, in my opinion, even with the little Twilight spins they put on the show. At least those vampires aren't afraid of blood.
I love Dexter on the screen the book wasn't so bad but it wasn't great either
Oh, I did like the first Dexter book! I even liked the second one a little bit too. The third one is the one that killed it for me, even though the fourth one redeemed it a little bit. I'll probably still read the upcoming fifth book because once I start a series, I can't seem to stop!
I haven't read more then the 1st book but I do plan to get to it some day
❤ ☠ Elyssa ☠ ❤ wrote: "I think I am iffy on this one. I love the movie the notebook. The actors are great and it is just a sappy love story, which I normally don't watch. I'm more of a war, battle movie girl. Anyway,..."I think the book Angels and Demons was way better then the movie and I watched the movie first! I didn't understand much about the antimatter and why it was so bad that it was taken. (even though I know what would have happened) I just didn't realize how much until I read the book.
Kathleen wrote: "❤ ☠ Elyssa ☠ ❤ wrote: "I think I am iffy on this one. I love the movie the notebook. The actors are great and it is just a sappy love story, which I normally don't watch. I'm more of a war, ..."They really missed the religion vs. science debate in the movie, which is the underlying theme of the book. Perhaps they thought "Contact" covered the topic.
For The L♥ve of Reading
Books mentioned in this topic
My Sister's Keeper (other topics)Gone with the Wind (other topics)
Little Women (other topics)
Why do we enjoy the books more than the movie? for me, it's because i can visual the characters and the places and i don't want someone else's intepretation of what i already have in my head.
i will say there have been some impressive interpretations of books: jackson's rings series; burton's alice; scorsese's age of innocence and albee's virginia woolf.
any others? what do you think?