The Next Best Book Club discussion
Revive a Dead Thread
>
Ever like the Movie Better than the Book?
Thanks, Jeff! I will definitely have to do so!Now that I'm reading Dracula, I have a feeling I'm going to like the movie better than the book.
I hated the book Chocolat by Joanne Harris, but the move was so great. The book had a really sad ending. I don't really mind sad books but it just didn't make any sence.
I didn't realize that I practically never saw a movie bassed on a book I read or contrary. And when I did I didn't think one was better than the other. I adore the LOTR movies but I adored the book too. Both different but really great, the book told just more. But as I read the book afterwards, I of course saw the images of the real actors while reading it and didn't make them up myself.The Da Vinci code and P.S. I love you I both read first and loved them. Then I ent to see the movies. With the Da Vinci code I went to see it as something not attached to the book. The same fo P.S. I love you. I went to see it as a movie on its own and trying not to think about he book. That way I loved both movies. I think if I would have compared them with he books while watching, I would have preferred the books. But the movies on their own where really good.
I hated Atonement but watched the movie yesterday and liked it much better than the book!
back to the nicholas sparks books vs movies idea, i think the reason his books translate so well to film is that they are amazing stories. the writing of the books not so great. redundant, cheesey and just plain disappointing.
there was an article in entertainment weekly about him. his brother while trying to pick up a woman he saw reading, asked if she liked spark's novels. she said strongly no! Sparks says he actually gets that a lot! but 14 bestsellers in 14 years, he has to be doing something right (or so the article suggests).
I'll stick to the movies!
oh and another thing...I am "reading" Atonement and just re-watched the movie. both are fantastic in their own ways.
there are things in the book that illustrated ech character's personality well (briony's need for order as shown with her room and the play). the movie takes those things and without saying or showing them out-right and "in-your-face", makes it clear. (again the briony example: her marching through hallways and pacing. this is how she enters most scenes or how they begin showing her.)
the main difference that i appreicate is the importance of characters in both movie and book. the book (well as far as i can tell as I am only a third of the way through) focuses on the three main people, Robbie, Cecilla but mostly Briony. giving different accounts of events through all perspectives. the movie on the other hand is really told from Briony's point of view with hints as to what "really" happens. It is truly her story!
I cannot wait to see if there are more changes bwteen the two.
hell yea, the harry potter movies look a lot better than they sound, bt the mvies leave out prts!:-(
I just got back from seeing "The Secret Life of Bees." The book is better than the movie, but I thought the movie was very well done and touching.
Stephanie - I really enjoyed all the Baum Oz books (he wrote, I believe, 14, and the series was continued by other authors) growing up. My favorite, I believe, was Ozma of Oz, which I think is the third book in the series.I dramatically prefer the book of Lord of the Rings to the movies. Loved the scenery, disliked some of the casting and script decisions. I prefer the version that's been in my head since I was ten.
I think the only book/movie combination where I may prefer the movie is To Kill a Mockingbird. That movie is almost exactly what I had in my head when I was reading it - and Gregory Peck!
Susanna, wasn't Ozma of Oz the main basis for Return to Oz (the movie)? I used to have that book, but I don't know what happened to it.
I have to agree on The Last King of Scotland being a better movie than book. Of course it was changed ala Hollywood some. But the personalities shone through more powerfully thanks to tremendous acting!
I think Return to Oz was based on a bizarre mash-up of Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz.
I watched Stardust before reading Neil Gaiman's book. I have to say, I liked the movie better. I don't normally watch movies without first reading the book, tho, so that may be the only reason why I prefered it more.
There are exceptions where movies are better than the books, but it happens, for exampleThe Godfather
Notebook
Mystic River
Polar Express
JulianneI so agree with you on Princess Bride - both the book and movie were great but the movie was really sweet - I think because of the perfect casting!!
Wife of GR author: Michael J. Sullivan | The Crown Conspiracy (10/08) | Avempartha (04/09)
Atishay, I adored The godfather movies but also the books. I got so absorbed by the books too.
Yeah, I loved the book too but with Marlon Brando and Al Pacino, an amazing script and Francis Ford Coppola's direction, I was kind of biased towards the movie right from the start. It had a class, the movie.
OK, someone had to jump in and do it, so here goes...As I had read the novel, I was assinged to write a movie review on Twilight.
I really liked the book, and had mixed feelings about the movie. Ironically, I saw the movie a second (and third time...my girl friends keep asking me to see it with them and I just can't tell them no) .
My review is posted here if anyone would care to take a peek.
http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?v...
The movie grows on you, and I actually liked it better the second time around.
Dee Marie
I found the movie of Atonement better than the book but that is not saying much as I really did not like the book.Most of the original Bond books were quite weak so the films were an improvement though they were not that closely based on the books anyway.
Dee...Welcome back. I think this is the first time I've seen you around since your loss. I thought of you often over the past weeks. Be well my friend!
Wife of GR author: Michael J. Sullivan | The Crown Conspiracy (10/08) | Avempartha (04/09)
Thanks Robin,Yeah, it was a long November :]
There are very few instances where I've liked the movie better than the book, but one that comes to mind is Bridget Jones's Diary. I liked the book, but the movie brought it to life so well that I liked the movie even better. It's one of those movies I put on whenever I've had a bad day and need a laugh.
Well, I started this thread and actually have another book/movie combo to add here:Field of Dreams (movie)/Shoeless Joe (book)
Kevin Costner made this movie. The character in the book wasn't as strong...and the story seemed to drag more than in the movie (though, that could be b/c I kept waiting for things to happen b/c I "knew" the story). They deleted some major plot points--for example, Ray Kinsella had a twin brother, who was the one who got in a fight with his dad.
I have to admit, though, that the daughter (Karin) and the recluse author (J.D. Salinger in the book) were both given more humorous characters in the book than in the movie.
Jen: I have to agree about Bridget Jones's Diary; liked the book, loved the movie.For me, the most recent was The Jane Austen Book Club: A Novel. I found it a chore to make it through the book and had no interest in the movie. But a friend wanted to see it and I can never say no to a trip to the theatre. Loved the changes they made and it turned out to be a fun popcorn movie.
I'm currently reading Atonement: A Novel as well. I'm a little worried I won't be as into it because I already know what happens due to watching the movie.Also, The Painted Veil is waiting on my bookshelf for me to read it. I loved the movie though. Edward Norton is one of my many boyfriends--only he doesn't know it yet. I didn't even realize it was based off a book though until over a year after watching it. I only found out thanks to a friend turning me on [to Maugham's work:].
Jen, me too. Liked the book but the movie was sooo much better. They did a great job making the story so lifely. The actors really played it perfectly.
Hmmmm.....I LOVED field of dreams and never really knew it was based off of a book - I guess I violated my "read book first" policy but based on what Julianne said maybe I should skip the book?
Wife of GR author: Michael J. Sullivan | The Crown Conspiracy (10/08) | Avempartha (04/09)
Yes, Robin. You can skip the Shoeless Joe book. Field of Dreams is far superior! The only thing I got from the book is some interesting factual information on Shoeless Joe, which I pretty much already knew from having read Eight Men Out.
I like The Notebook movie a lot more than I liked the book. Same with Message in a Bottle. I also agree with those who said Bridget Jone's Diary.
Thanks Nikki - one less thing to read...But yes the movie was great. I like Costner but loved James Earl Jones - What a face and voice!!
hmmm, i enjoyed the Harry Potter films more than the books, because i found the films lighthearted and a bit of a laugh, but i thought the books were just a bit duller. Its like J.K had the ideas and someone else added the sparkle.
Melissa wrote: "Well, Gerard Butler is actually Scottish not Irish. So it's a fake Irish accent, but not a completely fake accent."Oh dear please dont try to compare a scots accent with an irish one, I grant you that there both quite awful (not only do i have to listen to scots all around me but i sound like one when i speak) but there barely comparable as they both come from completely different branches of the Celt language. :p
Jackie wrote: "I have to agree with the LOTR comment. I actually took a class on Tolkien that focused on LOTR. The class helped me gain a new appreciation for the books and Tolkien's work. Prior to taking the cla..."I think at this point i may well be the only person in the world who prefers the tolkien books to the films, but so be it!
Nope, Sheena - I vastly prefer the books to the movies of Lord of the Rings.
I'm a bit surprised that so many people liked THE PRINCESS BRIDE less in book form than movie form. Not that the film adaptation wasn't great -- the casting was perfection, and Rob Reiner really knows how to direct actors. But the book had an extra dimension that wasn't explored in the film: Goldman's philosophy about how freeing it is to realize that life isn't fair. They gave a tip of the hat to this concept in the movie, but really couldn't go into it, I suspect, because it would take away from the story.Glad to get that off my chest, la la la! Now I must say that I was purely amazed when they took that turgid piece of writing, THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, and made it into a really graceful movie. Who saw that coming??
Doni - I can see your point on Princess Bride - but I think for me - what put the movie over the top was the actors/directing. I think it was just so darn entertaining to watch - but Aye I agree with your point too.Robin.
Melody wrote: "Angela - I agree that The Notebook was a better movie than book. I have recently finished reading Atonement which I enjoyed and looking forward to seeing the movie soon.Much preferred LOTR movies..."
SPOILER ALERT: Yes, Melody, I read HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG when it first came out. Wasn't much impressed, but quite liked the film. I know exactly why, too. In the book, there is no redemption. The female protagonist ends up in prison, where she retreats into a sort of schizophrenic silence that earns her the nickname "Remote" from the other inmates. In the movie, the cop asks her who owns the house she's been fighting tooth and nail for, and she answers that it belongs to the dead family. She has travelled a long road and been changed by it.
It's true that protagonists don't HAVE to be changed by their experiences. Like Anna Karenina or Madame Bovary, they can be completely destroyed by them. We call these kinds of stories "tragedies," and they've been around forever. But I personally thought HOSAF worked better in the movie version. Others may disagree with me.
Sarah wrote: "back to the nicholas sparks books vs movies idea, i think the reason his books translate so well to film is that they are amazing stories. the writing of the books not so great. redundant, che..."
Have you ever noticed that the titles on best-seller lists are almost totally different from those on critics lists? The same is true of films: Top-grossing movies are often NOT the ones most admired by critics and film buffs. I think that most people read and go to movies for recreation, not to think and reflect. Which is perfectly fine, of course. But I think we have to keep that in mind, and not confuse "good" books and films with "fun" books and films. You can't compare the Mona Lisa with a black velvet painting, ha!
In Her Shoes by Jennifer Weiner.While I enjoyed the book I felt like the way that it was rearranged for the movie was much more practical/believable. The middle of the book, to me, seemed to be a little pointless... It seemed like a little bit of info for a lot of reading that (like I said above) I felt was not very believable or practical.
Doni, I bought loved the movie and book of Bridges by Madison County. But maybe seeing the movie first gave me an even better feeling about the book, even though I loved the book.
I loved that movie too. Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep right?
Yep, I saw it when I was really young and since then wanted to read the book so much..I loved it too. I think his character, photographer for national geography was soooooo appealing to me,
I agree. It was enchanting. And with the charm of Eastwood and Streep, it was a very well made movie.
Interesting topic! I ususally prefer the book to the movie. But one exception is Tuck Everlasting---they made it more romantic. :)
Just finished reading The Little Mermaid. I don't like the Disney version better, but I think I like another version better than the book. I don't know if many people have seen it, but it's simply titled as Hans Christian Anderson's The Little Mermaid, and in it the mermaid is blonde, named Marina, and has a dolphin friend named Fritz. The original story is just kind of bare without the dolphin to miss her when she becomes human.
For me books are much better than their silver screen counterpart. I really like the His Dark Materials Trilogy but the film installment of the Golden Compass didn't do justice to the book. Imagine cuttting in the film the last chapter in the film which is so surprising since it constitutes Lyra's betrayal which somehow is linked with her prophesy.
A History of Violence. The movie is one of my favorites and I just read the graphic novel today. The two are almost completely different, and I just didn't find the same depth in the graphic novel as I did in the movie. What appealed to me most about the film was how the main character's family life was established as so normal and ideal in contrast with the violence that begins to seep into their lives. The characters just aren't established as well in the graphic novel, and the relationships between them are less realistic. In the movie, when the main character's violent past is revealed it creates a huge conflict within his family; whereas, in the graphic novel the news is taken with unbelievable acceptance. Also, the details of his past still remain vague in a manner that makes it not hard to accept the events that later unfold; in the book there is no mystery except how one isolated instance of violence which was successful mostly due to the element of surprise would be enough experience to make anyone believe the main character capable of defeating men who have dedicated their entire lives to violence.
The Next Best Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Skipping Christmas (other topics)Everything is Illuminated (other topics)
Dead Until Dark (other topics)
Darkly Dreaming Dexter (other topics)
Eight Men Out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Grisham (other topics)Michael J. Sullivan (other topics)
Michael J. Sullivan (other topics)
Michael J. Sullivan (other topics)
Michael J. Sullivan (other topics)
More...
I've seen the Hitchhiker's Guide (the new version and the older BBC version, from the 80s, I believe).
It is really difficult to capture Douglas Adams' humor in the movie. I thought the movies were ok, but I really loved the books (There are a couple more in the series).
If you enjoyed the movies but haven't read the books then you should really treat yourself to a very enjoyable read.