Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Book vs. Movie

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Book vs. Movie
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 24, 2011 11:19 AM
Mohican00;689947 wrote:So you never read the novella but it must be worse than the movie cause the movie is just that good? That's not even a credible opinion.

I agree for (perhaps) a different reason. Even if Shawshank were a top-5 movie (and it's not although it is very good), IMO the bar for a top-"X" movie is far lower than for a top-"X" book.
Feb 24, 2011 11:19am
McFly1955's avatar

McFly1955

Senior Member

1,441 posts
Feb 24, 2011 12:09 PM
Mulva;689569 wrote:I think movies are always better than the book because there isn't any reading involved.

This.

I just have no interest in reading for pleasure...Would rather spend my free time watching a movie or playing video games...
Feb 24, 2011 12:09pm
T

that_guy

Senior Member

439 posts
Feb 24, 2011 12:43 PM
True Grit- I read the book before seeing the Coen Brothers movie, a few differences, but I preferred the movie.

No Country for Old Men- Another Coen Brothers adaptation. I think this was one of Cormac McCarthy's weakest novels, and thought the movie was better than the book, though it was a very straightforward adaptation.

High Fidelity- I really enjoyed both the book & movie, wouldn't say one was better than the other...
Feb 24, 2011 12:43pm
W

wkfan

Senior Member

1,641 posts
Feb 24, 2011 1:10 PM
Books are always better than the movie.

Always
Feb 24, 2011 1:10pm
Scarlet_Buckeye's avatar

Scarlet_Buckeye

Senior Member

5,264 posts
Feb 24, 2011 1:11 PM
Mulva;689569 wrote:I think movies are always better than the book because there isn't any reading involved.

This.
Feb 24, 2011 1:11pm
BORIStheCrusher's avatar

BORIStheCrusher

drunk

1,893 posts
Feb 24, 2011 1:13 PM
American Psycho did a good job staying true to the extremely descriptive book mostly only leaving out the more gruesome parts, and the cast was spot on. Both favorites of mine.

On the other hand, the movie 21 was a bad adaption of the book Bringing Down The House. I highly recommend the book, I've read it about 10 times.
Feb 24, 2011 1:13pm
GoChiefs's avatar

GoChiefs

Resident Maniac

16,754 posts
Feb 24, 2011 1:42 PM
Scarlet_Buckeye;690121 wrote:This.

Agreed.
Feb 24, 2011 1:42pm
-Society-'s avatar

-Society-

Senior Member

1,348 posts
Feb 24, 2011 2:54 PM
GoChiefs;690171 wrote:Agreed.

Indeed.
Feb 24, 2011 2:54pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Feb 24, 2011 4:29 PM
Mohican00;689947 wrote:So you never read the novella but it must be worse than the movie cause the movie is just that good? That's not even a credible opinion.

I recommend reading it....it's a short read, shouldn't take very long

Well, for me Shawshank is the second best movie behind Godfather I and II. It didn't really miss on any level of what goes into a film. Lighting, acting, casting, plot, subplots, sound, dialogue, voice-over, suspense, humor, etc.

I have no doubt the novella is very, very good. But, again just my thoughts, Shawshank was nearly perfect.
Feb 24, 2011 4:29pm
Mohican00's avatar

Mohican00

Dirty White Boy

3,394 posts
Feb 24, 2011 6:12 PM
Laley23;690466 wrote:Well, for me Shawshank is the second best movie behind Godfather I and II. It didn't really miss on any level of what goes into a film. Lighting, acting, casting, plot, subplots, sound, dialogue, voice-over, suspense, humor, etc.

I have no doubt the novella is very, very good. But, again just my thoughts, Shawshank was nearly perfect.
Well, it's short and as Zen mentioned, the movie follows the story closely. Worth your time, IMO
Feb 24, 2011 6:12pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Feb 24, 2011 6:26 PM
I would say 95% of the time I enjoy the book more so than the movie. The other 5% is when movie actually follows the book practically word for word.
Feb 24, 2011 6:26pm
Sykotyk's avatar

Sykotyk

Senior Member

1,155 posts
Feb 24, 2011 8:46 PM
Virtually every time I read a book, the movie was a let down. I saw Jurassic Park before I read the book. The book is still better (MUCH more to the story than what they crammed into the movie). Pretty much every Michael Crichton book I've read is 10x better than the movie. From Jurassic Park, Adromeda Strain, Sphere, Congo, Eaters of the Dead (made as the 13th Warrior) were much better than their film adaptation. Best book of all time was Crime and Punishment and the NBC mini-series years ago was decent, it still skimmed over very important parts of the storyline to impress upon the viewer the angst felt for what he did.

Sykotyk
Feb 24, 2011 8:46pm
Joe Table's avatar

Joe Table

Junior Member

12 posts
Feb 24, 2011 8:59 PM
The Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men was more convincing than Cormac McCarthy's novel.

Anton Chigurh goes from merely a bad dude in McCarthy's able writing to a supernatural badass who might be evil incarnate in the film in the hands of the Coens'.

That movie made me think more than the book.
Feb 24, 2011 8:59pm
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Feb 24, 2011 9:57 PM
krambman;689885 wrote:The only good thing about the Di Vinci Code movie versus the book was getting to see the places talked about in the book. As I was reading the book I kept having to look up all of these locations online. I had such a hard time imagining where everything was going on (I had an especially hard time visualizing the ending). Getting to see all of the places, especially the end, helped make the book make more sense. Other than that I thought the movie was crap. Tom Hanks is WAY too old to play Langdon. In the book you get this sense of romantic tension between him and Sophie, but in the movie it's more of a father/daughter type of relationship that emerges. Even though Dan Brown was an executive producer, I don't think he wrote the screenplay.

One movie that I felt did the book justice was Lord of the Rings. Even though a lot of the book was left out, I felt that the movie was excellent, and was different than the book. The book was too long to be made into a movie without major changes. Even though there were some things from the book that I missed not being in the movies, the movies captured the essence of the books and told a very good story. I can't imagine how you could adapt those novels any better than Peter Jackson did. I still like the book more though, and that's saying a lot since LOTR may be my favorite movie.

I agree, The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons movies were only good because I could "see" what I had read with all of the churches and other buildings.
Feb 24, 2011 9:57pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Feb 24, 2011 11:25 PM
bigkahuna;690838 wrote:I agree, The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons movies were only good because I could "see" what I had read with all of the churches and other buildings.

I honestly think it would have been better had there been a selection of color plates included with the book so that you could see the places he was talking about. It's one thing to visualize and actual place you've never seen. It's entirely different to visualize something very specific about an actual place.
Feb 24, 2011 11:25pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Feb 24, 2011 11:55 PM
^^ The Da Vinci Code did have a Special Illustrated Edition. I have a copy I am looking at here and it included many of the images and art works described in the story.
Feb 24, 2011 11:55pm
Jester's avatar

Jester

Valedictorian Hater

700 posts
Feb 24, 2011 11:58 PM
Just finished reading I Am Legend, and i'm pretty sure the only similarities between the book and the movie, were the main characters name. I seriously can't think of anything else that was the same. If I had to pick, i'd probably pick the movie. I feel as though the book was way to short and left a lot unexplained.
Feb 24, 2011 11:58pm
password's avatar

password

Senior Member

2,360 posts
Feb 25, 2011 12:13 AM
Read all the hobbit books in grade school and now they have made a movie and I bet that the books were better.The same could be said about Jaws,the book was better than the movie.

I know my wife reads all the Stephen King books as soon as they come out.When the movies come out she says they are not even close to being as good as the books.
Feb 25, 2011 12:13am
namod65's avatar

namod65

Senior Member

508 posts
Feb 25, 2011 12:44 AM
Peter Jackson did a great job with The Lord of the Rings. Probably one of the best set of films made from a book. Easily the most successful with the exception of the Harry Potter films, but that's eight movies compared to three.
Feb 25, 2011 12:44am
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Feb 25, 2011 1:20 AM
Ill also through out the Bourne series. I have enjoyed all three movies more than the books. But the books were really good.

For those that have read the "Girl Who...." books. Kicked the Hornets Nest, Played with Fire and with the Dragon Tatoo. I thought the 1st and 3rd were better than the books but not the second. Im very skeptical of the USA (English) versions coming out though. The versions out now are Swedish with sub-titles but some of the best thriller/mystery movies Ive seen in years.
Feb 25, 2011 1:20am
TBone14's avatar

TBone14

Senior Member

6,383 posts
Feb 25, 2011 3:14 AM
Count of Monte Cristo was a better movie. Different ending and they left a lot out since the book is damn near 700 pages, but I liked the movie much better.
Feb 25, 2011 3:14am
tcarrier32's avatar

tcarrier32

Senior Member

1,497 posts
Feb 25, 2011 4:13 AM
aside from The Godfather, which dawned the series of movies, i can count The Body and 1408 as two successful book to movie attempts by stephen king
Feb 25, 2011 4:13am
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Feb 25, 2011 10:40 AM
The problem with making a book into a movie is that most books that get made into movies would be 6 hours long if unchanged. Books can go much more in depth than a movie can and they allow your imagination to create the environment in which the world of the novel exists. A movie only has two hours and it defines the reality for you and doesn't allow as much for your imagination.
Feb 25, 2011 10:40am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Feb 25, 2011 11:31 AM
A classic example of movies gone wrong from their books is "The Queen of the Damned". That movie was such a bastardy of the book that it was sickening.
Feb 25, 2011 11:31am