Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 24, 2011 11:19am
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.
McFly1955
Posts: 1,441
Feb 24, 2011 12:09pm
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...
T
that_guy
Posts: 439
Feb 24, 2011 12:43pm
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...
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...
W
wkfan
Posts: 1,641
Feb 24, 2011 1:10pm
Books are always better than the movie.
Always
Always
Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Feb 24, 2011 1:11pm
Mulva;689569 wrote:I think movies are always better than the book because there isn't any reading involved.
This.
BORIStheCrusher
Posts: 1,893
Feb 24, 2011 1:13pm
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.
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.
GoChiefs
Posts: 16,754
Feb 24, 2011 1:42pm
Scarlet_Buckeye;690121 wrote:This.
Agreed.
-Society-
Posts: 1,348
Feb 24, 2011 2:54pm
GoChiefs;690171 wrote:Agreed.
Indeed.
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Feb 24, 2011 4:29pm
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.
Mohican00
Posts: 3,394
Feb 24, 2011 6:12pm
Well, it's short and as Zen mentioned, the movie follows the story closely. Worth your time, IMOLaley23;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.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Feb 24, 2011 6:26pm
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.
Sykotyk
Posts: 1,155
Feb 24, 2011 8:46pm
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
Sykotyk
Joe Table
Posts: 12
Feb 24, 2011 8:59pm
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.
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.
B
bigkahuna
Posts: 4,454
Feb 24, 2011 9:57pm
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.
krambman
Posts: 3,606
Feb 24, 2011 11:25pm
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.
Little Danny
Posts: 4,288
Feb 24, 2011 11:55pm
^^ 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.
Jester
Posts: 700
Feb 24, 2011 11:58pm
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.
password
Posts: 2,360
Feb 25, 2011 12:13am
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.
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.
namod65
Posts: 508
Feb 25, 2011 12:44am
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.
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Feb 25, 2011 1:20am
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.
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.
TBone14
Posts: 6,383
Feb 25, 2011 3:14am
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.
tcarrier32
Posts: 1,497
Feb 25, 2011 4:13am
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
krambman
Posts: 3,606
Feb 25, 2011 10:40am
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.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Feb 25, 2011 11:31am
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.