Last month I finished Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons", last week I watched the movie on Netflix. I was so disappointed with the movie, I vowed to never watch a theatrical adaptation of any book I have ever read.

Have you ever read a book then watched the movie and not been disappointed with the movie?

Da Vinci Code.

Book was quite enjoyable. Movie made me develop a personal vendetta against Tom Hanks.

O-Trap;689535 wrote:Da Vinci Code.

Book was quite enjoyable. Movie made me develop a personal vendetta against Tom Hanks.

I am reading that book now. And I already hate Tom Hanks.

Even if you don't read the book, the movie sucks.

I saw Fight Club before reading the book. Thoroughly enjoyed both, since the endings were different.

But other than that I can't say that I've seen a movie that was better than the book.

Yea, both of those movies DID NOT do the books justice.

Those 2 are the ones that pop out at me right off the bat.

I think typically, the book is better than the movie simply because the book is usually done first. Also, it seems like the movies always leave some stuff out, slightly tweaks it, or doesn't go into enough detail.

SPOILER (If anyone cares) for Angels and Demons









1. Having the scientist NOT be the daughter of the other scientist really took away from the character's passion to find the killer.

2. (I can't remember if this occurred or not) The pope not being the Charmelengo's father took away from it as well.

3. Not having the head scientist involved took away from the science vs. religion.

4. I was just pissed how they didn't use the Illuminati Diamond at the end.

I could probably think of some more for both movies, but those 4 things stuck out to me.

I think the book is always better than the movie.You get to imagine the story your own way.

Well it'd be hard to make a good movie out of a Dan Brown novel because IMO they aren't good at all. But yes, those movies were really bad.

To Kill a Mockingbird.

I think movies are always better than the book because there isn't any reading involved.

I Wear Pants;689567 wrote:Well it'd be hard to make a good movie out of a Dan Brown novel because IMO they aren't good at all. But yes, those movies were really bad.

Agreed, but I also agree The4Ringz, Angels and Demons was a godawful movie based off of a book that was just an airline novel. Dan Brown is a bit of a hack (albeit, a very wealthy hack) but Ron Howard and Tom Hanks should have known better. There are some films that exceeded the books, such as Misery and The Shining and even The Godfather.

Hollywood butchered Angels and Demons. I agree with a lot of the points Bigkahuna made and would add the bastardization of the Hassassin character as a huge disappointment. The actress who played Vittoria was not hot enough for me based on how she was described in the book (I know that is very shallow of me, but the first time I saw the actress that was my first impression). Also, IIRC the events in the book too place a year before the DaVinci Code. If i am not mistaken the movie places these events afterwards.

I enjoyed the movie "The Color Purple" (I read the book before watching the movie). There were major differences between the two but I thought the Hollywood version was great. I also enjoyed the movie adaptation of SE Hinton's "The Outsiders".

I hated the first Harry Potter book but have enjoyed all the movies. I didnt read 2-7 however because I didnt like 1, and I knew the movies were coming.

As was just mentioned, I loved To Kill a Mockingbird, both the book and the movie. Id make them even. Gregory Peck and Robert Duvall gave some great performances.

...of course the easiest choice for movie better than the book (and no I didnt read it, nor do I have to read it to make this judgement) is Shawshank Redemption. Unless the book is a top 5 book ever written, the movie is better lol. Sorry Stephan King, but the adaptation into the movie wins this round. Though I will concede it isnt a true Novel, and is much shrter than a typical book.

Laley23;689590 wrote:I hated the first Harry Potter book but have enjoyed all the movies. I didnt read 2-7 however because I didnt like 1, and I knew the movies were coming.

As was just mentioned, I loved To Kill a Mockingbird, both the book and the movie. Id make them even. Gregory Peck and Robert Duvall gave some great performances.

...of course the easiest choice for movie better than the book (and no I didnt read it, nor do I have to read it to make this judgement) is Shawshank Redemption. Unless the book is a top 5 book ever written, the movie is better lol. Sorry Stephan King, but the adaptation into the movie wins this round. Though I will concede it isnt a true Novel, and is much shrter than a typical book.

The movie is based on the Novella, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption". It is one of several Novella's collected in the book "Different Seasons". In fairness to King, it has been hailed by critics as his best work and has been refered to as a masterpiece.

* The other Novellas within the book include "Apt Pupil" and "The Body" (The movie Stand By Me was adapated from this piece).

Little Danny;689597 wrote:The movie is based on the Novella, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption". It is one of several Novella's collected in the book "Different Seasons". In fairness to King, it has been hailed by critics as his best work and has been refered to as a masterpiece.

* The other Novellas within the book include "Apt Pupil" and "The Body" (The movie Stand By Me was adapated from this piece).

Yeah I knew that, and I had heard it was a great piece of work. But from a movie buff, and guy who works with lighting, camera, and all that (granted on the sports side) the movie is the second most complete film from every aspect I have seen. To the first 2 Godfathers (which I always count as 1 movie).

The only way a movie will ever be better than a novel is if your the one writing the movie. You are the only one that can write the movie you imagined.

Laley23;689590 wrote:I hated the first Harry Potter book but have enjoyed all the movies. I didnt read 2-7 however because I didnt like 1, and I knew the movies were coming.

As was just mentioned, I loved To Kill a Mockingbird, both the book and the movie. Id make them even. Gregory Peck and Robert Duvall gave some great performances.

...of course the easiest choice for movie better than the book (and no I didnt read it, nor do I have to read it to make this judgement) is Shawshank Redemption. Unless the book is a top 5 book ever written, the movie is better lol. Sorry Stephan King, but the adaptation into the movie wins this round. Though I will concede it isnt a true Novel, and is much shrter than a typical book.

One of the reasons the movie is so good is because the screenplay is almost word for word the same as the short story it was based on, with few minor changes (mainly having to do with the warden and the older character that gets released).

Zen;689625 wrote:One of the reasons the movie is so good is because the screenplay is almost word for word the same as the short story it was based on, with few minor changes (mainly having to do with the warden and the older character that gets released).

I quoted this only because one of the only movies that was comparable to the original book, IMO, was the 1995 version of Pride & Prejudice. It wasn't the standard 1-1/2 or 2 hour movie, either. It was actually a mini series and is also almost verbatim.
The 2005 version with Keira Knightley - no so much. I didn't enjoy it all all (although I did enjoy Matthew MacFadyen!) lol

The Green Mile series of 6 books (or was it 5?) was very good.

The movie was also very good. The books just give a little better look at the other inmates and why they were in prison. I enjoyed both, read the books after the movie.

Even if the movie does include Tom Hanks...

The book "Jaws" was dreadful.

It seems like Steven King's books translate into good movies usually. Why that is, I'm not sure.

Ive never done the book/movie combo and not liked the book better.

Gardens35;689568 wrote:To Kill a Mockingbird.

This was my first thought.
Book is top ten of all time.
The movie did not disappoint.


The movie Wizard of Oz is better than the book. The Color Purple is also a better movie. I agree that the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice is as close to a classic narrative that exist.

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.

Laley23;689590 wrote:I hated the first Harry Potter book but have enjoyed all the movies. I didnt read 2-7 however because I didnt like 1, and I knew the movies were coming.

As was just mentioned, I loved To Kill a Mockingbird, both the book and the movie. Id make them even. Gregory Peck and Robert Duvall gave some great performances.

...of course the easiest choice for movie better than the book (and no I didnt read it, nor do I have to read it to make this judgement) is Shawshank Redemption. Unless the book is a top 5 book ever written, the movie is better lol. Sorry Stephan King, but the adaptation into the movie wins this round. Though I will concede it isnt a true Novel, and is much shrter than a typical book.

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