Girl, Interrupted. I liked the book, but I loved the movie. In all fairness, the book is a memoir, and the movie drastically changed what had actually occurred, so it really isn't a fair comparison. The movie was more of a fictional take with only the bare bones of the memoir intact. Had the movie stuck with the actual storyline of the book, I don't know that I would have enjoyed it more than I did the book.
Also, A Walk to Remember; I didn't like the book, but the movie was decent. For a chick flick at least
That's fundamentally impossible if you ask me, as most books (regardless of source) are a lot more detailed and in movies, they often have to cut out a lot of things for time constraints. However, if you want to count comic books, then I think Blade vastly exceeds the original comic book, as the character was always bland and uninteresting. It wasn't until Wesley Snipes reinvented the character that he was even remotely interesting. Anyways, i hope that helps.
I found your post great! We started watching the new TV series Blade and it is very different then the movie. I enjoy it for the most part but hubby finds it really irritating and picks at every hole! This could go a long way to explaining why the TV show is so different from the movie. I actually read this post to hubby and he appreciated hearing that the comic character was not exciting the way he is in the Blade movie.
Thanks Kirsten. I'm glad you and your husband liked the post. To be honest, I've never seen the TV series, but I have seen all the films and read some of issues when i was younger. The movies are definitely better than the original comic books if you ask me.
The TV series is pretty new actually. I do enjoy it but I have to forget the vampire world of the movie in order to accept the vampire world portrayed in this new show. I think if hubby could let go of the image of Blade he has (of Wesley Snipes) he might enjoy it more but I don't think he can stop comparing the two. I still prefer it to the vampire world as portrayed by the twilight movies
Yeah, I kind of have the same problem with Heath Ledger as the Joker. Ever since "The Dark Knight", I can't imagine anyone else playing that character, as all others just seem phony to me now; even Jack Nicholson's version back in 1989. lol.
As far as "twilight" goes, I'm not going to comment on that, as I hated those movies. lol.
I might get flamed for this but I once tried to read The Lord of the Rings books. Big mistake. The movies are way better. Tolkien gives you far more detail about everything than you need and while I applaud his imagination for creating this detailed a world its just much easier to process and enjoy in movie form.
I would have to say that out of every movie that I have seen that came from a book, none were better. Don't get me wrong, the movies can be excellent, but they can never display all the detail that can be provided an author.
For me it was Altered States.. Paddy Chayefsky left out one critical observation made but not explained in the movie by Bob Balaban's character. That one thing made the difference. The two versions came very close to paralleling each other otherwise.
Might sound silly, but I thought the Nanny Diaries was better than the book. I certainly enjoyed it more, although I still thought the book was a decent read... The Shining was another movie (although I will note that it's quite the different genre than Nanny Diaries!!). Still, the movie scared me more than when I was reading.
That's hard to say. Maybe the movie Apocalypse Now--based off the novel Heart of Darkness. Don't know if this really counts though 'cause the book is brilliant. It's just that the movie is also brilliant which I rarely find when movies are based on books.
Totally agree on Shawshank. The novella was good but different. The movie was less graphic and seemed to have more heart. Or, maybe that was just Morgan Freeman's narration. Morgan Freeman could narrate a trip to the bathroom and I'd probably still think it worthy of 4 stars.
Try to read Shakespeare, seriously, I can't. I usually give up pretty soon. But to watch movie is another story. Same about Dickens. Though I love to read Jane Austin. And movies are pretty decent too.
It has taken me ages to think of a movie that I preferred to the book (I always prefer the books) but I have just remembered one. The Exorcist. This may well be down to the fact that I read the book at about 12, and really struggled to take all the detail in while the movie was very easy to keep up with. I may well want to read the book again that I am all growed up!
When I was a teenager, I saw a movie with Juliette Lewis called That Night and loved it. I found it was based on a book and so I jumped on it. I hated it. Looking back, I'm sure it was more realistic and I do remember it had a lot of good details, but the endings were very different and I liked the movie one better (think hollywood ending haha).
As an adult, I think I just about always prefer the books to the movies, though I'm not a snob about it. I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Harry Potter, Where the Heart is, and other movies, but the books have so much more and the imagination isn't limited by the contraints of technology (though that's becoming less of a problem for movie-makers these days).
One of my favorite adaptations is BBC's Pride and Prejudice. I love that one!
I haven't really read a whole lot of books, but I did read both Jurrasic Park and The Lost world. I did like both movies, but neither of them followed the books completely, and the Lost world movie wasn't anything like the book. However, to see it all brought to life on the big screen sure made it interesting, and Jurrassic Park was a very good movie. (Not so excited with lost world)
Another book I read was Master Of The Game, which was made into a TV mini-series, and the series was much better than the book. They did an excellent job with the acting roles, and, I couldn't wait to see each part as the show unfolded. I think the twin sisters near the end of the series was the best part.
I also read Consenting Adult, which was also made into a TV show. Again, it had two good actors (Martin Sheen and Marlo Thomas) and, it just brought the whole story to life. Not saying it was a great movie, but it was better than the book.
Going way back, I also read "Burnt Offerings" But, the book kind of gave away the whole story in the first few chapters. I actually saw the movie before I read the book, and found the book kind of boring and long. I think the movie could have been better, but, it was pretty good for it's time.
I also started reading "Phantom Menace." But, never finished it. You can't read Star Wars, you have to see it.
Without a doubt The Shining was a better movie than a book. Stephen King apparently hated Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining (but apparently loved the later made-for-TV version), but I think he was just jealous. The movie was really Kubrick demonstrating how his genius towered over King's. You could watch The Shining a thousand times and not catch all the intricate details. Everything from the character's clothing to the patterns on the carpet are in some way tied into Kubrick's grand theme.
I could get a lot of flack (flack?) for this, but I must say The Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books. Though to be honest, I have not read the LOTR books (aside from The Hobbit) simply because I found them to be a bit...unreadable. The writing is just so...idk, tedious. It seems to drag on forever with unnecessary details.
I understand what you mean. It took me quite some time to get into the Lord of the Rings books. However, once you get into them, it's like you are part of the fellowship and a part of you dies when the book ends. (I'm only exaggerating a little bit)
I'll never forget reading an entire paragraph on the texture of bark though. Tolkien clearly loved trees... (A tad OTT)
I wouldn't say the Lord of the Rings film trilogy is better than the books. The books, while filled with rich, intricate details, make it entirely like another world, a fantasy, which is what he wanted. When he describes the woods, the landscape, the mountains, he is introducing characters. They are as much a part of the story as the human characters. The landscape becomes symbolic of good and evil. And the films do change some from the books. But I love both the books and the films. The movies are among the best fantasy ever produced.
I can't think of a movie that is better than the book, at least the books I have read. I didn't read The Shawshank Redemption, but the movie is 5 stars.
Gotta agree with fight club. Also I believe Of Mice and Men deserves a mention as John malkovich did very well in bringing Lenny (the less intelligent main character) to life. The film in general did very well in bringing the book to life come to think of it! Great little book complemented by a nice film version.
When you read a novel and later watch a movie based on the book, the book is almost always better, in my opinion. Can you think of a case when the movie was actually better than the book? I can: The Horse Whisperer. How...
I've seen a few forum threads/questions about reading lately - asking what types of books you like to read, or how many you've read in the past year, etc....but none have simply asked: what book are you reading right...