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 'bout you?
Okay I'll probably get some slack for this but The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner was much more exciting than the Book.
The Hobbit, the book sucks! The movies are great.
They didn't make a movie based on The Hobbit! The only thing based on The Hobbit is a cartoon.
The movie series (The Lord of the Rings) is base on the trilogy The Lord of the Rings and makes no reference to the first book about the adventures of Bilbo Baggins.
Since you brought this up though... while the movie is wonderful, the books were so much more and you get a far better understanding of each character through the detailed back stories.
Oh yes, well, maybe.
How about Julie and Julia? I think in this case the movie was at least AS good as the book. Both had their individual strengths.
What do you think?
Oohh This is a tough one, most films are never better....
I want to say The Road but I'm not sure...awesome book, absolutely amazing but the film gave it that extra emotional lift- the book does bring out emotions but seeing films are visual, it really did it for me.
I agree with Sa Toya this is a hard one. I'll have to think about it and get back to you. THANKS Habee. MAKE me think why don't you!
I can only come up with a couple of "maybes"....
Jaws and Silence of the Lambs.
Both because the actors breathed life into the characters that I didn't get when reading the book.
You are absoloutely right - I had only just read the original "Jaws" book a few weeks ago and made the comment to my husband that the movie left the book for dead. The book itself it really just a C-grade effort: it is only in the authors' narrative of the shark that it is redeemable in any way.
Mystic River by Dennis Lehane
I'm not sure if the movie was better than the book, but it was not a disappointement to me.
Clint Eastwood did an incredible job of directing & storytelling.
Ooo good question!
Books are pretty much always better than the films because they go into so much more detail and leave everything to your imagination. For example, if the book's describing a really good looking guy (like in "Twilight", if any of you read the books), you can imagine him just the way you like haha but with a film the actor is right there in front of you and some may like it and others not.
But...films take much less time (a few hours as opposed to a few days or weeks) and much less brain power...
All in all, I would say books are so much better. Like "Ps, I Love you". The book made me cry, but the film totally disappointed me! I'm actually failing to think of a film that's better than the book...hmmm... :S
Henry V not once but twice done better than the book..
and Mel Gibson's Hamlet is another..
Books are always better than movies because books are based on author's imagination and visualization, but movies are some time left with technical draw backs. So books are much better than movies.
That is hard! The book is pretty much always better! One exception that comes to mind though: I liked the movie "Christmas with the Kranks" a lot better than the book "Skipping Christmas". I don't know...I watched the movie first and laughed so hard. But the book was still good.
This is a tough one habee, I can't think of a film that was better then the book, I've found so far I prefer the book to the film.
Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans was so graphic in its presentation and the acting all around especially Daniel Day-Lewis' was so thorough that Cooper's writing, though damn good, paled somewhat in comparison
I'm not sure if I would call it better, but, "The Lost World" book was certainly different than what was in the film. This was the sequal to "Jurrasic Park." which was also slightly different than the book.
The only part of the movie that was like "The Lost World" book, was the first part where the little girl gets attacked by comps on the beach on a family cruise. The rest of the movie doesn't follow the book at all, as there are only a handful of people on the island, trying to find dinosaur eggs. This whole army of men trying to capture dinosaurs was not in the book.
I also read Hollywood Wives, and the Master Of The Game. I couldn't tell you how much the movies resembled the books, but, they were both equally entertaining. But, it has been many years since I read them. I started to read "The Thorn Birds."
But, got bored with it pretty quick. The show was better.
I think "Stand by Me" is a better movie than "The Body" by Stephen King...it's a bit more focused, whereas the novella has some interjected thoughts and musings that drag the pace down a bit
Jaws is a different experience from book to movie and the movie might be better
The Green Mile is more enjoyable as a movie as is The Shawshank Redemption - Largely, that's because both are VERY faithful adaptations and reading a book takes a lot longer than watching a movie
Just about any movie about Dracula is better than Stoker's novel, which is very slow-paced
Silver Bullet is better than Cycle of the Werewolf...
so, yes there are movies that are better than their books out there
The problem is that a lot of movies based on books are not necessarily faithful adaptations, but they are good movies in their own right. The movie version of "Where the Wild Things Are" may be too serious, even off-putting, to those who adored the book. But as someone who liked but didn't particularly love the book as a child and was able to fully appreciate the film version as an adult, I was blown away by the movie. If it doesn't get any Oscar nominations, I will be genuinely upset.
Stardust is another good example. It's more of a romantic comedy than the book was, but it's still a good movie.
I totally disagree about Dracula, though. I was literally up all night reading the last part of it because it was so suspenseful. No film versions have captured the complexity of the novel, probably because it's so long, but at least Guy Maddin's version comes close.
Well, reaching back a bit, but I love "Taming of the Shrew" with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. As well as a few other Shakespear movies. The interpretation of Elizabethan language really comes alive. On paper, it's just vague to me. I guess I need to study Elizabethan or something. But I'd rather study pig-latin....
"The Green Mile" Stephen King
"Sybil" the original with Sally Fields
I love Stephen King, and I thought the novella was pretty good by itself, but the movie version blew it out of the water. It was really creepy and visceral, and I actually liked it better.
I'd have to say The Runaway Jury by John Grisham.
Most adaptations of his books turn out really boring and completely miss the point of the whole story, but this one was actually better than what I imagined when I was reading the book. Maybe because some of the main parts of the story were changed; tobacco company to firearms manufacturer and all that. Made the whole thing a lot more plausible.
I think that the movie "The Princess Bride" was miles better than the book. Also I would have to say Stardust.
Also, I would have to agree that Shakespeare is better understood and enjoyed when it is performed, either on film, in an audio drama or on stage. I have read all of Shakespeare's works but enjoy him best when I see good actors performing his plays.
Apocalypse Now - much better in movie format. Coppola actually moved the setting and made a stunning movie that was different but more amazing than anything I had previously seen. HOD was excellent mind you but...
(This was also the movie that taught me the power of the "big screen". I almost couldn't watch parts of it for the realism on the big screen, yet when viewed on regular TV it was not nearly as chilling.)
Have yet to come across a movie that's as good or better than the book.
If Iv'e read the book - I almost never go see the movie. Always dissapointed. Cannot figure out why they change parts of the story or even the ending when making it into a movie. totally unecessary. Don't people want to go see the movie because the book was so good? Shouldn't they keep the movie true to the written word?
Can't do it Pddm. Real life has its limitations. The best actress for the part may be dark haired when the book strictly says blonde. Best possible shoots may not be possible in the depths of Antartica when Canada will do, and so on. Each person takes the book and creates the picture in their own mind. No matter how strict a movie follows the book, it will never match your imagination.
Books are one medium of story telling and film is another. They are very different, and I find that there are good things about each one.
I love movie adaptions of books, but they do differ significantly from the original source material. It's a take on the book by a select group of people. Different movie adaptions of the same book will also differ, based upon the movie makers' style and idea of how to interpret the original story.
I understand but I just wish that once someone, anyone, would make a movie that's true (at least 99%) to the book it's based on. Would be something new to see out there. Just wondering WHY it hasn't been done (maybe it has but I don't recall one)
Wishful thinking on my part
I have to say that the cartoon Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol was way better than Dicken's Christmas Carol. Just my opinion.
I like Forrest Gump the movie better than the book! Tom Hanks was able to bring that character to life like nobody else could. His performance far outweighed the words written on the page.
I read too much & rarely watch movies. I'm usually disappointed in the movie if I've read the book, so I don't waste my time.
Well, for anyone who likes period dramas, Pride and Prejudice 1995 was very close to the original novel by Jane Austen. I think that film was the closest book to film adaption that I've come across.
I think more often than not the book is better than the film, as you can create your own pictures in your head, the way the character looks and the settings. Sometimes when I read a book and then watch the film it ruins what I had created in my head e.g. Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt, I loved the book but the film was no where near as good.
The only example I can think of is Star Wars, where the books were written after the films in order to cash in.
The books are always better because otherwise there would be no movie. Once the movie comes out it ruins all growth for imagination. You can no longer picture how it would, could or should have been as the screen writer took that privilege away from you. However I am NOT saying that all books turned into movies are bad. I’m just saying that it's nice to have the chance to envision things yourself.
My favorite books into movies...Chronicles of Narnia
Go C.S. Lewis!
The Wizard of Oz - probably like most people, I had seen the movie many a time and become fond of Oz and the characters. The book is startlingly dreary and very dark in comparison. If I had have read the book first, I don't believe I would be such a fan of TWOO: the movie is visually stunning and leaves a message of hope. The book - not so much.
hard to find a movie better than the book, I am going back a ways. "All The President's Men." Robert Redford & Dustin Hoffman.
by tomsum 7 years ago
Do you think books are always better then the movies that come after them?A lot of the big name movies use IP's from already written books. Which is better? For me personally, I think the Harry Potter books are better, but I enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies more then the books.
by Faith Reaper 2 years ago
Have you ever read a book that had you looking over your shoulder?A long time ago I read a book by Peter Straub, "Ghost Story" and it was so terrifyingly eerie, I had to sit with my back to a wall as I was so creeped out while reading it. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up...
by bradleyshartman 8 weeks ago
What kind of books do you like to read?Is it Action and Adventure, Suspense, Comedy, Science fiction or maybe real life, what trips you trigger?
by thirdmillenium 8 years ago
Which book have you read more than once and would not mind reading again?
by ptosis 5 years ago
Let's share good books.I recommend "Fall of Giants" (pre-WW1 drama history) 1k+ pages"Pillars of the Earth" (medieval drama history) 1k+ pages"Dreyfus Affair" (France SNAFU history) 500+ pagescurrently reading"SpyMaster" (autobio from Olec Kalugin) 450+...
by wytegarillaz 5 months ago
Would you rather read a good book or watch a movie ?If so why ? I personally love to read a book as there are no adverts !
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|