I hate when people say: "The book was better" when it comes to movies.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



FistOfThe North
I'm an avid reader (mostly informative, nonfiction stuff though), I'm also a movie buff. And i under stand how the book may add more too the movie and depending on your imagination you can go as far asa you want, i guess, but when I tell someone about a movie then they go "The book was better, though" it makes me want to drop kick them in a car fire. lol

Well whatever. How about you go read the book version of Spiderman 3 or the new Transformers movie or any other non-boring movie, on book while i go watch it in theaters.

Like for example i read S.W. ep 3 and watched the movie in which mostly everyone i asked about told me was better than the movie. Sure the book had extras but i liked the movie way better..

Anyone feel this way or not.

EPIIIBITES
?

People usually don't say "the book was better than the movie" about films like Spiderman, Transformers or Star Wars Episode III.

Besides...the novels of those would come out as a result of those films...unlike, LOTR, Harry Potter, or I, Robot (which are the closest things to this kind of genre that I could think of where people will comment about the book being better than the film). And in those 3 cases, it's rather arguable.

Otherwise, it's most often not sci-fi/action films like those you mentioned where people will say the book is better...but something like The Hours or The Devil Wears Prada.

Strangelove
I have never said that the book is better than the movie when the movie came first. Novelizations of movies can be good, but the film is better 98% of the time.

When the book comes first, however, the film is rarely as good.

Council#13
Well, Strangelove just spoke for me. ermm

jaden101
anyone who said the film was better than the book when it comes to american psycho is a lieing piece of filthy pig shit that will no doubt burn in hell for raping little furry animals

cause in that case...the book really REALLY was better than the film...

MildPossession
The original book is nearly always better than the film, doesn't mean the film is rubbish though. Simple.

The Hawk
The book can sometimes have a more interesting twist/story, but a visual account of what happens is always better.

RedAlertv2
The movie isnt always necessarily worse than the book. But the problem is, in order to fit a 400 pg novel into a 2 hour screenplay, parts have to be left out, which is always a huge bummer if you've read the book.

exanda kane
A finished production and a book are so different, people are never going to be completely happy; a visual account isn't better, of course it can be more expressive, but film doesn't have many ways in which the implicit themes of the book can be portrayed in 32mm.

Bubble_O_Bill
Often a movie will make me want to read the book, because I know i will find more to the story and pick up way more nuances and characterisation.. Virgin Suicides and Memoires of a Geisha are recent(ish) examples.

Steven King Books are ALWAYS better than the movies, with maybe the one exception being The Shining!

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm an avid reader (mostly informative, nonfiction stuff though), I'm also a movie buff. And i under stand how the book may add more too the movie and depending on your imagination you can go as far asa you want, i guess, but when I tell someone about a movie then they go "The book was better, though" it makes me want to drop kick them in a car fire. lol

Well whatever. How about you go read the book version of Spiderman 3 or the new Transformers movie or any other non-boring movie, on book while i go watch it in theaters.

Like for example i read S.W. ep 3 and watched the movie in which mostly everyone i asked about told me was better than the movie. Sure the book had extras but i liked the movie way better..

Anyone feel this way or not.

The books are always better then the movie it self.People can't help but say that.I feel the same way and I always say that!I never read any of the star wars books so can't say I like them better.
But what I had heard that the movies are better then the books so I guess I argee with that one!jm wink

snowultra
some movies they change the story slightly from the book, im sure there is a reason. i find that most books, just cover the story more in depth.

ADarksideJedi
And some other just pick certain parts of the story and make it into the movie.Changing the plot and taking out people from the book.I hate that most of all.jm laughing

exanda kane
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
And some other just pick certain parts of the story and make it into the movie.Changing the plot and taking out people from the book.I hate that most of all.jm laughing

...For example Apocalypse Now. Now that's a terrible film right? eek!

ADarksideJedi
Never saw it.Was that a book?jm

exanda kane
Heart of Darkness.

Takes place in a different continent, with a completely different premise, let alone a different century.

Apocalypse Now is one of the cinematic events of all time. Watch it.

ADarksideJedi
Maybe I will.Who is in it?jm

The Hawk
Can anybody compare The Davinci Code, Ive never read the book.

EPIIIBITES
Also, there's mostly complaints about "books being better than movies" simply because movies that come from books are what's marketed and in the public eye...and are compared more than books which come from movies...(usually citing what's been left out or whatever)


More often than not, the initial creation and impression that people have to go off of will be looked at as "better".



EDIT: Da Vinci Code?...there's hardly anyone who thought the movie was better...it was a hard book to make a movie of, and the movie ends up being just one long explanation.

Still though, I've never, ever seen a movie panned so unfairly...it's not that horrible a movie.

exanda kane
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Maybe I will.Who is in it?jm

Martin Sheen, Laurence Fishburne, Harrison Ford, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall, not to mention the great Marlon Brando.

EPIIIBITES
I'd be surprised if Heart of Darkness was actually better...considering Apocalypse Now is more than just a film...it's a superfilm

"It's more an experience than a movie" according to Coppola...which is exaclty what I felt when I saw it.

Untouchable

Bicnarok
Yes its annoying because its obvious, especially if you have an imagination like mine, when Im reading a book im there in the story visualising it.

Dunno if its the same for everyone but I for one always think the book is better. Take the Da-vinci code, the mive was broing compared to the book.

exanda kane
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'd be surprised if Heart of Darkness was actually better...considering Apocalypse Now is more than just a film...it's a superfilm

"It's more an experience than a movie" according to Coppola...which is exaclty what I felt when I saw it.

Untouchable

Who said it was?

However, I would suggest you advise it, it's a very good book.

FistOfThe North
Rrr..

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Yes its annoying because its obvious, especially if you have an imagination like mine, when Im reading a book im there in the story visualising it.

Dunno if its the same for everyone but I for one always think the book is better. Take the Da-vinci code, the mive was broing compared to the book.

I did not care too much for the book or the movie.But I do argee that compare to the book the movie was just plain horrible.jm smile

BackFire
The comparison of a film to a book is always flawed. Comparing two utterly completely different mediums, using different methods of storytelling and plot movements simply doesn't make sense. Like saying a radio program is better than a TV Show.

Inspectah Deck
Originally posted by The Hawk
Can anybody compare The Davinci Code, Ive never read the book.

never seen the movie but i could tell the book was better

P.S.- dont get mad fist

Ignite
i hate when ppl say the movie was better.... blink

manorastroman
what a crap basis for a thread.

MildPossession
I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code movie more than the book.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Council#13
Well, Strangelove just spoke for me. ermm
pretty much spoke for me as well.sadly films seldom ever do the book justice when the book was first.The majority of the time when the movie is as good or better than the book is when the movie was first.

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by MildPossession
I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code movie more than the book.

The movie was awful compare to the book.Anyway the reason most people like to read is becaue they can see the chactors themselves in there heads.
By watching the movie it spoils using your brain and seeing the chactors the way you want to see them!jm smile

Bicnarok
Originally posted by MildPossession
I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code movie more than the book.

Its hard for me to imagine how, the book had much more depth and detail. Oh well each to his own. Happy Dance

pinkfloydkor
Originally posted by MildPossession
I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code movie more than the book.

but in a movie/book like Da Vinci Code, alot of the book is what is going on inside Robert Langdon's head, which in the movie, i guess they tried to portray by him staring at something for a minute, but in the book you can literally read his thoughts

it gets you way more connected with the character and you feel like you are a part of the story, instead of just watching it

and another great thing about books compared to movies is that with a book, you start one day, and finish over a period of time (depending on how fast you read) and you get to look forward to going home and reading it, with a movie, 2 hours, you get up and go home. its over.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm an avid reader (mostly informative, nonfiction stuff though), I'm also a movie buff. And i under stand how the book may add more too the movie and depending on your imagination you can go as far asa you want, i guess, but when I tell someone about a movie then they go "The book was better, though" it makes me want to drop kick them in a car fire. lol

Well whatever. How about you go read the book version of Spiderman 3 or the new Transformers movie or any other non-boring movie, on book while i go watch it in theaters.

Like for example i read S.W. ep 3 and watched the movie in which mostly everyone i asked about told me was better than the movie. Sure the book had extras but i liked the movie way better..

Anyone feel this way or not.

It's the Truth...the book will always be better than the film. I'll give you two examples. Both are sci-fi...

Battlefield Earth and Dune. If you read the books BEFORE you see the films you couldn't possibly say that the film did a better job of illustrating the story. So much more open and details are in the book that the films completely missed.

Now, in the case of SW Episode III it's totally different. Because they're using the film to tell the story in the book. It's going fall flat on it's ass. WB did the same with Batman Begins and in both occasions they writing seem too simplistic and dull. The writers were taking scenes from the film and adding a bunch of empty paragraphs to tell the story.

Everytime you see a film that says "Based on the Book"....do that...read the book first!

When you see a book that says "Based on the film"...skip it...watch the film.

dsilva
Originally posted by RedAlertv2
The movie isnt always necessarily worse than the book. But the problem is, in order to fit a 400 pg novel into a 2 hour screenplay, parts have to be left out, which is always a huge bummer if you've read the book.

i totally agree with you. i guess why people say they liked d book better is coz if you hav read d book u obviously know wat happens n since you enjoyed the book so much expectations soar higher than if u were completely oblivious to the storyline.
i guess both, the book and the movie hav their pros n cons.
i just think its easier to jus go watch the movie.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.