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

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.

?

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.

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.

Well, Strangelove just spoke for me. ermm

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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 😉

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.

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 😆

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 😆

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

Never saw it.Was that a book?jm

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.

Maybe I will.Who is in it?jm

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

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.

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.