OnlineBookClub.org

Most people see a movie and say, "The book was totally better."
What movies did you think were actually better than the book.
For me, Children of Men was a way better movie than book.

Erm, kind of hard.

I suppose The Warriors was a far better movie then book, The Outsiders was equal, equal.

But most of the time they are right, with books you are using your imagination. The movie kind of kills the picture in your head with the book.

The Client by John Grisham was a better movie than book in my opinion, helped by the late Brad Renfro as the little boy

I know I'm going to get mauled with this one... but I'm going say the last two harry potter movies were a lot better than the book. Let the blood bath begin.

Id have to say Ben-Hur for one, great movie, boring long-winded book and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Not that the story wasnt good, it was a very good story, but was only a few pages long and didnt have the detail the movie did.

StoneGolem wrote:Most people see a movie and say, "The book was totally better."
What movies did you think were actually better than the book.
For me, Children of Men was a way better movie than book.

Usually books are better than movies. Język oryginału: polski
Wpisz tekst lub adres witryny albo przetłumacz dokument. But surely there are exceptions...

Gone with the Wind, hands down. The book is a lot of nonsense.

I was writing a novel that involved a few scenes in antebellum New Orleans, and I figured I'd cheat and not go there myself, but read the famous novel instead, and have my fill of the scenery and the mores and what not. Turned out, the scenes that take place in New Orleans in "Gone with the Wind" have no New Orleans in it. He said, she said, he slept, she went, he came, they walked. Not a single street is described. No weather, no people, no slang, no steam emanating from the open doors of an eatery on the corner, nothing. NOTHING.

The movie was pretty impressive, though.

On the other hand, Shakespeare only looks good on the stage, and Dickens and Dumas on the printed page (even though Dumas did some playwrighting on the side).

You can't put Mark Twain on the screen. You can't even put Douglas Adams on the screen, as it turned out a few years ago.

StoneGolem wrote:I know I'm going to get mauled with this one... but I'm going say the last two harry potter movies were a lot better than the book. Let the blood bath begin.

Pffffffffffffftt!!!! Maul maul maul.

We will have to agree to disagree. Good day Sir!

Another one would have to be Moby Dick, the version with Gregory Peck. It could be a toss-up as to which one is better, But I think the movie version was a little better, Pecks performance as Ahab was gripping, a little scary. Also Harry Andrews was cool as Stubbs as was James Robertson Justice as Quequeeg. There was a version with Patrick Stewart. It was ok, but nothing like the original. I kept thinking he was going to say, "Engage," at any minute.

Jacob wrote:Erm, kind of hard.

I suppose The Warriors was a far better movie then book, The Outsiders was equal, equal.

But most of the time they are right, with books you are using your imagination. The movie kind of kills the picture in your head with the book.

Nope. Can't agree with you on The Warriors. Not his best book, maybe (read The Bag), but definitely better than the movie. I love Sol Yurick! His books, I mean. JMO, though.
Gotta concur on The Outsiders. Good book, good movie.
Willard was almost better than Ratman's Notebooks, but only 'cause I know too much about rats, and the book was inaccurate in parts.

Solaris by Stanislaw lem. I remember seeing the movie which was nice but I wanted to understand it more so I read the book which was boring I understood even less. Actually I'm surprised I finished the book.

BookBuddy wrote:Solaris by Stanislaw lem. I remember seeing the movie which was nice but I wanted to understand it more so I read the book which was boring I understood even less. Actually I'm surprised I finished the book.

Good ol' Stanislaw! I think I'd go batty if I tried to read one of his books.
...but I'll have to change my quote now...
Thought of another one, maybe. A Clockwork Orange. The movie was a lot easier to understand. The book didn't start to "flow" for me until somewhere around chapter 7.

BookBuddy wrote:Solaris by Stanislaw lem. I remember seeing the movie which was nice but I wanted to understand it more so I read the book which was boring I understood even less. Actually I'm surprised I finished the book.

I saw the Swedish or Danish or whatever it was, version of Solaris years ago. I dont remember much about it so I probably wasnt that impressed with it. Didnt they make a remake of it a couple years ago?

I can never work out which version of "Fight Club" I like the best. Can it be possible that they are equally as good as each other? I watch the movie and think the movie is better, then I read the book and I think that the book is better. Either way fantastic story.

Phantom of the Opera, with Gerard Butler as the Phantom. The Movie and the Opera (play/musical?) was better than the book by far. But then again I cannot and refuse to read a book after seeing the movie because when I see the movie the scene is already created for me and for some reason I can't seem to override it at that point and if the book doesn't follow the movie, which they almost NEVER are the same, then I get discouraged and keep thinking this is not what happened in the movie. So I read then watch. If I haven't read then I don't watch until I do.