Announcement

Collapse

TBH Maintenance


TBH maintenance - TBH will be OFFLINE Friday June 6th 9 am to 5pm for the server switchover.
See more
See less

The book was better than the movie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The book was better than the movie!

    We've all heard this many times. While for the most part I believe it's true. I also believe some people say it just to let you know they read the book . It did get me to wondering though with all the talented actors in Hollywood, awesome special effects technology, and millions spent making movies, are there any movies that were actually better than the book that came before it?

    #2
    don't know of any off hand....but I know one movie that a guy said he saw a trailer of a movie and said the book was better than the movie that he not even seen yet? .

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by elkbowhunter View Post
      don't know of any off hand....but I know one movie that a guy said he saw a trailer of a movie and said the book was better than the movie that he not even seen yet? .
      Still waiting on that one too

      Comment


        #4
        I would have to say that new Planet of the Apes movie was better than the book...if there was a book. Was there a book? Well i have not read the book but Im sure it was not as good as the movie.

        Comment


          #5
          The Bourne books/movies are a good example of movie could be said to be better than the book. There was such a long period of time between the two 1980s vs 2000s, that the book had some references that just wouldn't make a movie all that facinating and would be somewhat out of touch. When you get to the 2nd book, the only thing that is remotely the same is the title. I liked both, but I would never say the book was better; it was just as good and different.

          I think most folks tend to like the books because it can contain more detail that what a 2 hour movie can give you. So a movie sometimes disappoints because it leaves out details that the reader enjoys.

          For instance, I liked the story of Lone Survivor in book format much better because there were lots of "characters" not in the move. The Pepsi Bottle being one of them.

          However, I really liked the movie for it's ability to paint the picture. I struggled with the author's ability to describe the terrain in the book. The terrain is a VERY big character of it's own in the story.

          Comment


            #6
            The Shining was better as a movie. I just wish they could have kept the shrub animal part in it.

            Comment


              #7
              The original Star Wars from the 70's?

              Comment


                #8
                The Bourne movies are much better than the books. I read all of them, including the ones written by other authors. The movies are still better.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Fight Club was a WAY better movie than the book. The book kinda sucked. IT was better as a movie than the book. IT is a boring book. Usually Stephen King's books are much better than the movie. The Hunt for Red October was a better movie than book. I thought the book was boring. Clancy got much better with age.

                  Lonesome Dove is probably the closest to absolute perfection on both counts. The book is a masterpiece and is, IMO, easily one of the top ten novels of the 20th century. The movie was brilliant with Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones giving pitch perfect performances.

                  Usually the book is better, but sometimes a movie will be better than the book. It really depends.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I never read Forrest Gump, but I can't imagine the movie not being better. Tom Hanks nailed it

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by AntlerCollector View Post
                      I never read Forrest Gump, but I can't imagine the movie not being better. Tom Hanks nailed it
                      He sure did!!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        It is my thought that most folks read the book first soooo they naturally hold the movie to the same standards as or higher than the book versus the book to the movie. What you saw first usually makes it better because you don't know what's going to happen. The suspense is never the same the second time around. I don't read as much as I used to because I got tired of it ruining my movies..





                        .
                        Last edited by Smart; 07-25-2014, 02:24 PM.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          My son says, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings. Idk I didn't read or watch them. I believe Schindler's list would qualify. I agree with Smart a book can ruin a movie. The book doesn't have 90 minutes to tell the whole story like a movie does. Seems like something's always left out

                          Comment


                            #14
                            yep....sure hope Unbroken gets those scenes right thats already in my head. Would like to see it on the big screen with music!!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Part of it is that books describe things, but still let your imagination do alot of the work. The directors interpretation of a setting may not match the picture you have in your head from the book. Those differences may not be all that substantial, but will still leave you feeling a bit disappointed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X