Books vs. Movies (where the exception proves the rule)

[PawDawg]

I have this friend named George who watched Breakfast at Tiffany's at a complete strangers house just to avoid reading the book.

I know that guy too. He spilled juice on the couch, got kicked out, and didn't get to finish the movie.

[inudesu]

I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy...that counts

I read a lot of movie reviews too...

They make many movie reviews into movies? Then you could compare those.

[inudesu]

The Godfather was a novel written before the movie, and not nearly as good as the movie, IMO.

Other candidates could be: No Country for Old Men, Ben Hur, The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, From Here to Eternity, High Fidelity

Wow, the Godfather is close. Very very close. I think the book edges out the movie, at least partly because the book is basically Godfather I and II. The Wizard of Oz is a toss-up, although maybe leaning towards movie. High Fidelity I think I liked better as a book.

[inudesu]

I've tried to think about this for about a day and can't come up with a movie that I saw after I read the book and thought the movie was better. Seems like there might be one, but I can't remember it. I thought maybe a John Grisham, but when I looked at the list of his books, none stood out as better.

I can think of some movies that were about as good. Some of the old Alistair Maclean novels -- Guns of Navarone, Force 10, Where Eagles Dare -- are all very good. They were mostly literal translations of the books done with excellent casts; that helped. I really like Hunt for Red October--both as a book and a movie. And I love the LotRings stories. Even liked the changes they made in the story for the movie.

The list of movies that are far inferior to the book, of course, is long and painful.

Never read it, but I just watched the Guns of Navarone the other night (while my wife was watching the Oscars). I really liked it.

[TechSupporter11]

They make many movie reviews into movies? Then you could compare those.

Don't go being mean now

And just for the record, I don't compare movies to anything...not the adapted material, the original, it's sequels, nada...IMO, comparing films to something else blinds you somewhat...I like to treat each film as a new creation that deserves a fair opinion...

But that's just me...

[Bigdog13]

I know that guy too. He spilled juice on the couch, got kicked out, and didn't get to finish the movie.

[96bulldog]

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

The first book of the series was really long, slow, and drawn out. It was almost like a necessity to get to the second and third book. For this reason, I like FOTR better in movie form than book form. I do not think that is true with the other books which were better read than seen at the movies.

I generally feel the book will be better than the movie. Take, for instance, all of the John Grisham novels that were turned into movies. The book was always better. The same goes for the Harry Potter series.

There are some movies, however, that surpassed the book (or came so close it doesn't really matter). The Hunt for Red October was one. Sure, it left some stuff out, but the movie was still outstanding.

I am in the middle of reading The Return of the King from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I have to say that Peter Jackson and the other writers did a fantastic job of modifying the story into something that was better than the book. It's been amazing to find the parts of the book that are different from the movie and to think about how the movie made them better.

[AG_jr]

I have this friend named George who watched Breakfast at Tiffany's at a complete strangers house just to avoid reading the book.

LMAO!!! Two points!

[AG_jr]

Just watched Beowulf last night. The original Old English poem was better, but the movie was still really good. There were several parts in that movie where it was really tough to believe it was all CG.

[Guisslapp]

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, just consider the movie a longer version of the book.