Films better than books?
- Thread starter MJpoland
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, just no. In fact, LotR is one of the few things where the book actually was better than the film. I'm not ragging on the movies, they're some of the best ever made (dat soundtrack), but half of Tolkien is his use of language, and most of that gets lost.stefanbertramlee said:
Now Watchmen on the other hand... I though the film had a much better ending than the graphic novel, it tied it into the plot a bit more nicely.
Jurassic Park. Bad book, good first movie. Arguably Jaws although I haven't read the book that film was made off of.
For the most part, like the Harry Potter saga, I prefer my imagination to what the director of the film saw in the book. I love both mediums and I think you can make a good movie from book source material; I just prefer original, written for the silverscreen narrative.
For the most part, like the Harry Potter saga, I prefer my imagination to what the director of the film saw in the book. I love both mediums and I think you can make a good movie from book source material; I just prefer original, written for the silverscreen narrative.
This is probably the closest i get, whil ei can't say which i prefer, it's the only movie i've ever seen, where it didn't feel bland compared to the book.stefanbertramlee said:
Only part i minded a bit was, that they'd cut the entire ending where saruman has taken over the shire.
As for some of the otheer books mentioned here
Harry potter, while the later film installemnts where better than the earlier ones, i think the fact that every movie, apart from the last one which they cut into 2 film, has been cut to death, in order to make it fit the leantgh of a normal long film kills the athmosphere a lot. In my book, they would've been better movies, if they had been 2 hours longer each, even though i'm fully aware, that it's not a commercially smart move.
American Psycho just felt bland, compared to the book, while i was more than fine with not having the grosest scenes shown explicitly, i would've by far prefered to handle it some other way, instead of removing them/changing them.
Have to disagree.stefanbertramlee said:
The books had more epic things the movies didn't even talked about.
Old Forest
Tom Bombadill (epic)
The graves
Battle for the Shire at the end of the third book.
And some minor deails i don't remenber
Like in Rivendell in the first book, Bilbo says he is gonna take the ring since he found it in "The Hobbit" and (i think is Gloin) smiles at that.
Tom Bombadill (epic)
The graves
Battle for the Shire at the end of the third book.
And some minor deails i don't remenber
Like in Rivendell in the first book, Bilbo says he is gonna take the ring since he found it in "The Hobbit" and (i think is Gloin) smiles at that.
This works. I dislike Stephen King's writing immensely, but I'm a rabid Jack Nicholson fan.Bloedhoest said:
OT: I don't hate the Bourne books by Robert Ludlum, but I think that the movies are way better. Mainly because Robert Ludlum's books are all the same, whereas the movies shifted it up occasionally.
Howl's Moving Castle (Miyazaki)
I read the book after seeing the movie, and the book was kind of dull, and really, the character of Howl sort of just stayed an unlikable prick the whole books whereas, in the movie, I felt he actually made progress.
I hear there are later books of Howl's story, but I'm not likely to read them because I really just didn't like the book. I've heard there are two more, and if it takes two more books to get to the point the movie got to...gheez.
I read the book after seeing the movie, and the book was kind of dull, and really, the character of Howl sort of just stayed an unlikable prick the whole books whereas, in the movie, I felt he actually made progress.
I hear there are later books of Howl's story, but I'm not likely to read them because I really just didn't like the book. I've heard there are two more, and if it takes two more books to get to the point the movie got to...gheez.
Exactly. Now instead of two paragraphs describing a mountain or character, we get to see the mountain or character.GeorgW said:
I greatly enjoyed the chronicles of Narnia, but the first film owned the book. The second film stopped me watching Narnia films again.
Yes and no. Tolkien's writing style isn't the most easy going and there are lot's of plot's and interweaving story lines. The film is more comprehensible because the storyline and plot are neatly filtered out by Mr. Jackson and presented as a logical story.stefanbertramlee said:
Haven't read the book though but watched the trilogy several times as well the making off.
My wife is quite a Tolkien nutt.
She made me watch!
Lord of the Rings most popular answer hmm. I remember that I've read it when I was about 10 years old and I really enjoyed it, can't say that movie was much better... it lacked something, not sure what, but ... maybe it was little too short? The movie was really brilliant, but personally I wanted even more events within it, more story, so I was little disappointed, even though I understand that adding even more scenes into film was impossible.stefanbertramlee said:thahat said:
But well, I can give my own example (though probably 95% of you will disagree) - for some strange reason I really liked "I am legend" movie (besides ending). After the movie I've read the novel and I didn't like it - story was completely different, only the basics were the same. Maybe I've expected more detailed film plot version without stupid ending and thats why I didn't like the book, however thats my opinion about it.
Oh definitely this. The way the characters talked I needed to see what was going on because I couldn't understand them. Not to mention Malcolm McDowell's excellent performance, without which we wouldn't have Heath Ledger's Joker.Beryl77 said:
Quelle coincidence!Bloedhoest said:
I'll also nominate The Godfather. The book was way too heavy on the fanservice. Remember that scene where Sonny is having sex with that woman during the wedding? In the movie it's only briefly shown, but in the book, it goes on describing it and the aftermath for 1.5-2 pages.