The book is better than the movie
- Thread starter ExaltedK9
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The Golden Compass *rushes to take shower at typing those hideous words* should not have been done. The book The Northern Lights is quite simply a masterpiece as is the rest of the trilogy. However the film just doesn't live up to anything. Firstly is isn't a compass. Secondly the film was never going to work as the sheer scale of the project was always going to be too great, the world, the imagination, the whole concept is something that can only be put well within the confines of a book.
It's part of the 5 disc special edition tin. Not sure if it ever got an independant release though.dontworryaboutit said:
I agree here, but the theatrical production (basically a two part performance of all three books) did succeed in pulling it off well, they showed it can be done. That said, the film wasn't as good as the book, although I still enjoyed watching the film it wasn't anywhere near the book. Also, why the hell did they give it the (stupid) American name despite being a British production, filmed with a mainly British cast and crew, at Pinewood Studios in the UK, and based on a British novel by a British author? What was the point?piers789 said:
I also think that Apocalypse Now was nowhere near as good as the book. Heart of Darkness was an awesome book and Apocalypse Now was an ambitious project that could have succeeded, except Coppola basically bastardised the source material too much. I enjoyed reading Joseph Conrad's novel much more than seeing that film, although it helps that I'm quite a fan of classical literature...
Well...they were made at the same time. Kubrik and Clarke made the scrip for the movie and Clarke did the adaptation to book.klakkat said:
The plan was that to fully understand the movie you had to read the book and to understand the book you had to watch the movie.
With most of his books this certainly is the case. However, I tought The Green Mile and The Mist were of similar quality as the book (and I liked the new ending of the latter). The Shining was pretty different from the book in many aspects but I found it a very good movie for other reasons the book was good. I also preffered The Shawshank Redemption above the original short story.Kuropan said:
Let's see:
1. Eragon was shitty as a book and far worse as a movie. In this case, as absolutely bizarre as it may seem, the shitty book series was better. Verdict: Shitty book series > Shitty movie And yes, I've read the book series. Spoilers: Paolini is a hack.
2. His Dark Materials, known to the uncultured as The Golden Compass
P) was amazing as a book, not so much as a movie. Verdict: Book series > Movie
3. I've never read No Country For Old Men, the book, but frankly I think NCFOM wouldn't be that great as a book while the movie was spectacular. I've also heard many people think NCFOM was good as a book and better as a movie. Verdict: Movie > Book
4. The Lord of the Rings. Is there a more prestigious series? Probably not, but one thing I do know (read: think) is that the movie series was better than the book series, and I've read all the books and seen all the movies. The book series unfortunately suffers from Ye Olde Medievale English at times, some parts are slow, and Tom Bombadil is a sin against God. So yeah, the movie series was entirely faithful IMHO and was actually better. Verdict: Movies > Books
More soon as I think of them.
1. Eragon was shitty as a book and far worse as a movie. In this case, as absolutely bizarre as it may seem, the shitty book series was better. Verdict: Shitty book series > Shitty movie And yes, I've read the book series. Spoilers: Paolini is a hack.
2. His Dark Materials, known to the uncultured as The Golden Compass
P) was amazing as a book, not so much as a movie. Verdict: Book series > Movie3. I've never read No Country For Old Men, the book, but frankly I think NCFOM wouldn't be that great as a book while the movie was spectacular. I've also heard many people think NCFOM was good as a book and better as a movie. Verdict: Movie > Book
4. The Lord of the Rings. Is there a more prestigious series? Probably not, but one thing I do know (read: think) is that the movie series was better than the book series, and I've read all the books and seen all the movies. The book series unfortunately suffers from Ye Olde Medievale English at times, some parts are slow, and Tom Bombadil is a sin against God. So yeah, the movie series was entirely faithful IMHO and was actually better. Verdict: Movies > Books
More soon as I think of them.
The book is always better than the movie because the reader always pictures the book how they want it with a movie it's different everything is already set so the reader cant imagine how he would want it to be.