Is the movie ever better than the book
- Thread starter Kaboose the Moose
- Start date
V for Vendetta. Specifically, Evie's prison sequence. In the book, V basically tortures Evie, so she can experience some of what he's gone through. Essentially, she's brainwashed by the experience and become V's ardent follower. That never set well with me. In the movie, she basically tells him to eff off. She leaves and returns only to keep an earlier promise, once she has found a way to forgive V. That was a much better, more realistic way to handle that sequence.
I think Watchmen did some things better in the film.
Well mainly the ending was done better in the movie, though the comic's ending was appropriate for a comic, it would've been a bit too silly for a movie.
Silence of the lambs and The Red Dragon were better as films.
Well mainly the ending was done better in the movie, though the comic's ending was appropriate for a comic, it would've been a bit too silly for a movie.
Silence of the lambs and The Red Dragon were better as films.
I think it's definitely a subjective question.
Though I would say that The Prestige was better as a movie than it was a book. Gotta love Nolan, plus I just think having a story about rival magicians will always be strengthened by actually having "magic" or visualizations.
Though I would say that The Prestige was better as a movie than it was a book. Gotta love Nolan, plus I just think having a story about rival magicians will always be strengthened by actually having "magic" or visualizations.
Only one movie for me has ever been better than the book
that is No Country for Old Men.
The reason being is that in the book they give you ample backstory on the hero and the villain. Usually that is what makes the book better, but in this case not knowing who Anton was made him much more scarier and compelling.
that is No Country for Old Men.
The reason being is that in the book they give you ample backstory on the hero and the villain. Usually that is what makes the book better, but in this case not knowing who Anton was made him much more scarier and compelling.
But do you want all the details from the book in the movie? I have heard that the lord of the rings books go into a ridiculous amounts of detail that is gratuitous and maybe not all of the book should be required for the movie.emeraldrafael said:
I can't think of one example where the movie is better than the book, generally because the books are far more immersive, enjoyable and you can really take your time when reading the book unlike the movies where it often feels rushed and out of place. A good example of this is with the last movie I viewed that was derived from a book, Harry Potter and the deathly hallows part 1, for those who have read it and seen the movie you will know what I speak of. There are lots of parts in the movie where it feels rushed and they leave out important parts, one scene goes from them talking to them breaking into a massive government head quarters while in the book it goes for a chapter or so of them planning it. They skip over extremely key parts that happened in the book (like breaking into the bank) so they can add in or extend parts that they like which is kind of annoying.
These are just my views on it.
Merry Christmas everyone
Jaws
Like The Lord of the Rings, the book is weighed down with padding of little-to-no importance.
I'd also say that Spielberg is a better director than Benchley is an author, not sure that I'd say the same about Jackson and Tolkien. Tolkien has an enormous reputation and I'm not prepared to argue that it's undeserved but I'm certainly more impressed by Jackson's work.
American Psycho comes close but ultimately I'm only certain that the movie is more palatable, not necessarily better.
There are probably other examples but since a movie only has a few hours to make it's statement it's practically impossible for it carry the same dramatic and emotional heft as a well-written novel.
Like The Lord of the Rings, the book is weighed down with padding of little-to-no importance.
I'd also say that Spielberg is a better director than Benchley is an author, not sure that I'd say the same about Jackson and Tolkien. Tolkien has an enormous reputation and I'm not prepared to argue that it's undeserved but I'm certainly more impressed by Jackson's work.
American Psycho comes close but ultimately I'm only certain that the movie is more palatable, not necessarily better.
There are probably other examples but since a movie only has a few hours to make it's statement it's practically impossible for it carry the same dramatic and emotional heft as a well-written novel.
I guess not, but it wouldnt hurt. Then again, I'm one of those people who would sit for five-six hours to watch a movie if it was really good.Dimensional Vortex said:
I agree. I absolutely loved the movie but only sorta liked the books. I feel the movie takes everything that was good with books while leaving out the stuff that didnt work so well.Kapol said:
I actually liked The Time Traveler's Wife more as a movie than a book. I know in the book they described Henry and Clare's relationship a lot more, but I felt like the thing just dragged on. I kept checking to see how many pages I had left but in the movie, I was holding on 'til the very end. That's just me, a lot of people didn't like the way the movie was done with Eric Bana as Henry.
Kick Ass if comics count. Seriously, if I read the book first I probably wouldn't have wanted to see the movie. Which was good dumb fun and the scene with Hitgirl saving Kick Ass and Big Daddy... It's phenomenal. From a one perspective, it's a girl trying to save the only thing she has left; her father, and from another it's a sidekick achieving role of full fledged super heroine. And its really badass. The book on the other hand, it is less epic. It is more realistic, but it feels rushed and more closed off. I'm glad they left the twist out of the movie because Nick Cage is going down the tube FAST, and that was probably his last great role. If they put that twist in his character it would have ruined it.
watch the count of monte cristo
good book but an amazing movie. i just think the original book spoke more truly to people of the time due to their society while the movie plays more towards the crowds of today. it tells a re-imagined version of the book but i think the re-imagined version is even better
good book but an amazing movie. i just think the original book spoke more truly to people of the time due to their society while the movie plays more towards the crowds of today. it tells a re-imagined version of the book but i think the re-imagined version is even better
I've got to say, i found the film version of 'The Bourne Identity' much better than the book. All in all it just told the story much better, and gave a much more interesting ending (if more improbable).
Casablanca was based on a play, if that counts. The play was so forgettable that most people don't even know that, and Casablanca is one of the greatest films of all time.
I would argue Lord of the Rings too. Tolkien was a genius, but he had absolutely no idea how to focus on the task at hand, properly pace and structure his story, and keep the reader's interest. He bounced from topic to topic like an ADHD kid trying to retell The Odyssey. The movies cut out all the irrelevant stuff (read: like 3/4 of the books) and only focused on what mattered: the story and characters.
I would argue Lord of the Rings too. Tolkien was a genius, but he had absolutely no idea how to focus on the task at hand, properly pace and structure his story, and keep the reader's interest. He bounced from topic to topic like an ADHD kid trying to retell The Odyssey. The movies cut out all the irrelevant stuff (read: like 3/4 of the books) and only focused on what mattered: the story and characters.