Home› Life

Books versus Movies

jarkofjarkof Regular
edited August 2010 in Life
What is one movie that you think was not even close to the book and whats one book that you think the movie is way better.

I love Eragon but the movie was horrible and changed dramatically. I absolutely despised the movie. :mad::mad::mad:

As for movie I will say holes. The movie had a much better ending and the kid wasnt a fat ass like portrayed in the book. He was skinny. But there was a lot more detail in the book as there always is.
Share on Twitter

Comments

  • weathersweathers Regular
    edited July 2010
    Hitchhiker's Guide.

    I don't even know why they bothered. There was no way they were EVER going to be able to cram the smallest amount of that series' win into a movie.
    Plus it really is a case of the image not being able to come close to what the mind can conjure.

    Movie better than the book? That's tricky. I'd probably have to go with The Da Vinci Code, not because I though the film was amazing but I just REALLY dislike Dan Brown's writing style.
    Share on Twitter
  • weathersweathers Regular
    edited July 2010
    The book kicks the film's ass (fear and loathing), but the movie still rawks so I'll give it a pass :p
    It's like Fight Club; AMAZING book, great film.
    Hitchhker's Guide, though, is an incredible series and a dog shit awful film B|
    Share on Twitter
  • DailyDaily Regular
    edited July 2010
    I thought Green Mile (the movie) was wayyy better than the book. Stephen King's descriptions can get pretty laborious sometimes (don't hurt me).

    But Dreamcatcher is definitely one of my favourite books by him. The movie ain't got shit on the book.

    American Psycho (like my favourite book ever) was so superior to the movie. The movie was pretty good, but the producers failed to capture Patrick Bateman's internal feelings, and I don't blame them. That shit was intense on text.

    Just for lulz -

    Harry Potter Books > Harry Potter Movies
    Share on Twitter
  • MayberryMayberry Regular
    edited July 2010
    Well one thing all normal adults can agree on:

    The Twilight books suck. The Twilight movies suck. :D
    Share on Twitter
  • weathersweathers Regular
    edited July 2010
    Daily wrote: »

    But Dreamcatcher is definitely one of my favourite books by him. The movie ain't got shit on the book.

    Fuck, I'd totally blocked that movie out of my mind. Good call.

    Just to flip it around, I thought the book of The Third Man was better than the movie despite being secondary to it.

    Maybe I just think all books are better.
    Share on Twitter
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Movies. I can't sample books for the hip hop records I wanna put out.
    Share on Twitter
  • HOLY KRAKATOLLY!HOLY KRAKATOLLY! Regular
    edited July 2010
    movies are rarely better then books, if it took two weeks to read the book and only two hours to watch the movie obviously your going to like the book better because you get much more in touch with the characters and the plot.
    Share on Twitter
  • jarkofjarkof Regular
    edited July 2010
    You know i started this thread because I was curious but I really expected more twilight talk. Agreed that it sucks in my opinion but as for hitchhikers guide to the galaxy no it did not live up to the series but it mimicked the original book almost perfectly but like any other movie it could not catch the full aspect. But they really got the point across in the movie what exactly was going on. They really showed how it was a book about how random things could be. Thats my personal opinion. And also as nerdy as it is yes harry potter books far out do the movies by a long shot. But in all honest the biggest change from book to movie that I have ever seen is Eragon. Nothing is as it should be.
    Share on Twitter
  • JackJack Regular
    edited July 2010
    I used to bitch about how movies didn't match the books but then I wised up. They're completely different formats. Movies have from about 1.5 to 3 hours to deliver a story in one cohesive, attention-keeping chunk. Books have no time limit and are commonly read in starts and stops. Movies also necessarily place images to the names and places in the book, which may lead some people to disappointment as what they see on the screen is different from what they imagined.

    This is why book movies are called adaptations. They have to adapt. The reason everyone is still bitching about this and always will is because it is impossible to create the same effect and feel with two very different media.
    Share on Twitter
  • jarkofjarkof Regular
    edited July 2010
    ^
    This I know but what I was looking for was more of a did this movie follow the book whether or not it got all the details. Like again bringing back eragon. The movie changed the path of the story they changed the look of the creatures and they remade most of the story. When making a series of movies to go along with a series of books they have to follow the plot to keep the movies coming. Eragon did not follow it. Not even close. But yeah I get what you mean on theres no way to get all the details into a movie.
    Share on Twitter
  • JackJack Regular
    edited July 2010
    Oh, I see what you mean then. I only saw the first Eragon movie but I do recall the mangling of the book as worse than most movies do. I think they cut out the entire journey through the desert which was pretty interesting.
    Share on Twitter
  • chompchompchomskychompchompchomsky Regular
    edited July 2010
    requiem for a dream: epic book; epic movie.
    Share on Twitter
  • jarkofjarkof Regular
    edited July 2010
    Jack wrote: »
    Oh, I see what you mean then. I only saw the first Eragon movie but I do recall the mangling of the book as worse than most movies do. I think they cut out the entire journey through the desert which was pretty interesting.

    Yeah they havent made any more movies yet but the way I see it they cant. They changed the story to much. I dont know for some reason this movie pissed me off like none other because I actually liked the book and then the movie just rewrote the book. The move got like 1 star and it was made by a big company. That just shouldnt happen.
    Share on Twitter
  • Joel CradleJoel Cradle Semo-Regulars
    edited August 2010
    Big Fish - Shit book but a great film.

    How about those books written after the film is released? The literature version of shovelware. Twelve Monkeys was the worst I ever read.
    Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.