# Books vs. Movies



## erotic_cookie (Jul 3, 2006)

This weekend I went to see some old friends with my fiancee and didn't being any reading material with me. Lucky for me that one of the people we stayed with has a very impressive collection of books. 

Seeing that we only had a one day left I decided to read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption found in Different Seasons by Stephen King. 

I was disappointed by this novella. This is the first time that I can say that I've ran across a movie that was much better then the book. 

Has anyone else had this happen to them with any other books/movies?


----------



## Avarice (Jul 3, 2006)

i havent finished reading fight club yet but i have a feeling the movie will beat it, simply because palahniuk uses milimalism which only achieves so much. Otherwise not really.


----------



## Writer87 (Jul 3, 2006)

...


----------



## Stewart (Jul 3, 2006)

erotic_cookie said:
			
		

> Seeing that we only had a one day left I decided to read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption found in Different Seasons by Stephen King.
> 
> I was disappointed by this novella. This is the first time that I can say that I've ran across a movie that was much better then the book.



These are the thoughts of a friend on another forum regarding the story. It's quite an interesting read.


----------



## Hodge (Jul 3, 2006)

erotic_cookie said:
			
		

> Seeing that we only had a one day left I decided to read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption found in Different Seasons by Stephen King.
> 
> I was disappointed by this novella. This is the first time that I can say that I've ran across a movie that was much better then the book.
> 
> Has anyone else had this happen to them with any other books/movies?



Same. The movie is much, much better than the novella, which is really only mediocre. I haven't experienced this with any other book, though. Ever. Except for those crappy books that are written _after_ the movie comes out.


----------



## gatoatigrado (Jul 4, 2006)

I didn't like the "The Bourne Identity" book; it was long and boring. Then again both rather shallow.


----------



## DEIfan4life (Jul 4, 2006)

I'd have to say that reading the books are better then the movies. You get more from the books, then you do watching the movies. Right now my b/f has me watching "Kindome Hostpial". All thou I'm not a big Steven King fan, I've found that I'm getting into this mini series.


----------



## Stewart (Jul 4, 2006)

DEIfan4life said:
			
		

> I'd have to say that reading the books are better then the movies. You get more from the books, then you do watching the movies. Right now my b/f has me watching "Kindome Hostpial". All thou I'm not a big Steven King fan, I've found that I'm getting into this mini series.



Now, _Kingdom Hospital_ is a different kettle of fish, as they say, again. It's a remake (and rewrite) of a Danish TV show called _Riget_, written and directed by Lars von Trier. Unforunately, for purists like myself, we'll never get to see a conclusion to _Riget_ as a couple of the main stars have since died.


----------



## Avarice (Jul 11, 2006)

American Psycho also has a brilliant film adaptation that achieves what the book did but with far less misogynistic violence, although he does kill women, u didnt actually see it.

The book still wins though, for sheer gore.


----------



## BeautifulDisaster (Jul 23, 2006)

I haven't really come across any movies that are better than the books. 

If books are turned into a movie, so many details are taken out that could be crucial to understanding the rest of it.


----------



## PamHKyle (Jul 24, 2006)

Once, only once I have encountered a movie that was better then the book:
'Diamond Hunters' written by Wilbur Smith was a terrible read (the basic plotline of the book was good, it was just not up to his usual standards), but I acctually liked the movie (with Alyssa Milano, Roy Scheider and Sean Patrick Flannery).

To equal things, the worst movieadaptation is probably 'The 7th Scroll' (again, written by Wilbur Smith). The 2 books are unbelievably good, but the (3 part, 6 hour) movie was terrible. They completely f***ed the story up. I understand they needed to change things so they could show it properly, but inventing a whole new LEADING character is going to far I guess... 
On it's one, it might not be a bad movie (I was too angry to judge that fairly), but it was a terrible adaptation.


----------



## Anarkos (Jul 24, 2006)

Avarice said:
			
		

> American Psycho also has a brilliant film adaptation that achieves what the book did but with far less misogynistic violence, although he does kill women, u didnt actually see it.
> 
> The book still wins though, for sheer gore.



People who call American Psycho misogynistic miss thep point!


----------



## JoshuaOst (Jul 24, 2006)

Books and movies both have there upsides and downsides but neither is better than the other.  Books can show a characters point of view better but movies can actually show the action on screen and use music to help a scene's mood.  Both are very different.
Although if you want to talk whether the book is better than the movie of the same story, I always think that the book is better because he was the original writer.


----------



## andreaypich (Jul 29, 2006)

I have yet to watch a movie I consider to be superior to the book it's based on. Of course there are good film adaptations, but the book always does it better for me.


----------



## Anguirus2005 (Jul 30, 2006)

People are probably going to be pissed at me for saying this but I found the Harry Potter movies superior to the books, mainly because they cut out a lot of the pointless angst and other flab. Reading the newer Harry Potter books is almost painful, the read like she isn't edited anymore.


----------



## josephwise (Aug 1, 2006)

Did anyone else think "The Wizard of Oz" made a better movie than a book? It seemed to have better thematics and character development. It was also paced better in movie form. I know they left out a lot of cool things for the movie, but the book just seemed "scattered" to me, by comparison.


----------



## josephwise (Aug 1, 2006)

Anarkos said:


> People who call American Psycho misogynistic miss thep point!


I agree with you. In my opinion it had incredible heart, and a very sympathetic and human sadness at its core. Both mediums.


----------



## Gyousei (Aug 17, 2006)

BeautifulDisaster said:
			
		

> I haven't really come across any movies that are better than the books.
> 
> If books are turned into a movie, so many details are taken out that could be crucial to understanding the rest of it.


 

I agree. Movies often choose to portray parts that would get either the audience's eyes glued to the screen, or their ears thumping. Besides, now a days, its often about who is in the movie, for advertising advantages.


----------



## FloridaJay (Aug 17, 2006)

Being a Stephen King fan you can imagine how many times I've been disappointed by the movie versions of his stories. The only movie that ever hit his writing dead-on was The Green Mile. The movie is the book and vice versa. Now when it comes to movies versus books I have to say that hsitorically movies don't do books the justice they deserve. Lord of the Rings, for example, was a good set of movies - until I read the books. Tolkein is such a great writer and his descriptions are magical, something that the movies could not mimic. Don't get me wrong, the movies were good entertainment, but they just couldn't capture everything the books covered (where the hell was Tom Bombadil?). With a book, much is left to the imagination and much is also explained in detail, even what the characters are thinking - this has not been accomplished very well with movies IMHO. Books win!


----------

