Books vs. Movies - WritingForums.com - Writing Forums, Writing Challenges, Critiques and Help for Writers

erotic_cookie · 07-03-2006, 02:55 PM

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 · 07-03-2006, 03:19 PM

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 · 07-03-2006, 04:29 PM

Stewart · 07-03-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erotic_cookie

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 · 07-03-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erotic_cookie

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 · 07-04-2006, 01:30 AM

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

DEIfan4life · 07-04-2006, 01:41 PM

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 · 07-04-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEIfan4life

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 · 07-11-2006, 05:17 PM

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 · 07-23-2006, 11:50 PM

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 · 07-24-2006, 03:15 AM

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 · 07-24-2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarice

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 · 07-24-2006, 07:51 PM

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 · 07-29-2006, 08:38 PM

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 · 07-30-2006, 01:40 AM

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.