thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,763
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 26, 2013 19:18:38 GMT -5
I liked the book Time Traveler's Wife, but I just couldn't get into the movie. It was better to just imagine this guy jumping around time - the graphics were too hokie for me.
After I saw some of Time Traveler's Wife I absolutely refused to see even the previews for Water for Elephants. That just might be my favorite book of all time, and I don't want to sully my memory of it in any way, shape or form. No good can come of me watching that movie.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Jul 26, 2013 19:26:08 GMT -5
Shindler's list. The movie was by far more gripping (if that is the right word) than the book. Keeping the movie in black and white with the little girl in the red coat was pure genius Even more gripping is finding out the "little girl in red" was a true part of the book. It may have happened a little differently, but she was not something Hollywood just threw in. I was pretty impressed with both the book and the movie.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,866
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jul 26, 2013 19:36:31 GMT -5
Shindler's list. The movie was by far more gripping (if that is the right word) than the book. Keeping the movie in black and white with the little girl in the red coat was pure genius Even more gripping is finding out the "little girl in red" was a true part of the book. It may have happened a little differently, but she was not something Hollywood just threw in. I was pretty impressed with both the book and the movie. True about the little girl being in the book as well. But I read books "in color", it was the movie's contrast of the black/white/ red that totally got to me.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,493
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 26, 2013 19:50:44 GMT -5
Water For Elephants-book better than the movie.
The Lovely Bones-book better than the movie.
World War Z- the movie was better than the book.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 27, 2013 12:10:39 GMT -5
I enjoyed both the book and the movie The Help. As usual though the book was better. the book Kiss the Girls was a hundred times better than the movie. Everyone already mentioned most everything else I can think of.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Jul 27, 2013 16:28:03 GMT -5
I liked the book Time Traveler's Wife, but I just couldn't get into the movie. It was better to just imagine this guy jumping around time - the graphics were too hokie for me. After I saw some of Time Traveler's Wife I absolutely refused to see even the previews for Water for Elephants. That just might be my favorite book of all time, and I don't want to sully my memory of it in any way, shape or form. No good can come of me watching that movie. Good choice. Water for Elephants is a fantastic book. I tried to watch the movie and didn't bother finishing it. Worthless. (Time Traveler's Wife might be one of my favorite books of all time, and I agree that the movie was lame.)
|
|
kgb18
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 8:15:23 GMT -5
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by kgb18 on Jul 27, 2013 20:39:06 GMT -5
I didn't even give the movie a try. I usually like books better, and I didn't want a movie to ruin it for me.
A couple of movies that I think were excellent screen adaptations of books: "Gone with the Wind," "Much Ado About Nothing" (the Kenneth Brannaugh, Emma Thompson version), and "Pride and Prejudice" (the miniseries with Colin Firth).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:26:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 21:41:36 GMT -5
Gone With the Wind was a great movie. I liked the book as supplementary information to the movie but it dragged too long and didn't have the dramatic timing that the movie had for me. I didn't like Scarlett because they changed who she was. They forced a transformation that seemed to apologise for what a strong woman she was. I hated that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:26:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 22:33:14 GMT -5
I am an English teacher so I think I will naturally like the book better. It has much more detail as previous posters have said. You simply can't get into people's heads.
That said, GWTW is an exception. It isn't as rich as the book (Scarlett has three children, one by each husband), but it works. It is a good movie even though it diverges from the book.
But books and movies are almost never the same thing. There is an additional layer of richness to a book. Maybe WICKED, the musical, has an additional layer by being a musical, but a book and a simple movie don't compare well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:26:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 22:39:58 GMT -5
The Wizard of Oz was well done as a movie. Being a musical added an entertainment level not possible in the book. I like both.
|
|
Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 14,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Jul 28, 2013 0:03:43 GMT -5
True Tolkien lovers find Peter Jackson to be somewhere between blasphemous and the devil himself They find it quite irritating how Jackson rearranged the trilogy. Many couldn't get past the previews. As a rule, I, too, rarely find the movie better than the book. I get annoyed at parts removed. The only one that has come close for me was The Reader.
|
|
MarleyKeezy78
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 22, 2011 13:20:34 GMT -5
Posts: 3,226
Location: Sittin in the mitten
|
Post by MarleyKeezy78 on Jul 28, 2013 1:23:56 GMT -5
I remember reading Jurrasic Park and thinking, wow, this is way better than the movie! And I really like the movie.
|
|
jitterbug
Established Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 18:14:48 GMT -5
Posts: 379
|
Post by jitterbug on Jul 30, 2013 11:21:26 GMT -5
My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. Completely changed the ending for the movie - I liked the book a lot better.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Jul 30, 2013 11:28:38 GMT -5
I just watched Silver Lining Playbook.
I thought as a movie it was pretty crappy but I could imagine that the book might be really interesting - to be in the head of someone bipolar arguing and trying to build a relationship with someone else else who was crazy while your crazy parents dictated what your life!
Anybody read the book that can comment?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 30, 2013 11:36:56 GMT -5
I couldn't finish Wicked the book either
You're not missing anything. I haven't seen the musical but from what I've heard it pretty much just shares the title of the book. They aren't remotely the same.
Because I'm a glutton for punishment I read the next three books in the series. I felt like the author owed me something for getting thru Wicked. Nope, the last book SUCKED. I stopped reading half way thru and skipped to the end. What a rip off.
Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice is a MUCH better book than a movie. The Harry Potter books are much better than the movies, especially books 3-7. I think too much of the later books are in Harry's head and that's hard to translate into film.
I'll watch Percy Jackson and the Olympians, it's not bad if I remind myself the only thing it has in common with the book is the title. Books are WAY better though.
I haven't seen Hunger Games but I've read the books. Honestly I think she should have stopped with HG, the next two fell flat compared to the first book. I also felt like the characters never really evolved and she was rehasing HG over and over.
I think it would have been better to leave it as one book and let us imagine what happens next, IMO.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Jul 30, 2013 11:40:43 GMT -5
Has anyone read Interview with the Vampire? I really liked the movie, and have thought about reading the book, but I already have about 100 books I want to read. Curious if it is a good book...
|
|
genericname
Established Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2013 11:36:33 GMT -5
Posts: 378
|
Post by genericname on Jul 30, 2013 11:54:39 GMT -5
I usually prefer the book to the movie for most things. Michael Crichton writes awesome books, but the movies are not as good simply because they can't include as much detail. That doesn't mean they are bad movies, by the way. Stephen King books are usually better, with the exception of a couple of his short stories that were made into movies: Trucks (movie was Maximum Overdrive), The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile come to mind. I absolutely will NOT see any movie of his Dark Tower series if it is made into one or more movies. I HATED The Stand miniseries while I love, love, love the book. The original 3 Star Wars books were good and so were the movies. Dune and I Robot were fantastic books, but crappy movies. I think Galapagos would be a good movie if done right.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 30, 2013 12:07:16 GMT -5
I've read Interview with the Vampire and I find it to be a good book. The movie follows the book much closer than Queen of the Damned did but it's still very different. I think Tom Cruise had a good personality for Lestat but it's not how I pictured the character. Edge from WWE is more along the lines of how I picture Lestat. Brad Pitt is all right as Louis but I don't like Antonio Banderas as Armand (Armand is supposed to be 16!). Kirsten Dunst is a good Claudia. I like Anne Rice's Original Vampire Chronicles but a lot of her later books SUCK. I am especially pissed at Blood Canticles which is supposed to be the conclusion of the Vampire Chronicles. Pure garbage that I swear she churned out just to make a quick buck. I did read her new book, Wolf Song which was much better but still not comparable to her first books.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:26:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 12:13:35 GMT -5
I really like I robot movie... But again, it pretty much just share a title and three laws with the book... Two different stories...
|
|
michelyn8
Familiar Member
Joined: Jul 25, 2012 6:48:24 GMT -5
Posts: 926
|
Post by michelyn8 on Jul 30, 2013 12:37:08 GMT -5
I find I usually like the books more than the movies but on the rare occasion, I do like a movie better. If I've read a book, I'll avoid the movie until it comes out on DVD on regular TV. More often than not, I'll watch a movie and see it was adapted from a book and decide to read the book for the "extra info".
Some I've thought were better:
1) Don't Say A Word - book gives more info on the girls mother and upbringing; movie changed the character to her father and the whole backstory 2) Sleeping With the Enemy - book was much more real in that the Julia Roberts' character was married to a salesman who took his failures out on her versus a rich bully which meant when she finally got out on her own she was really scraping just to survive 3) Mystic River - if you've read the book, skip the movie; the movie stands ok on its own but leaves out a lot of the details about what is going on with the boy who was kidnapped after he grew up and makes that whole character's story confusing. I understood it because I'd already read the book when I saw it, but my son was lost on that storyline. 4) Timeline, Rising Sun, Jurassic Park, Disclosure - Michael Crichton wrote some excellent novels but Hollywood only did good with Jurassic Park IMO. Rising Sun wasn't bad but not as good as the book. And I enjoyed Timeline as a movie but the book is soooo much better. Discloure - they made work based on his material but the tension and backstory are much, much better in the book.
There are soooo many but I think we can all agree that unless you get good screenwriters or they only "base" the movie on the basic storyline of a book, then the book is going to be better more often than not.
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,504
|
Post by steph08 on Jul 30, 2013 13:08:00 GMT -5
I just watched Silver Lining Playbook.I thought as a movie it was pretty crappy but I could imagine that the book might be really interesting - to be in the head of someone bipolar arguing and trying to build a relationship with someone else else who was crazy while your crazy parents dictated what your life! Anybody read the book that can comment? I haven't read the book, but DH and I love that movie!
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Jul 30, 2013 13:18:53 GMT -5
Has anyone read Interview with the Vampire? I really liked the movie, and have thought about reading the book, but I already have about 100 books I want to read. Curious if it is a good book... Read the book!!! Drama took the long way around to tell you the same thing, so I won't rehash.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 30, 2013 13:40:10 GMT -5
I just watched Silver Lining Playbook.I thought as a movie it was pretty crappy but I could imagine that the book might be really interesting - to be in the head of someone bipolar arguing and trying to build a relationship with someone else else who was crazy while your crazy parents dictated what your life! Anybody read the book that can comment? I watched it about a month ago. I didn't care for it that much either. There is a movie critic who gives a report every Friday morning on a local radio station and she raved about how great it was so I decided to rent it. Who knew that watching a bunch of dysfunctional people could be so BORING...
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,556
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 30, 2013 15:59:53 GMT -5
Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolf was a FABULOUS book - the movie absolutely sucked. The book was mostly told from the point of view of the main character (Tom Hanks in the movie) and you read his thoughts, which were snarky and funny. I thought they would use voice over in the movie, but they didn't, so it sucked the wicked humor out of the movie - and not only that, they altered the end of the book in a major (and stupid) way. To Kill a Mocking Bird, Shutter Island and Silence of the Lambs were all very good as both books and movies, I think. I've watched the first two seasons of Game of Thrones. I've read the first book and I'm working my way through the second - the first season I thought stayed pretty similar to the book, but I was lost during the second season. They had all these new characters showing up, mostly all men in armor, all of them kind of looking like each other, and I struggled to keep track of who was who, and so did DH. That's when I decided to read the books, and I found the second one is much more detailed about the characters than the TV show is - of course, it can afford to be, it's about six inches thick. But knowing the backstories and motivations of the characters is great - I think I might go back and watch the second season over again, now that I can recognize who all those various men in armor are.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,094
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jul 30, 2013 16:55:32 GMT -5
I've seen them all...and saw the Hollywood one determined to hate it because Noomi Rapace was so good. but Daniel Craig was better than the Swedish guy and it wasn't as bad as I had feared.
Game of Thrones is interesting, especially the dwarf, Tyrion Lannister.
As for Lord of the Rings...I read the books as a teenager and they went on forever. The films do too of course but at least you have got something to look at.
|
|
Clever Username
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 27, 2011 14:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by Clever Username on Aug 1, 2013 13:46:16 GMT -5
I read Wicked and enjoyed it long before it became a musical. It would have benefited from an enthusiastic editor, but I liked some parts well enough. The musical shared little more than the name.
I've also read World War Z. I haven't seen the movie yet. But it reads as unfilmable. I'll probably catch it on video, because I've heard they didn't try to film the book. One of the best criticisms I've read is "why did you buy the book title then?"
|
|
Clever Username
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 27, 2011 14:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by Clever Username on Aug 1, 2013 13:53:23 GMT -5
I agree about Tolkien lovers. But what they miss is that the movie wasn't made exclusively for their benefit.
I take exeption to your note about rearanging the trilogy. Tolkein's original plan of 6 books was Horrible. His editor combining them into 3 was passable. Jackson's concurent plotlines, while not brilliant, at least made the stories cohesive.
While reading the books, I lost all sense of time.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Aug 1, 2013 22:01:12 GMT -5
I know it's not a movie, but a tv show. I'm almost done with the first book in the "Game of Thrones" series and so far I love the book and the series both. Great cast, great characters. Doesn't follow the book exactly, but close enough. I think you get to know some characters better in the books (Jon Snow) and some better on tv (so far, Sansa and Arya). But, the base of the character in the book seems to match the tv show. I've heard the relationship between Cersei and Joffrey is different in the book than the show, but I haven't made it far enough to know.
I'd love the books on their own, but I think I love them more since I'm also watching the series (I hope to finish the books before the series though).
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Aug 1, 2013 22:19:31 GMT -5
I remember doing a comparison/contrast essay back in HS for a book/movie where the book came first. I picked John Grisham's "The Pelican Brief". I remember spending most of the movie explaining to my dad (who hadn't read the book) all of the details that were missing from the movie because he was horribly confused the whole time. I agree about "The Pelican Brief". I've read most (if not all) of John Grisham's books. "The Innocent Man" (starring Gene Hackman) was also made into a great movie.
As for "Misery", it was pretty accurate to the book. A few Stephen King books have tranfserred well into movies. "The Shining" with Jack Nicholson, "Christine" (excellent book/movie), "Needful Things", "The Shawshank Redemption", "Carrie", "Cujo", "Dolores Claiborne", "It", "Stand by Me" and "The Green Mile" - just to name a few.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Aug 2, 2013 8:08:24 GMT -5
We saw World War Z in the theater and it was ok- weird and confusing but ok. DH heard the book was completely different and way better so he picked it up. Last night I asked him what he was reading. He said 'World War Z- I hope they make a movie of THIS book, not to be confused with that other, unrelated movie starring Brad Pitt".
He did say that it's all written interview style and understands why that would be difficult to translate on screen.
|
|