# Did anyone enjoy the movie version better than the book version?



## Tess St John (Feb 1, 2011)

Was wondering how everyone feels about books made into movies. I know most people say the book is better--and I agree. 

BUT, as much as I liked the book Angels and Demons, I enjoyed the movie just as much. Which really surprised me since I didn't care for The Da Vinci Code movie at all and loved that book.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

"The Notebook" had almost a "creeper-factor..." especially at the end...I preferred the movie hands-down. And so many chicks had recommended it and I was disappointed. Oh well...


----------



## Tess St John (Feb 1, 2011)

Oh, Tamara...I agree...I was afraid to watch the movie because I didn't really care for the book, but I really liked the movie!


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

I liked the LOTR trilogy movies more than the books.


----------



## aaronpolson (Apr 4, 2010)

jabeard said:


> I liked the LOTR trilogy movies more than the books.


I did, too. I also enjoyed 2001 more than the book (and I do LOVE Arthur C. Clarke). The movie was just so iconic. Logan's Run was much better on screen, too.


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

While the book is almost always better, in the case of _Forrest Gump_, I'd have to go with the movie.


----------



## MarionSipe (May 13, 2011)

I much preferred _Silence of the Lambs_ and _Hannibal_ as movies, especially given the end of _Hannibal_ the book. *shakes head sadly*


----------



## EliRey (Sep 8, 2010)

The only two I can think of that I'd say the movie did them some justice are The Godfather and Pride and Prejudice.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

I'm actually looking forward to the movie of breaking Dawn more than the book...


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

aaronpolson said:


> I did, too. I also enjoyed 2001 more than the book (and I do LOVE Arthur C. Clarke). The movie was just so iconic. Logan's Run was much better on screen, too.


I always feel very leery admitting that about LOTR. Many fantasy fans consider that sacrilege. 

RE: 2001

I wonder if that's the result of the history of the book. Basically, it's my understanding that the movie was mostly inspired by a short story, The Sentinel. The actual novel was written at the same time the movie was being made (I don't think it was even published until after the movie had come out), and Kubrick and Clarke worked together somewhat to keep things similar (though obviously still some differences).

I've never actually read Logan's Run the novel.


----------



## Tess St John (Feb 1, 2011)

JA...funny how I've not seen or read LOTR...I think I'm the only person.

Aaron... who wrote Logan's Run?

Fredster...I only saw FG...but I did like it.

Which Pride and Prejudice, Eli. I love Colin Firth, but I thought the latest version was better.

I've never heard of Breaking Dawn, Ami. Who wrote that?

I also think the movie version of Catch Me If You Can is just as good, if not better, than the book!!!


----------



## alan nayes (Jan 11, 2011)

Forest gump--movie definitely better. Just finished reading THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and i enjoyed the book better--except for the ending. i thought the movie ending was more uplifting. but what do i know...


----------



## Bernard J. Schaffer (Apr 16, 2011)

Fredster said:


> While the book is almost always better, in the case of _Forrest Gump_, I'd have to go with the movie.


I was thinking the exact same thing. The book was a mess.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

American Psycho was better than the book IMO. Captured the book without needing to be as graphic.


----------



## Trulte (Apr 2, 2011)

For me "Eat, Pray, Love" was a better movie than the book.. But that's one of the very few..


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

Tess St John said:


> Was wondering how everyone feels about books made into movies. I know most people say the book is better--and I agree.
> 
> BUT, as much as I liked the book Angels and Demons, I enjoyed the movie just as much. Which really surprised me since I didn't care for The Da Vinci Code movie at all and loved that book.


"Angels and Demons" convinced me to neither see the movie nor buy any more of Brown's books.

"Being There" with Peter Sellers was a great movie based on a short novel by Jerzy Korsinski. I enjoyed the book but some of the original scenes they added for the movie were fantastic. Great book and great movie.


----------



## Christine Kersey (Feb 13, 2011)

I almost always enjoy the book more than the movie. Two exceptions I can think of: LOTR and I Am Legend.


----------



## medicalhumor (Feb 15, 2011)

The Green Mile!


----------



## KVWitten (Apr 11, 2011)

Andrew Lloyd Webber's movie version of 'Phantom of the Opera' is far better than the original book (IMHO).

And I'd have to agree that I prefer the LOTR movies over the books.


----------



## kCopeseeley (Mar 15, 2011)

Jurassic Park (but then again, I've never been a huge Crighton fan).
Practical Magic (Hoffman's version was just... odd).
And sometimes, because I like Emma Thompson THAT much, Sense & Sensibility.  Totally disagree with the others about Pride & Prejudice though.  Maybe because I'm such a crazy Austen fan.  hahaha


----------



## navythriller (Mar 11, 2011)

Fredster said:


> While the book is almost always better, in the case of _Forrest Gump_, I'd have to go with the movie.


I quite agree. This is one of the few cases where the movie was significantly better than the book.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I like the Broadway musical version of "Wicked" a whole heap more than the Gregory Maguire book.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

I don't like it better, but I like it just as much: The Stand miniseries based on King's novel. 

One more: I love Elmore Leonard, but I think the movie version of Get Shorty was better than a book. By a nose.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Fried Green Tomatoes was a much better movie than book.


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

*Being There* by Jerzy Korsinski was, in my opinion, a lovely short novel. The movie, starring Peter Sellers was even better than the book. One scene, not in the book, was quite poignant. Chauncy was fascinated with television. Like most people, he looked at it and comprehended very little but it was his life. When being harrassed by a youth gang, Chauncy pulled out his remote control and tried to change the channel.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

TWILIGHT is better than the book. That Stephenie Meyer can't write, so the movie did the editing for her.


----------



## bnapier (Apr 26, 2010)

Communion.

I understand that the movie did away the metaphysical elements in Streiber's book and turned into a strictly alien abduction movie, but that film still gives me the creeps to this day.


----------



## jherrick (Apr 1, 2011)

navythriller said:


> I quite agree. This is one of the few cases where the movie was significantly better than the book.


I agree too. The special effects, including the old news footage, helped make that movie what it is too.

A close call, but I'd say "Breakfast at Tiffany's" film edges out the book.


----------



## CatherineIsom (May 22, 2011)

The worst book to film adaption for me was Flowers in the Attic by Virginia Andrews. having read the book in my teens I loved it, i couldnt get enough and followed the whole series of books. Then my friend and i saw the video and were both excited to watch it (as the book had been so fabulous) however, disappointing is an understatement. I would be interested to hear from anyone who saw the film and enjoyed it?


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

I agree with LOTR and I'm probably in the minority here but I would also add the Chronicles of Narnia.  I'm just not a big fan of C.S. Lewis' writing style but the movies kept me entertained.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Usually, it's the other way around.  I actually liked The Da Vinci Code movie better than the book.  Clint Eastwood managed to make a decent movie out of that silly Bridges of Madison County book. 

There are a few movies I liked as much as the book.  For example, the Swedish version of "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" I felt trimmed some of the fat of that book and told a lean, powerful, intense thriller.  At the same time, I loved the book.


----------



## Maria Hooley (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm with Jon.  All the films in the Twilight series have been better movies.  The best lines aren't in the books.  I really didn't like Breaking Dawn, but I will go to see the movie because the screenwriter involved in the project is the same.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I thought the Lord of the Rings trilogy was better than the books, and also the Harry Potter books, 3,4,5,6. The stories were true to the books, but without all of the unnecessary adverbs and adjectives. Yikes, what happened to the editing of Rowling's books?


----------



## Marie August (May 16, 2011)

The Harry Potter movies were pretty, but so much was cut out that I don't think I could have enjoyed them if I hadn't read the books. So... books were better in my opinion.

I think that so far Game of Thrones is better than the book. Though that is a TV series rather than a movie.


----------



## William BK. (Mar 8, 2011)

I preferred the Jurassic Park movie to the book. Bond films over Bond novels. Clancy films over Clancy novels--especially the Harrison Ford ones.

As for LotR, I'd have to say I love the books and the films equally...just differently. It's not comparable for me.

As for the Harry Potter and Narnia films, they are good, but I'd have to say I prefer the books in the end. While I understand the movies (and boos) are for younger folk, the movies border more on cheesiness than childishness.

Here's hoping the Hobbit movie turns out more like the LotR films than the HP ones...


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

I don't agree with everyone about every film here, but that's to be expected. 

I thought The Kite Runner film was better than the book (a little bit, mainly b/c they took out one thing at the end that I hated in the book) and I thought Water for Elephants was *as good* as the book.

In general I'm fairly able to separate book and film and appreciate each on its own merits. And I always appreciate being able to relive a story in less time, so a movie always has that going for it for me!

Kristan


----------



## ChrisHoward (May 14, 2010)

I thought the book Chocolat was great, but the movie's even better.

Chris


----------



## Tess St John (Feb 1, 2011)

I love how everyone is so different!  I just saw the movie Bridges of Madison County for the first time...and I don't want to read the book...I didn't like the ending!

I'm not a HP, LOTR, or Twilight reader or watcher, but I must be missing out, seems like everyone has an opinion there!

On a different note...we went to Universal Studios last year for the opening of the HP park and we got in a couple of days before everyone else (so it wasn't a madhouse when we went), but my kids and their friends that came along said it really looked a lot like the book and movie descriptions. I thought it was phenominal architecture!


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

One that comes to mine for me is "The Road."  I hated McCarthy's writing style, but liked the story and post-apocalyptic setting.  So ended up really liking the movie as it stuck to the story and did a great job of visualizing the brutal hopelessness of the situation.

Also, I recently read Pride and Prejudice for the first time and just watched the 2006 movie version with Keira Knightley.  I'd say I enjoyed the movie there better as well as it was mostly spot on to the book, and the book was a bit of a drag at times.


----------



## Tess St John (Feb 1, 2011)

Mooshie, I love that version of P&P!!!


----------



## 13500 (Apr 22, 2010)

Although I enjoyed the book, I think the movie version of "Bridget Jones Diary"  is much better than the book.


----------



## ChristinaDaley (May 21, 2011)

I liked Lord of the Rings better as a movie. I don't read much high fantasy, so I think I sorta got lost in Tolkien's style. But I thought the movies were beautifully done.

I liked the first Narnia movie a lot. The second one was pretty good as a movie, though not as a book adaptation. I thought the third was okay. But the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is my favorite book, and I was pleased with the movie treatment of it.


----------



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

I liked the movie versions of both Let The Right One In and Jaws more than the books. Also the Kick Ass movie was better than the graphic novel.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

Jon Olson said:


> TWILIGHT is better than the book. That Stephenie Meyer can't write, so the movie did the editing for her.


Here, here. What happened to the editor on breaking Dawn. Seriously, about 1/3 of the book should have been taken out.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

ChrisHoward said:


> I thought the book Chocolat was great, but the movie's even better.
> 
> Chris


Before artwork on your book covers!! Very interesting!


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

Harry Potter movies are horrible compared to the books. But I do like the Twilight saga movies better than the books, in fact that is how I first heard of the story- being dragged tot he movie. I liked Narnia better as a book, but Lord of the Rings I liked as a movie (because Tolkien's writing is heavy.)


----------



## emilyward (Mar 5, 2011)

I might be the only one, but I liked The Lovely Bones movie more than the book. To me, the book just dragged, but the movie condensed that story to the length it should have been. Beautiful visuals, too! Also Memoirs of a Geisha, for the same reasons. 

I have a feeling Water for Elephants might be in the same category. I flew through that book, and then when I was done, I thought, "Wait a second, nothing happened until the end!" 

I would include Twilight, but I never finished the entire book, so I feel like it'd be unfair 

. . .I think those are the only ones. There are others that are pretty close (LOTR, Jurassic Park, HP 7, The Princess Bride), but I still love the book more when it comes to those.


----------



## Ben Dobson (Mar 27, 2011)

jabeard said:


> I always feel very leery admitting that about LOTR. Many fantasy fans consider that sacrilege.


It's a sacrilege I totally agree with! And I say that as a fantasy author, so I may be kicked out of the club.

I respect Tolkien and everything he did for the genre, but man, some parts of the LOTR books are just _dry_. Tolkien was a linguist and a worldbuilder, no doubt, but I felt like his characters and their interactions could get a little history textbook, lots of 'this guy, son of this guy, lord of that thing, begat whoever'. I thought the movie breathed a bit more life into the people, even if it couldn't capture the breadth and detail of the world entirely, and the people are the most important thing to me.

Now, the Hobbit, I liked as a book--it was more a fairy-tale sort of thing, and had a lot of charm, since it dealt with less world-altering history and such. And I fall asleep even opening the Silmarillion.

Purely opinion, of course, and anyone who wants to is free to agree with me.


----------



## Sandra Edwards (May 10, 2010)

Tamara Rose Blodgett said:


> "The Notebook" had almost a "creeper-factor..." especially at the end...I preferred the movie hands-down. And so many chicks had recommended it and I was disappointed. Oh well...


Ditto. The movie was way better than the book.


----------



## HeidiHall (Sep 5, 2010)

amiblackwelder said:


> I'm actually looking forward to the movie of breaking Dawn more than the book...


I completely agree! Although I didn't much care for the any of the books (loved the characters though). I am obsessed with the movie versions!



Sandra Edwards said:


> Ditto. The movie was way better than the book.


twice ditto!


----------



## navythriller (Mar 11, 2011)

I think the movie version of _To Kill a Mockingbird_ was as good as the book. True, a few elements from the book didn't make it into the adaptation, but I think the film captured the flavor of the book beautifully. If you see the movie, you can almost skip reading the book.


----------



## libbyfh (Feb 11, 2010)

DOUBLE INDEMNITY... The film version was better -- for me ---


----------

