# Movie vs. Book, which is truly better?



## KindleJaneRRT (Dec 15, 2008)

I love movies almost as much as I love reading but sometimes I find myself torn between reading the book first or watching the movie first nowadays.  Back in the day, movies use to butcher books to the point where the only thing right was the title.  Now, IMO since LOTR came out, the movies seem to be leaning more towards keeping the movie as close to book as their budget will allow and in some cases the movie may have turned out better than the book or, as my niece has stated about the Harry Potter books (which are her favorite books), hasn't quite given the books justice either due to too much content in the books themselves or just not enough $$$ to really make it good.  Whatever the case, has anyone else seen a movie based on a book that they thought either the book or the movie was better or worse than the other and what was it that separated the two the most in your opinion?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I think very few movies are as good as the books they are based on... The Harry Potter series included. The first three Potter movies were well done (though omitted or changed a lot of details), the fourth was OK, and I almost walked out of the fifth it was so poor.

One of the few films that I liked as much or better than the original story was The Shawshank Redemption. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was outstanding as well. Silence of the Lambs was a good movie, but also lacked a lot of the depth of the novel.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

Shawshank
Blade Runner
Jaws
The Godfather

The only movies I can think of off the top of my head that I thought were better than the books upon which they were based.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I never watch movies based on books.  I don't really see the point.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

Geemont said:


> I never watch movies based on books. I don't really see the point.


You've never seen Jaws, The Godfather or The Exorcist? Never seen Apocalypse Now, The Wizard of Oz, or Gone With the Wind?


----------



## KindleJaneRRT (Dec 15, 2008)

You know, I actually thought that P.S. I love you the movie was better than the book but then again my love for it might be slightly biased because of the fact that I loved almost everyone who starred in it!


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> You've never seen Jaws, The Godfather or The Exorcist? Never seen Apocalypse Now, The Wizard of Oz, or Gone With the Wind?


I quite watching movies based on books twelve or thirteen years ago--at least for books I want to read, might read, or have read.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

Geemont said:


> I quite watching movies based on books twelve or thirteen years ago--at least for books I want to read, might read, or have read.


That'll teach 'em!


----------



## Angela (Nov 2, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> Shawshank
> Blade Runner
> Jaws
> The Godfather
> ...


I can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree with BJ at least on the first 3. 

As far as the The Godfather, I saw this back right after I had read the book and there was so much left out and the girl with me was constantly asking if she missed something and I had to fill in the blanks for her. I like the book better.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

If we all had identical tastes, we'd only need six directors and a dozen authors.


----------



## Angela (Nov 2, 2008)

In answer to the original question... I almost always prefer the book over the movie and I usually read the book before seeing the movie. The one exception has been the Harry Potter books. I have not read any of them, only seen the movies.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

Angela said:


> In answer to the original question... I almost always prefer the book over the movie and I usually read the book before seeing the movie. The one exception has been the Harry Potter books. I have not read any of them, only seen the movies.


(Assume LR and I are married so as to make the following post less wordy and actually comprehensible.)

According to the church of my mother-in-law and stepdaughters, every time somebody reads a Harry Potter book, Satan gets a boner!


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

The Lovely Bones movie release is going to be in December 2009


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I think *Brokeback Mountain*, the movie, is superb and I think the short story is equally superb, but they are really very different. As someone once said to me, the screenplay almost qualifies as the first fanfic written from the short story.

*Gone With the Wind* stands out in my mind as a good, faithful adaptation. Ditto for *In Cold Blood*.

I have seen *The Godfather* several dozen times but only read the book once, years ago so I don't really remember how well the two stack up against each other.

I was very disappointed in the Harry Potter movies and have not seen any of them all the way through beyond no. 2.

L


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

I always assume the movie is going to be worse or different from the written work. Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it is a bad thing.

_Stardust_, the differences made both enjoyable to me.


Spoiler



DeNiro in drag had me rolling in the aisles.



HP fiascoes, 'nuff said. If you watch the last couple movies without reading the books, they are incomprehensible.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

I agree with Jim on a few on his list (particularly Jaws - I actually didn't like the book all that much, but the movie was awesome). Books are superior at telling a story, but a well-made movie can add a lot of enjoyment to it. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, for example - I was never able to get through the books (just couldn't get into them) until the first movie came out: I read the first book before the movie, then was highly motivated to read the other two right after that.

And one movie I always think of when comparing books vs. movies is 2001: A Space Odyssey. I saw the movie first, and had absolutely no clue what the heck was going on half the time. Then I went back and read the book, said "Aha!" and saw the movie again...and really, really enjoyed it...


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Hmmm, Actually, I think I prefer The Princess Bride movie over the book. Otherwise, I'm having a really hard time thinking of any.

I agree with kreelanwarrior regarding 2001: A Space Odyssey, although I haven't tried watching it again after reading the book. But the entire time I was reading it I was also going AHA! I even read 2010.

In the sad but true category, I have never read or watched the entire movie of Blade Runner, Jaws, or The Godfather.

I can be a big defender of movie adaptations. Starship Troopers is a decent movie, if you've never read the book. (Loved the ads. But the book is better.) They do the best they can squeezing the HP books into a 2-3 hour movie. They can't, well, maybe they could but they wouldn't, put intermissions in the movies like they did with Gone With the Wind.

And what is really sad is that I read the novelization of Star War 3: Revenge of the Sith. That was so much better than the movie and for one simple reason.


Spoiler



We got to read Anakin's internal struggle to turn to the Dark Side. It wasn't "Join Me" "NO" "Join me or your girl dies" "OK, I'll join"


----------



## cat616 (Nov 4, 2008)

I will not watch a movie before I have read the book.  For me, the book is always way better and I do not want to spoil my enjoyment of reading the story.  The characters, places and descriptions are always best when my mind is allowed to view them through my imagination not the vision of the profit driven movie industry.

I love the Wizard of OZ movie and I first saw it long before I read the book.  When I read the book or even think about the Wizard of OZ, the pictures in my head are the ones from the Movie because I did not have the opportunity of making up my own pictures.

I read Clan of the Cave Bears et al and absolutely love it.  I watched the movie and was very disappointed.  If I had watched the movie first I would NEVER have read the books.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

mom133d said:


> I can be a big defender of movie adaptations. Starship Troopers is a decent movie, if you've never read the book. (Loved the ads. But the book is better.) They do the best they can squeezing the HP books into a 2-3 hour movie. They can't, well, maybe they could but they wouldn't, put intermissions in the movies like they did with Gone With the Wind.
> 
> And what is really sad is that I read the novelization of Star War 3: Revenge of the Sith. That was so much better than the movie...


Okay, I've got to comment on Starship Troopers! That is such an interesting book in so many ways (Heinlein packs in a LOT into what's really a pretty short book), but I was thoroughly disgusted with the movie. Yes, the special effects were really good, but they totally missed (IMHO, obviously!) the real points that Heinlein was trying to make, and that would have really reshaped the movie into something a lot more substantial. On top of that, one of the things that made the book really cool from a sci-fi perspective was the armored suits, which they left out! Last, but not least, and one thing that is certainly in common with the second round of Star Wars movies, is that the acting was terrible. After I saw it I left the theater thinking of it as "Starship Poopers". The animated cartoon series, oddly enough, was a lot better all-around. 

And Star Wars...I love the story, we own all the movies, but I really wish that George Lucas had gotten Steven Spielberg or someone to direct them and someone else to do the casting, particularly for Padme and young Annikin (the one they definitely got RIGHT was the guy who plays Palpatine). Oh, and Jar-Jar Binks must die!!


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott (Oct 28, 2008)

I always prefer the book over the movie, always. I am usually disappointed in the movie but there are rare occasions when I think both are equally good.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

kreelanwarrior said:


> Okay, I've got to comment on Starship Troopers! That is such an interesting book in so many ways (Heinlein packs in a LOT into what's really a pretty short book), but I was thoroughly disgusted with the movie. Yes, the special effects were really good, but they totally missed (IMHO, obviously!) the real points that Heinlein was trying to make, and that would have really reshaped the movie into something a lot more substantial. On top of that, one of the things that made the book really cool from a sci-fi perspective was the armored suits, which they left out! Last, but not least, and one thing that is certainly in common with the second round of Star Wars movies, is that the acting was terrible. After I saw it I left the theater thinking of it as "Starship Poopers". The animated cartoon series, oddly enough, was a lot better all-around.
> 
> And Star Wars...I love the story, we own all the movies, but I really wish that George Lucas had gotten Steven Spielberg or someone to direct them and someone else to do the casting, particularly for Padme and young Annikin (the one they definitely got RIGHT was the guy who plays Palpatine). Oh, and Jar-Jar Binks must die!!


Exactly, the ST book and the movie are two completely different creatures. I saw the movie first and then read the book. The whole time I was in shock because they were nothing alike, aside from the names. But I enjoyed the movie for the cheesiness and the book for the Heinlein. I only caught a few of the animated shows but was surprised to see Starship Troopers 3 on DVD at best Buy. Didn't they learn? Now, will I rewatch the movie? Only on a rebroadcast with nothing better on. But the book? I'll read it again as soon as I find a Kindle version (and money). LOL

Star wars - Lucas needs to stop writing. I told my friends that no matter what they wished, Ep 2 was going to be a love story. We have to see them fall in love because we know that Luke and Leia aren't products of rape, right? They might as well changed it into that because much like Ani's change to the Dark Side, they have a walk up a hill and Poof! They're deeply in love? I didn't buy any of the dialogue between the two of them and it wasn't just the delivery.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm amazed to see _Blade Runner_ so highly praised. I saw it on opening night way back in 1982 when I was in high school. My friends and I were all pretty disappointed. It had what may be an all time dumb ending.


Spoiler



Harrison Fords runs away with the android girl who is _special_ so will not die after her allotted time--they can live happily ever after.


 Still makes me want to hurl. I saw the director's cut years latter, but it passed through my consciousness without leaving any residue.



kreelanwarrior said:


> And one movie I always think of when comparing books vs. movies is 2001: A Space Odyssey. I saw the movie first, and had absolutely no clue what the heck was going on half the time.


_2001_ should probably be considered a novelization of the movie, though Clarke was writing along side the production of the movie.


----------



## Jen (Oct 28, 2008)

I can think of very few movies that were better than the books.  I can't say I agree with BJ or not, I never did read any of those books.  
One thing that pops into mind in particular is Wicked - loved the book, but I absolutely hated the musical.  Hated it.  It was barely loosely based on the book, I felt the only thing that was the same were the character's names.  I spent the whole time going 'WHAT?! That didn't happen!'.  Terrible.  It's not a movie, but I think of them the same way.  The Kite Runner was a decent movie, but a better book.  I really try not to watch a movie before I read a book, although it's almost as bad watching the movie after reading the book.  They are just never the same.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

A couple of quick comments before I go back to bed:

I had mixed feelings about Starship Troopers. I agree that the two most significant facets of the book (the jump suits and the mini-nuke grenade launchers) were cut from the film to its detriment. And the film was almost unbearably cheesy. However, I really liked the smart and savvy satire of the television and news media. This is also one of my favorite aspects of Verhoeven's earlier film Robocop. "I'd buy _that_ for a dollar!"

Regarding Blade Runner--I loved both movie versions as well as the original Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. But all three tell completely different stories. If the Director's Cut left no impression, then you just weren't paying attention. *shrug*


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

I can't tell you how many years passed before I saw The Godfather movies.  The book was great and I refused to be disappointed.  I finally gave in to my daughter's pleading and watched the first one, then the second and the third all in one sitting.  I won't say the movies were better than the book, but I did like the movies a lot.

I never read Shawshank Redemption, but based on the fact it was a novella/short story, I have to believe the movie was much better. 

Don't get me started on Hayden Christiansen as Anikin.  Episodes 2 and 3 would have been much better with almost anyone else.

I saw Gone With the Wind long before I read the book.  They left out whole chunks, but still did justice to the book.

LotR is the exception to nearly every rule.  I didn't read the books until after I had seen Fellowship.  I read The Hobbit and then the trilogy.  I'm glad I did.  Reading them really increased my enjoyment of the movies.  I wish they would get Peter Jackson to direct Deathly Hallows (sigh).

Generally speaking, Australia and Britain generally manage to do creditable versions of books while Hollywood just slaughters them.  I have never understood this.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

"Hold me, Ani.  Like you did by the lake on Naboo."

When this line was uttered, my theater was filled with uncomfortable chuckles/snorts.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

gertiekindle said:


> I never read Shawshank Redemption, but based on the fact it was a novella/short story, I have to believe the movie was much better.


I would have to disagree with this comment. I really liked the novella and I think they did a wonderful job with the movie. It was one of the first Stephen King adaptations that I could even bear to watch. The kept the essence of the story and expounded on it. _Shawshank_ falls into my "I really liked them both" catagory.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

mom133d said:


> Star wars - Lucas needs to stop writing. I told my friends that no matter what they wished, Ep 2 was going to be a love story. We have to see them fall in love because we know that Luke and Leia aren't products of rape, right? They might as well changed it into that because much like Ani's change to the Dark Side, they have a walk up a hill and Poof! They're deeply in love? I didn't buy any of the dialogue between the two of them and it wasn't just the delivery.


Yeah, it was pretty thin. The emphasis was all wrong. I think the entire series from start to finish could've been TONS better. Maybe in about 50 years they'll do a remake... 



> "Hold me, Ani. Like you did by the lake on Naboo."
> 
> When this line was uttered, my theater was filled with uncomfortable chuckles/snorts.


In our theater, I was one of the ones snorting, openly and clearly! 



> However, I really liked the smart and savvy satire of the television and news media.


Yeah, but that's one of the things that got to me more than anything else in the movie. In Robocop, those elements were well-placed, I think. But in ST, for me it just added insult to injury, because what Verhoeven was trying to depict was a total 180 from what I believe Heinlein was trying to get across (and his message, to me, was extremely important, now as much as ever).

Hold me, Jar-Jar...


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2008)

I'm not really disagreeing with you about the movie, Mike. I'm just marginally more forgiving of it than you are.

I'm probably more in disagreement with you regarding Heinlein's "message." There _was_ a message there: that the right to vote is a sacred and valuable thing. However, it seemed to me that the book was largely a fictionalization of his own days in Army boot camp. Not really much deeper than that. Sorry.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> I'm not really disagreeing with you about the movie, Mike. I'm just marginally more forgiving of it than you are.
> 
> I'm probably more in disagreement with you regarding Heinlein's "message." There _was_ a message there: that the right to vote is a sacred and valuable thing. However, it seemed to me that the book was largely a fictionalization of his own days in Army boot camp. Not really much deeper than that. Sorry.


Jim -

LOL! No need to apologize! 

And yes, that was the bottom-line message, but I think there were a lot of extra bits of insight that I found rather fascinating. As for the movie, I think one of my biggest frustrations as a movie-goer sometimes is watching something and thinking to myself how much better it could have been. D'oh.

But yes, past that ST wasn't "deep," just cool.


----------



## Mom of 4 (Oct 27, 2008)

About the only movie I like better than the book is Beaches.  
Love Bette, really didn't like the book.


----------



## DeDe (Nov 23, 2008)

I almost always love the book more than the movies because (as others stated) there is generally more depth in the book.  I always like to get inside the characters' heads and books are usually better for that.  So far my only exception is LOTR.  I love these movies and have seen them probably 14 times.  I read all three books right after Fellowship and could barely slog through them.  It was just way too much detail.  Granted I'm generally up for faster paced books and want to know what's going on and why.  All I remember from the books is that the background seemed described in such detail I could hardly stand it.  

I want to be entertained, I don't want a lesson or something making me grow as a person...blah.  Not that there's anything wrong with that....for others


----------



## tessa (Nov 1, 2008)

I read the book first and hope to see the movie


----------



## Mikuto (Oct 30, 2008)

I am very big on reading the book before I see the movie, if I see the movie at all. Unless the movie isn't something I'm interested in reading to begin with, or if I was unaware of a book. But I've skipped out on invitations to see movies (Stardust is one) because I haven't read the books yet.


----------



## bosslady402 (Nov 6, 2008)

Do mini-series count? I thought the Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle was very well done, but I did not like the one with whats-her-name Knightley?. I also liked the Sense and Sensibility with Hugh Grant. 

The worst adaptation IMHO is The Shining with Jack Nicholson - there are just so many ways that they screwed up that movie. 

I'm more likely to see a movie if I've read the book first, and less likely to read the book if I've seen the movie first.  

This thread would be a good topic for a poll.


----------



## Poi Girl (Dec 3, 2008)

cat616 said:


> I read Clan of the Cave Bears et al and absolutely love it. I watched the movie and was very disappointed. If I had watched the movie first I would NEVER have read the books.


Opposite, I watched the movie and that made me want to read the book; not to mention my mom was reading the series. However, if I had read the book first I probably wouldn't like the movie either.

I'm usually disapointed in the movie versions. I *gasp* stopped watching HP after the third movie, even though I was slightly dissapointed in the first. I would rather that they make a 6 hour made for tv version, like A&E's Pride and Prejudice if thats what it takes to be faithful to the book. Although I don't want to say that movies should be exactly, scene for scene, just like the book. I just felt like they tried to cram too many stories into the HP movie and it felt over edited.

Having said that, I love LoR movies. I think the writers kept it true to the characters and the story without trying to cram in every story from the book.

I disagree about Godfather; I liked the book better.
I'm not decided on Blade Runner, I feel almost as if they are two different stories both equally compelling.
I did not like the movie version of Hitchhikers Guide at all and I REALLY tried!
Eragon movie sucked hard.

I liked Bram Stoker's Dracula movie version better than the book but now that I'm <omg>11 years older than when I read the book, I want to read it again.

*strains to think of other movie/books but can't*

Oh oh, Princess Bride I love both the book and the movie!

My 2 pennies.

Edit: I just finished The Secret Life of Bees and I hope the movie does it justice.


----------



## jah (Oct 28, 2008)

LuckyRainbow said:


> HP fiascoes, 'nuff said. If you watch the last couple movies without reading the books, they are incomprehensible.


I watch 4 of the hp movies it seems that of the books out of the movies change a couple of the minor detail. I would not under some of the plots with having read the books before hand.


----------



## jah (Oct 28, 2008)

Mikuto said:


> I am very big on reading the book before I see the movie, if I see the movie at all. Unless the movie isn't something I'm interested in reading to begin with, or if I was unaware of a book. But I've skipped out on invitations to see movies (Stardust is one) because I haven't read the books yet.


I also like to read the book before I see any movie base on a book.


----------



## jah (Oct 28, 2008)

I think it depends on who is making the movie, I have see some movies that were better then the book.  I have also see some movies that just ruin the stories or pilot of the book. I also think that it how close they stay to the book matter.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Any opinion on *Atonement*? I saw the movie (and liked it) but haven't read the book.

L


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Any opinion on *Atonement*? I saw the movie (and liked it) but haven't read the book.
> 
> L


I never read the book either, but I did like the movie. I got a little confused in the beginning because I misread the date as 1955 instead of 1935. All of a sudden they were at Dunkirk, which wasn't said out loud, but it couldn't have been anywhere else. I had to go back to the beginning of the DVD to recheck the date. I thought the movie was very well done and I would kill for that green dress.



Poi Girl said:


> Oh oh, Princess Bride I love both the book and the movie!


Double Ditto.



LuckyRainbow said:


> I would have to disagree with this comment. I really liked the novella and I think they did a wonderful job with the movie. It was one of the first Stephen King adaptations that I could even bear to watch. The kept the essence of the story and expounded on it. _Shawshank_ falls into my "I really liked them both" catagory.


Actually, we don't disagree. You just said what I was thinking only you said it more coherently. "_They kept the essence of the story and expounded on it_." Yes, that's what I meant, even though I never read the story. Thanks for straightening out my brain waves.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Any comments on the James Bond movies?  IMHO the books were much better then the movies plot wise.  The last one Quantum of Solice is a disaster, the only thing left from Ian Fleming was the title.  

Gone with the Wind was a good movie, then then again they used practically every writer in Hollywood at the time on it at some point including F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ben Hecht.  It did however, leave out much of the book.

Most of the time I'd rather read the book.  The HPs are entertaining for the special effects, story line...........


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Gables Girl said:


> Any comments on the James Bond movies? IMHO the books were much better then the movies plot wise.


The Bond movies are more fun than Fleming's books. Fleming's Bond was a shady character that was half villain. But I liked the books better.

Does anybody beside me think the movie character, Jason Bourne, is more interesting than Ludums?


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

I, too, have a tendency of liking the books more than its movie version. Usually, if I have had read the book, I will see the movie...eventually. (there is a reason I love blockbuster online). Then if I know a movie was/is a book, I watch the movie and then read the book. (then usually watch the movie again).

There is one movie I was really disappointed in, it was based off the book Blood and Chocolate. The movie was nothing like the book and the movie sucked (very predictable). They changed everything, but the title and the character names.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Jeff said:


> The Bond movies are more fun than Fleming's books. Fleming's Bond was a shady character that was half villain. But I liked the books better.
> 
> Does anybody beside me think the movie character, Jason Bourne, is more interesting than Ludums?


I'll agree the movies are more fun, and have more eye candy, but I still like the books better.

Bourne is more interesting in the movies I think because they gave him more back story. Ludlum is all about the plot not the character.


----------



## qotdr (Nov 22, 2008)

I usually  like the book version better. I think the exception was LOTR series because it got condensed in the movies and the special effects were really good. Harry Potter, I like the books much better. They cut too much stuff out to make it movie length


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Fleming's Bond was a shady character that was half villain. But I liked the books better.


I think they call that the anti-hero or the anti-villain (it depends on how you see things)

anti-hero: a protagonist whose character and goals are antithetical to classical heroism. (the kinda of 'hero' willing to do something 'wrong' for the better good)
anti-villain: a villain with heroic goals, personality traits, and even virtues.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Vegas_Asian said:


> I think they call that the anti-hero or the anti-villain (it depends on how you see things)


In The Spy Who Loved Me, the reader was never quite sure if Bond was the good guy or the bad guy (anti-hero or anti-villain).


----------



## KindleJaneRRT (Dec 15, 2008)

I have a slight dilemma, I'm debating whether or not to go see the new Twilight movie before I read the book (which is downloaded on my soon to be delivered Kindle).  And so far, it seems to be a 50-50 split on whether I should see the movie first or read the book.  Has anyone seen the movie and read the book here?  What did you think?


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

One movie that was a lot worse than the book is the Running Man.  Nothing like the book at all.  Also I think that the reboot of the Bond series is a lot truer to the books.  Daniel Craig takes Bond to a much darker place than the original movies.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2008)

Don't get me started on The Running Man. My favorite of the "Bachman Books." A Godawfulhorrible movie.


----------



## thejackylking #884 (Dec 3, 2008)

Totally agree with you.  I was younger when it came out and didn't realize it was a book and kinda enjoyed it but once I got my hands on the Bachman books and read it needless to say I was terribly disappointed.  It would have been much better if they had followed the book.


----------



## Poi Girl (Dec 3, 2008)

KindleJaneRRT said:


> I have a slight dilemma, I'm debating whether or not to go see the new Twilight movie before I read the book (which is downloaded on my soon to be delivered Kindle). And so far, it seems to be a 50-50 split on whether I should see the movie first or read the book. Has anyone seen the movie and read the book here? What did you think?


Neither. Save yourself and don't do any of the above. Pick another book. 
J/K...I couldn't resist.

The book is actually not that bad but lacking story (imho). But I know billions of people LOVE LOVE LOVE Twilight and those are just the people in my office. I have to say my dark side comes out and the more people love it the more I hate it.


----------



## wavsite (Nov 12, 2008)

I usually enjoy the book better than the movie, because books give you more detail, more information, better character insight, they just *last* longer.  (even if I read the book in a few hours, it's longer than a movie)

However, I do have a few favorites that live up to or surpass the books.  A lot were mentioned already, like LoTR and Shawshank, but I have to put in a word for "Stand By Me".  The short story was very good ("The Body" by Stephen King, right?), but the movie was just - wow.


----------



## durphy (Nov 5, 2008)

Bridges of Madison County was the worst book that was made sensitive and relevant by the movieization.


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

KindleJaneRRT said:


> I have a slight dilemma, I'm debating whether or not to go see the new Twilight movie before I read the book (which is downloaded on my soon to be delivered Kindle). And so far, it seems to be a 50-50 split on whether I should see the movie first or read the book. Has anyone seen the movie and read the book here? What did you think?





Poi Girl said:


> Neither. Save yourself and don't do any of the above. Pick another book.
> J/K...I couldn't resist.
> 
> The book is actually not that bad but lacking story (imho). But I know billions of people LOVE LOVE LOVE Twilight and those are just the people in my office. I have to say my dark side comes out and the more people love it the more I hate it.


I agree with Poi Girl. Twilight was a decent boon, but as the series continues I think it gets worse. The scenery in the movie is pretty and so forth and some of the actors are hot, but that all. Personally as the series continues, it starts to follow the trends of many of the fanfictions decitated to the series.

Lol Poi Girl I was the same. I liked (not loved) or more like was okay with the series, but as all the girls in my school started to read the book it got annoying. Okay I did blow up in the class that I student aided for and told the girls told them there were other vampire books out there and practically threw a Kim Harrison book at the most annoying girl in the room... Not one of my greatest moments. That moment was totally opposite of my typical behavior and disputed my tolerance against the thoughtless chattering of my classmates. To these girls (at that time) the world practically revolved around their love for Edward Cullen. I never did get that copy of Dead Witch Walking back from that girl. Wow those students are graduating soon.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

I enjoyed the Twilight series as a nice mindless distraction. I did get invested in a few of the characters so wanted to see how the story wrapped up. There are better vampire novels out there. (BTW, I dl'd the free "sample" of Secret Vampire. Its a full story, but sounds like the full version is 3 of the novels..Anyway, pass on it if you like vamps, Twilight was a better YA Vampire book. IMHO)

Eventally as the series goes on, Twilight just seems to "borrow" heavily from some of the others out there. I thought I was reading Anne Rice for a while there, plot-wise.


Spoiler



I mean come on, Breaking Dawn (that's the last one, right?) was almost exactly like Taltos! Preganancy lasts a few weeks, child grows super fast...


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

I got rid of all my twilight books when I graduated high school. (I can't start a series and just stop reading it. I HAVE to finish it, whether I like it or not) Gave one up to my best friend. The rest I took to school, placed it in front of the freshman class I aided for, told them I was going away for school & the Twilight books were just collecting dust, and let them fight to the death for it. I left the room....actually the corridor to avoid bodily harm. Then I later not even a month later...I get the whole series as a graduation gift from a family member. I couldn't help, but start twitching. They just keep coming back. Now I only have the last book, Breaking Dawn, to get rid of. there were a lot of people that I know that just don't want to bother after my rants.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

mom133d said:


> And what is really sad is that I read the novelization of Star War 3: Revenge of the Sith. That was so much better than the movie and for one simple reason.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I was so mad when I saw the movie. The book made sense. He had a nervous breakdown, with seizures, frothing at the mouth and banging his head over and over. It wasn't 'I'm good, now I'm evil'.

Back on topic:
Twilight was loyal to the book, surprisingly.

Sadly the True Blood series has little to do with the Sookie Stackhouse book series.


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

I solved this dilemma ages ago. I refuse to go see a movie unless somebody is paying me. A lot! The only movies released this year that I will eventually see are SlumDog, Batman and Ironman (Netflix). And I would only go to a theater for Slumdog. The vast majority of movies are so mind rottingly awful that they make my brain hurt. I find it offensive that anyone ever thought somebody would be entertained by them.

I did take my then 5 year old daughter to see Horton. The movie was longer than the book. 

I walked out on Star Wars episode 2 and haven't been back.


----------



## Poi Girl (Dec 3, 2008)

mom133d said:


> Eventally as the series goes on, Twilight just seems to "borrow" heavily from some of the others out there. I thought I was reading Anne Rice for a while there, plot-wise.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I didn't read Breaking Dawn but a friend told me the end and I thought the same thing!


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

ScottBooks said:


> I solved this dilemma ages ago. I refuse to go see a movie unless somebody is paying me. A lot! The only movies released this year that I will eventually see are SlumDog, Batman and Ironman (Netflix). And I would only go to a theater for Slumdog. The vast majority of movies are so mind rottingly awful that they make my brain hurt. I find it offensive that anyone ever thought somebody would be entertained by them.


Do you mean all movies or just movies made from books?

L


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Do you mean all movies or just movies made from books?
> 
> L


Oh, sorry...I mean ALL movies. If I have a remote at least I can skip the awful parts. So much of what is released is horrible. I enjoy mediocre stupid (ie: love me some Transporter flicks) (Not in a theater!) but the stupid stupid vastly outnumber them. The last movie I really liked in a theater was Firefly.

Here's what's playing at my local multiplex and how much money you would have to pay me to sit through them:

The Day the Earth Stood Still $50
Delgo $100
Nothing Like the Holidays $75 (It's short)
Cadillac Records $100
Punisher: War Zone $150
Australia $150
Four Christmases $75
Transporter 3 $25
Bolt $150
Twilight $400
Quantum of Solace $50
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa $25
Glenn Beck "Christmas Sweater" $400


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I saw *Milk *yesterday and it was definitely worth seeing.

L


----------



## ScottBooks (Oct 28, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I saw *Milk *yesterday and it was definitely worth seeing.
> 
> L


You'd have to remake the movie with a different actor for me to even consider watching it; and I followed the events very closely when they happened.


----------



## Poi Girl (Dec 3, 2008)

I want to add Bridget Jones both movies.  I love them both the books and the movies, although they greatly alter the story in the movie.


----------



## Avalon3 (Dec 3, 2008)

Most people I know always say the books are better than the movies. The movie producers change and add things that aren't in the books. My mom saw the movie "A Walk to Remember" but didn't read the book. I read the book and then saw the movie. I thought both were good in their own way.

Click on the book and movie to see Amazon's starred reviews.





















In a book you can read what the person is thinking. That isn't always conveyed in the movie. I think most books have more depth and material that is left out of the movies.


----------



## Avalon3 (Dec 3, 2008)

I saw the movie Black Hawk Down and then read the book. The book was better.











Mike Durant was the pilot of one of the Black Hawks that was shot down. His book is getting good reviews. I bought it and look forward to reading it.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Avalon3 said:


> Mike Durant was the pilot of one of the Black Hawks that was shot down. His book is getting good reviews. I bought it and look forward to reading it.


Please let us know what you think. It looks like a book I'd like, but my "To Be Read" list is too long to experiment.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

You do know one of the 'heroes' of the black hawk down is serving 30 yrs for molesting his daughter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stebbins

They changed his name for the movie.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Avalon3 said:


> Mike Durant was the pilot of one of the Black Hawks that was shot down. His book is getting good reviews. I bought it and look forward to reading it.


Cool! I'll have to get the sample of that one...


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

chobitz said:


> You do know one of the 'heroes' of the black hawk down is surving 30 yrs for molesting his daughter?


Soldiers, like the rest of us, are just people - good and bad. Sometimes bad people do good things and good people do bad things.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I am reading *A Redbird Christmas* by Fannie Flagg. That reminded me of *Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe* which was one case where I enjoyed both the book and the movie.

I also enjoyed *Adaptation * which was the movie "based" on *The Orchid Thief*. In that case, I got about one-third of the way through the book and was bored but I really liked the movie. Wasn't *The Orchid Thief *originally an article in The New Yorker? Shows what happens when you take and article and turn it into a book. It gets boring.

L


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2008)

Jim and I both loved the movie _Adaptation_. I haven't read the book, and I don't think Jim has either. But, we are huge Charlie Kaufman fans. _Being John Malkovich_ really cracks us up. Well, except for those scenes that make Jim cry. LOL


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

LuckyRainbow said:


> Jim and I both loved the movie _Adaptation_. I haven't read the book, and I don't think Jim has either. But, we are huge Charlie Kaufman fans. _Being John Malkovich_ really cracks us up. Well, except for those scenes that make Jim cry. LOL


I love *Being John Malkovich*. You are right, it is a movie that makes you either crack up or cry.

L


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Does anybody beside me think the movie character, Jason Bourne, is more interesting than Ludums?


I think I probably agree...it's been many years since I've read the books, though.

Mike


----------



## Avalon3 (Dec 3, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Please let us know what you think. It looks like a book I'd like, but my "To Be Read" list is too long to experiment.


I will let you know when I read it. These are some of the books I've read on my Kindle. They're all excellent. I bought copies of these as DTB's for my friends and family that don't have a Kindle. Kurt Muse will answer your email if you contact him through his website. This is a good time of year for me to reread his book.

http://sixminutestofreedom.com/index.php











Marine Sniper










Lone Survivor


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

jmiked said:


> I think I probably agree...it's been many years since I've read the books, though.
> 
> Mike


I actually haven't read the books, but I'll say that I really enjoyed the movies!!


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Avalon3 said:


> I will let you know when I read it. These are some of the books I've read on my Kindle. They're all excellent. I bought copies of these as DTB's for my friends and family that don't have a Kindle. Kurt Muse will answer your email if you contact him through his website. This is a good time of year for me to reread his book.


Thank you. You give new meaning to the words "voracious reader".


----------



## Avalon3 (Dec 3, 2008)

Avalon3 said:


> I loved this book and it's supposed to be made into a movie. No way can a movie top this book.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Avalon3 said:


> I loved this book and it's supposed to be made into a movie. No way can a movie top this book.


Authors have to be very heavy hitters to maintain artistic control when they sell movie rights.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Personally, when I like something in one medium I very rarely ever try it out in the other medium. When I don't like something in one medium I might consider trying it in the other medium.



kreelanwarrior said:


> And one movie I always think of when comparing books vs. movies is 2001: A Space Odyssey. I saw the movie first, and had absolutely no clue what the heck was going on half the time. Then I went back and read the book, said "Aha!" and saw the movie again...and really, really enjoyed it...


Would you say that the book is more interesting than the movie? I ask because I found the movie to be excruciatingly boring outside of the parts with Hal.



mom133d said:


> And what is really sad is that I read the novelization of Star War 3: Revenge of the Sith. That was so much better than the movie and for one simple reason.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I think that this has something to do with my playing through the KOTOR video game on the Xbox a couple of times as it gave me an understanding of how


Spoiler



sinister the Dark Side is but I was shown everything that I needed to know regarding Anakin's struggle.

First off, fear is something that the Dark Side draws upon, Yoda himself pointed out how afraid Ani was, but the Jedi never helped him deal with his fear despite knowing that he was troubled by it.

Secondly, and it plays a crucial role here, there are two kinds of love. One is a selfish love where a person focuses on what someone they love means to them, and not what they they mean to the one that they love. The reason that the Jedi are against love is because any Jedi that has a selfish love are prone to falling to the Dark Side. The other kind of love is a self sacrificing love where a person puts the person they love above themselves. This is why the Sith are every bit against love as the Jedi are, fallen Jedi are prone to turn their backs on power to save those that they love.

Lastly, every time a Jedi faces a conflict they walk a razors edge as the emotions they feel during the conflict affect them to their very core.

Anakin was prone to great fear from the very first moment he left his mother and he felt it all the time that he was away from her. His fear turned to rage when he found his mother dead and he embraced the Dark Side to gain his revenge. He embraced the Dark Side during his confrontations with Doku and his murdering Doku only pulled him further to the Dark Side. Add in the emotions he felt during all of the different conflicts he got into (he was clearly trying to prove his power, very dangerous for a Jedi), that Padme caused him to feel as much fear as his mother had, and we have the perfect recipe for the creation of a fallen Jedi.





kreelanwarrior said:


> And Star Wars...I love the story, we own all the movies, but I really wish that George Lucas had gotten Steven Spielberg or someone to direct them and someone else to do the casting, particularly for Padme and young Annikin (the one they definitely got RIGHT was the guy who plays Palpatine). Oh, and Jar-Jar Binks must die!!


I've only seen the Prequel trilogy once but I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the original trilogy when I was a kid, and more than the original trilogy now.

I liked the casting, I even liked Jar Jar Binks, but what I liked most were the battles. When I watch the original trilogy I don't even see any Jedi in it as the few that are in them rarely ever use their force abilities, and are not even competent with their lightsaber.



Geemont said:


> I'm amazed to see _Blade Runner_ so highly praised. I saw it on opening night way back in 1982 when I was in high school. My friends and I were all pretty disappointed. It had what may be an all time dumb ending.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I just watched the final cut yesterday and I


Spoiler



didn't notice anything that would indicate that they lived happily ever after. Rather it was made clear that the replicants had been made as well as was possible so there was no way to extend the amount of time that they lived, unless the guy that made the replicants was lying. The only thing that made her special was that she had been "gifted" with memories and I believe that the one cop at the end indicated that she wouldn't be hunted. So as far as I could tell she simply managed to avoid a violent death and was allowed to spend what time she had left with the man she was supposed to have fallen in love with. I say "supposed" because I just didn't see anything in the movie that constituted love. *shrug*





Vegas_Asian said:


> There is one movie I was really disappointed in, it was based off the book Blood and Chocolate. The movie was nothing like the book and the movie sucked (very predictable). They changed everything, but the title and the character names.


I got Blood and Chocolate with one of Amazon's Blu-ray deals (when the format was competing with HD DVD) and I was very disappointed, never thought about seeing whether there was a book version. I've downloaded a sample to check it out.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Selcien said:


> Would you say that the book is more interesting than the movie? I ask because I found the movie to be excruciatingly boring outside of the parts with Hal.


I think the two really do go together - I don't see how it's possible for anyone to understand what's going on in the movie without reading the book, and I also think the movie provides excellent visualizations for the story. So I'd read the book (it's not long) and then see the movie again. It's quite a revelation!

But no, it is not an adventure movie, by any stretch - it's not going to become any more exciting after reading the book, you'll just understand what's happening...



> I've only seen the Prequel trilogy once but I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the original trilogy when I was a kid, and more than the original trilogy now.
> 
> I liked the casting, I even liked Jar Jar Binks, but what I liked most were the battles. When I watch the original trilogy I don't even see any Jedi in it as the few that are in them rarely ever use their force abilities, and are not even competent with their lightsaber.


Episode III is much better than the other two prequels, methinks, but I think all of them (including the original movies) could've been much better had Lucas given the directing job to someone else! LOL!

And certainly the battle scenes are all better in the newer movies, both personal combat and in space. But I think that's much more a factor of the technology available at the time than anything else - Star Wars was totally over the top when it was first released, but it's primitive by today's standards (although I still very much enjoy watching it)...


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

kreelanwarrior said:


> I think the two really do go together - I don't see how it's possible for anyone to understand what's going on in the movie without reading the book, and I also think the movie provides excellent visualizations for the story. So I'd read the book (it's not long) and then see the movie again. It's quite a revelation!
> 
> But no, it is not an adventure movie, by any stretch - it's not going to become any more exciting after reading the book, you'll just understand what's happening...


I don't need it to be exciting, just more capable of holding my attention. I'll try the sample, maybe I'll have as much luck with it as I did with the Blood and Chocolate sample (it's *much* more interesting than the movie was.)



kreelanwarrior said:


> Episode III is much better than the other two prequels, methinks, but I think all of them (including the original movies) could've been much better had Lucas given the directing job to someone else! LOL!
> 
> And certainly the battle scenes are all better in the newer movies, both personal combat and in space. But I think that's much more a factor of the technology available at the time than anything else - Star Wars was totally over the top when it was first released, but it's primitive by today's standards (although I still very much enjoy watching it)...


The only technical issue I really have with the original trilogy is the incompetent way they handle the lightsabers, the actors that played Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin in the prequels did a far better job, and I'm referring to behind the scenes footage where they were unaided by processing tricks, so it was just the two guys and their props. Besides that the DVDs of the original trilogy are by far the most impressive DVDs that I own, (I've moved on to Blu-ray and find myself appalled at the idea of watching DVDs). So that meant there had to be something else, and while I do have issues with the casting, I think that it's the story itself that is the biggest problem. My interest in Star Wars is focused on the Jedi and they're practically extinct during the portion the original trilogy covers, I don't think anything could save it.

Now, if someone wanted to make a series of movies from back during Revan's time (he's from the KOTOR video game) in which Jedi were abundant, and the enemies were not droids or clones, then I'd be highly interested. Until then I'm content to stick with Star Wars: Clone Wars, although I don't think that my DVR is recording all of the episodes that it's supposed to. *grumble grumble*


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2008)

kreelanwarrior said:


> And certainly the battle scenes are all better in the newer movies, both personal combat and in space. But I think that's much more a factor of the technology available at the time than anything else - Star Wars was totally over the top when it was first released, but it's primitive by today's standards (although I still very much enjoy watching it)...


I could not disagree more strongly. I hated the lightsabre duels in the prequels. In the original movies, what we saw were traditional choreographed swordfights. They were filmed in long and medium shots, allowing us to enjoy the "ballet" of the battle. Regardless of what may have happened behind the scenes in the prequels, what we saw on the screen was nothing more than quick-cut closeups and strobing light flashes. The lightsabre duels were not only nearly impossible to follow, but (particularly in Ep. 3) also likely to induce an epileptic seizure among audience members.

Faster isn't always better, particularly in fight scenes. Ditto close-ups. This was my major complaint with Batman Begins as well.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> I could not disagree more strongly. I hated the lightsabre duels in the prequels. In the original movies, what we saw were traditional choreographed swordfights. They were filmed in long and medium shots, allowing us to enjoy the "ballet" of the battle. Regardless of what may have happened behind the scenes in the prequels, what we saw on the screen was nothing more than quick-cut closeups and strobing light flashes. The lightsabre duels were not only nearly impossible to follow, but (particularly in Ep. 3) also likely to induce an epileptic seizure among audience members.
> 
> Faster isn't always better, particularly in fight scenes. Ditto close-ups. This was my major complaint with Batman Begins as well.


Jim - I disagree with your disagreement! LOL!! 

I thought the fight scenes in the three newer movies came across largely as intended: intense and frenetic. There were some bits here and there that caused me to raise an eyebrow, but I confess to enjoying them, particularly in E3.

For Selcien, I think it may be a bit unfair to compare the two sets of movies in a way on how the Jedi handled close combat, mainly because in the original movies the only "Jedi" were Obi-Wan, Luke (sort-of), Yoda, and (fallen from grace) Darth Vader. There just weren't too many opportunities to mix it up!


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

kreelanwarrior said:


> For Selcien, I think it may be a bit unfair to compare the two sets of movies in a way on how the Jedi handled close combat, mainly because in the original movies the only "Jedi" were Obi-Wan, Luke (sort-of), Yoda, and (fallen from grace) Darth Vader. There just weren't too many opportunities to mix it up!


How well the Jedi handled combat and how many Jedi there were are two different issues. When I watch the hand to hand combat in the original trilogy, what little there is, I'm given the impression that I'm watching people who've picked up a lightsaber for the very first time, rather than people who've shaped the galaxy around them. Acceptable with Luke when his character first picked up a lightsaber, but not later on (unless I'm to assume that he didn't practice using it), most certainly not acceptable with Obi Wan Kenobi or Darth Vader who've both had many years experience using both the force and lightsabers. Not impressive, especially when you consider that the younglings in the prequels demonstrated more skill. Unfair or not, it's how I honestly feel about it.

The limited number of Jedi would likely prevent me from liking anything that could be done with the story that occurred during the original trilogy, unless they took liberties with it like Star Wars: Clone Wars (both Dooku and Anakin have apprentices, which allows for more opportunities for conflict, not to mention that I like Dooku's apprentice more than I like him. And Griveous is getting much more screen time). Which is an issue with the story the original trilogy covered, not an issue with how well the movies told that story, not that they couldn't have done better, but I don't think that they could do anything with it that would make me happy with it.

Of course, the books have the kind of content that I want, but I don't want to read about them fighting, I want to watch them fight.


----------



## nebulinda (Dec 19, 2008)

I loved both movie versions of A Walk to Remember and The Notebook, so I bough both books at the same time. I read A Walk to Remember first and it was so bad that I didn't even open The Notebook. The whole time I was reading that book I couldn't help thinking that he wrote it just so it could be turned into a movie. I was so disillusioned by the end that I didn't even cry, and I cried like no tomorrow during the movie.


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

Selcien said:


> I don't need it to be exciting, just more capable of holding my attention. I'll try the sample, maybe I'll have as much luck with it as I did with the Blood and Chocolate sample (it's *much* more interesting than the movie was.)


Good to hear you like the book version of Blood and Chocolate. Let me know what you think when you've read it all....its been years since I read it


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I was thinking about *Fried Green Tomatoes*. That was good both as a book and movie. The author wrote the screenplay so that probably has something to do with it.

*Schindler's List* was excellent, both the movie and the book. I had to read the book twice to steel myself to see the movie.

I read *Sophie's Choice* but never saw the movie because the book almost destroyed me. But I know the movie had excellent reviews. Anyone see it?

L


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

I'd like to take a moment to agree with Lucky Rainbow from way back on page one:

The Stardust movie was way better than the book.  I loved the movie, and then couldn't wait to get the book.  I've left the characters stranded halfway thru it.  I just can't bring myself to finish it.  But usually I'm the other way around.  Halfway through the book of Gone with the Wind, I found myself thinking they should make a movie of it.  And I liked the Wizard of Oz book much better.  Don't get me wrong, parts of the movie are great, but I agree with Frank Oz:  changing the ending so the whole movie was a long technicolor dream sequence was insane.  Also, I don't like Judy Garland, and felt that the only way they could have been more wrong in casting the Dorothy part would have been to put John Wayne in that role.  And I like John Wayne!

(I'll wait here while you spend the rest of the day trying to shake the picture of John Wayne wearing ruby boots and saying "There's no place like home, pilgrim." out of your head.)

Also, it's my opinion that the movie that translated from book to film best was Alice in Wonderland, as done by Lewis Carroll and Disney Studios.  

~robin


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

But let's remember what John Wayne looked like back in the 30s!


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

....so you're saying that maybe ruby boots wouldn't have been so bad?




~robin


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

robin.goodfellow said:


> ....so you're saying that maybe ruby boots wouldn't have been so bad?
> 
> 
> 
> ~robin


Maybe. And he certainly was more handsome than *any* of the men in the movie. LOL


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

robin.goodfellow said:


> I'd like to take a moment to agree with Lucky Rainbow from way back on page one:
> 
> The Stardust movie was way better than the book. I loved the movie, and then couldn't wait to get the book. I've left the characters stranded halfway thru it. I just can't bring myself to finish it. But usually I'm the other way around. Halfway through the book of Gone with the Wind, I found myself thinking they should make a movie of it. And I liked the Wizard of Oz book much better. Don't get me wrong, parts of the movie are great, but I agree with Frank Oz: changing the ending so the whole movie was a long technicolor dream sequence was insane. Also, I don't like Judy Garland, and felt that the only way they could have been more wrong in casting the Dorothy part would have been to put John Wayne in that role. And I like John Wayne!
> 
> ...


Considering the other candidates for Dorothy were Shirley Temple and Deanna Durbin you may be on to something. When they were making it you have to realize the every woman in Hollywood and all other places were lining up to get a chance to play Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind. The audition reels and names suggested are legends. If Judy could have gotten one of the sisters in GWTW she wouldn't have done Wizard either.


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

If Shirley Temple's studio execs hadn't been such


Spoiler



buttheads


, the part wouldn't have gone to Judy Garland at all. I have a 100th anniversary copy of WOz, and the original drawings make it quite plain that Baum didn't envision Dorothy as being nearly 20, and as tall as a man in a lion suit. An 11-year-old actress would have made far more sense. (Sorry. I realize I should step down and back away from the soapbox.) But failing that, I can't believe there wasn't some other child actress who would have filled the bill. And been less whiney about it. (Which is my real problem with Judy Garland: I've never seen or read an interview with her where she wasn't whining about how horrible her life was. I'm not seeing the horrible-ness, myself. Unless you count that movie she did with Gene Kelly -"The Pirate"- which is more horrible than mere words can describe.)

Did Judy Garland make the attempt for GWTW? I've read (more than is wise) about the book and the movie, but don't remember her name coming up, which, you're right, is odd. lol, of course, I completely believed David O. Selznick's story about seeing Vivian Leigh for the first time the night they shot the burning of Atlanta. TCM has an excellent documentary where his son (probably?) says that was absolute hogwash, he had her in mind all along, he put her on a slow boat to New York so that her eventual arrival would coincide with the Atlanta scene, but she had already signed the contract. He said he can't believe how many people bought that story, adding "No director in his right mind shoots the most expensive scene in the movie without knowing who his leads are." Which actually made a lot more sense after I thought about it.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Not a tremendous Garland fan myself.  She was considered for Carreen the younger sister in GWTW, when they gave it to Ann Rutherford she did Wizard.  

The Shirley Temple deal was predicated upon a swap of Gable and Harlow and when Harlow died that killed the deal.  In old Hollywood it was always quid pro quo with the studios since everyone was under contract.  

Myron Selznick, David's brother, was Vivian Leigh and Lawrence Olivier's agent.  The deal was set, but Selznick needed to keep Louie B. Mayer happy in order to get Gable.  Part of the deal Mayer wanted was one of his women as Scarlett.  Sooo the whole deception about the fire and seeing his Scarlett then.  Great theater, plus the fire got rid of all the old sets so they could build the new sets for GWTW.  Almost a bad as your Duke in ruby boots is Lucille Ball or Kathrine Hepburn as Scarlett.


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

> Almost a bad as your Duke in ruby boots is Lucille Ball or Kathrine Hepburn as Scarlett.


rofl. Can you imagine? "Rickeeeeeeeee!!!!! I want to go to the barbecue!!!!!!!!!!!"

Katherine Hepburn, as much as I like her, is just unimaginable as Scarlett O'Hara. But my favorite not-Scarlett-O'Hara is Bette Davis. The mind boggles. And if your mind doesn't boggle, then you really need to find "Jezebel" and just try to watch it with a straight face. I dare you. She got that, b/c it was going to beat GWTW to the theatres and she was apparently the most vocal sore loser about not getting to be Scarlett. I guess. That or she had nude photos of Jack Warner. But it's still laughably bad. And in black and white, so she goes on for hours about the color of her dress.....and the effect is totally lost on the watcher. And for some reason, I seem to remember that it's a Civil War picture, but the whole war part gets glossed over in favor of...a plague? I watch it every time it comes on. It's one of my can't miss movies. But in a way that I'm positive Warner Bros. never intended.

I'll see your "fire burned off the old sets" and raise you a "did you know that none of the GWTW sets had ceilings? They were all painted in after the filming was over."

To stay in topic (sort of), I loved the movie "Last of the Mohicans", but just couldn't read the book. I did pick up the Cliff's on it one day, and read just enough to know that the only thing the book and the movie really have in common is the title and the names of the characters.

~robin


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

robin.goodfellow said:


> And if your mind doesn't boggle, then you really need to find "Jezebel" and just try to watch it with a straight face. I dare you.
> 
> I'll see your "fire burned off the old sets" and raise you a "did you know that none of the GWTW sets had ceilings? They were all painted in after the filming was over."
> 
> ~robin


I love Jezebel, one of the great unintended comedies that they produce every so often. See Lucille Ball with a whip and the cat ladies in Ziegfeld Follies of 1946 and try not to laugh.

I'll see your painted ceilings and raise you "the shadows in the prayer scene at Tara were not of the people you see on camera". They were other actors off stage replicating the motions, if you watch very closely at one point they don't completely match.

Back on topic. For a really bad adaptation of a book to movie check out the Robert Redford version of The Great Gatsby. Mia Farrow as Daisy is excruciating.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Gables Girl said:


> Mia Farrow as Daisy is excruciating.


Some would argue Daisy, the character, is excruciating.

Some would argue Gatsby, the book, is excruciating. I know it's the book that made my husband decide he'd never again read anything recommended by an "English Major".  Oddly, though an English major -- well, nearly so: did the credits but didn't write the thesis because I was busy studying for the comprehensive exams in Math that was my _other _major -- I never read it. I should. There's a copy around here somewhere because my son had to read it in HS. . .

Ann


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Ann Von Hagel said:


> Some would argue Daisy, the character, is excruciating.
> 
> Ann


I'll agree she is excruciating, but Mia brings a whole nother layer to excruciating. A young Sam Waterston as Nick is the best part. I actually like Gatsby, you have to be into the whole 20's era to get it I think although the plot is universal. Okay, I'm also an English major.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I read *Sophie's Choice* but never saw the movie because the book almost destroyed me. But I know the movie had excellent reviews. Anyone see it?L


I saw the movie years ago and loved it. Cried my eyes out. I have never read the book, but probably should.


----------



## Scathach (Dec 5, 2008)

Hmmm I think I tend to like the books (and graphic novels) over movie versions in general. I didn't like the Stardust book either but the comic (how the story was created originally) is loads better then the movie or the book.

Watership Down: book, though the movie has a special place in my heart
V for Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell: Graphics win, they have never been able to turn anything written by Alan Moore into anything other then a piece of poo on film... I also have little hope for Watchmen as a movie.
Big Fish: I actually like the movie better than the book believe it or not, it reminds me of my father <sniff>
Fight Club: Book wins out, even including the hotness of Brad Pitt
Interview with a Vampire: Movie wins out due to Brat Pitt's hotness (and also I can't stand Anne Rice's writing style)
Alice in Wonderland: Book
Trainspotting: Book 
Da Vinci Code: omg book, but I didn't like the book at all so will have to tell you how much I liked the movie lol
Neverwhere: TV show is better then the book, but the book is nearly a transcription of the TV show not bad but not as enjoyable as the TV version


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Interview withe vampire was the worse book to movie translation. Cruise sucked as Lestat , Pitt would have been better. OMG what drug did the casting agent do to think a 30 year old spanish man (Bandaras) could play the role of a 14 year old russian boy with red hair (Armand)?


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2008)

> Interview with a Vampire: Movie wins out due to Brat Pitt's hotness (and also I can't stand Anne Rice's writing style)


Sorry, I have to disagree. Total miscasting of Cruise as Lestat. Pitt would have been better as Lestat instead of Louis. The casting of Dunst as Claudia was inspired though (probably the only one they got right). However, I must say I love Anne Rice. Would not give up my signed 1st edition for anything.

LOL, chobitz, GMTA.


----------



## Scathach (Dec 5, 2008)

chobitz said:


> Interview withe vampire was the worse book to movie translation. Cruise sucked as Lestat , Pitt would have been better. OMG what drug did the casting agent do to think a 30 year old spanish man (Bandaras) could play the role of a 14 year old russian boy with red hair (Armand)?


LOL I can't disagree with you that it was a bad book to movie translation, probably why I liked the movie better  of course the movie was far from being good to begin with lol


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2008)

To me, IWaV was not as good as some of the later Vampire Chronicles. Louis does do too much introspection and whining. The ones with Lestat as the narrator are much better.


----------



## Scathach (Dec 5, 2008)

LuckyRainbow said:


> To me, IWaV was not as good as some of the later Vampire Chronicles. Louis does do too much introspection and whining. The ones with Lestat as the narrator are much better.


Now your making me wish I had continued on with the series lol


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2008)

Never too late to give it a try. I also think her Mayfair Witch books are wonderful. I some ways I like them better. Maybe because of the strong female characters.


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

> I'll see your painted ceilings and raise you "the shadows in the prayer scene at Tara were not of the people you see on camera". They were other actors off stage replicating the motions, if you watch very closely at one point they don't completely match.


I think I disagree. I think that the problem with the shadows in that scene is that they are allegedly cast by the candles, so they are facing the wrong direction. Because really the shadows were cast by the set lighting. Which might also account for why the movements don't sync up exactly.

Time to go all in: the voice of the soldier in that scene was the original voice of Jiminy Cricket. Call.

lol. this is fun!

To attempt to stay in topic, I didn't like IWAV enough to read the book. I had a friend who was totally gone on Anne Rice at the time, so we all went to see it. (In order from AR to the most recent, she's also been totally gone on Ayn Rand-we're positive she didn't understand any of those books-, Anais Nin, Catch 22-she only read the first 19 pages of that, biographies-b/c she had "outgrown" vampire novels, Laurell Hamilton, Charlaine Harris and now Douglas Adams. I would be right behind her on that one, except that she used to sneer at me for being a sci-fi geek when I bought the H2G2 omnibus edition when we were juniors in college. So I consider her a late-comer to the party, and a joiner of the worst kind on that one. She has also started signing herself "The world's biggest DA fan", which is patently false. But I digress.) I did, however, read all of the Mayfair Witch books. By the end, I was a little creeped out by them. The first one was really good, I remember, but by the third one, I was ready to be done with the Mayfair witches. Except I still want that emerald necklace. It's only lack of motivation that keeps me from looking for one now.

I also liked the book "The Great Gatsby", but have never sat down to watch the movie.

I think some of the very worst book to movies have been Donald Westlake's Dortmunder novels. I forget how many they've done, but John Dortmunder has been played by Robert Redford (the Hot Rock), Paul LeMat (Jimmy The Kid), I want to say Walter Mathau, but can't remember the movie, and most confusingly, Martin Lawrence (What's the Worst that Could Happen)(yes, I know that was not the name of Lawrence's character, but it was still based on the novel of the same name, which was a Dortmunder novel. They can run, but they can't hide). Of all of them, I'd have to say Robert Redford was the most mis-cast, being far too good-looking to play a career criminal.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

robin.goodfellow said:


> Time to go all in: the voice of the soldier in that scene was the original voice of Jiminy Cricket. Call.
> 
> lol. this is fun!


The horse ridden by Thomas Mitchell, Gerald O'Hara, was later Silver of Lone Ranger fame, Brent Tarlton, George Reeves, was later Superman, Mickey Kuhn who played Beau Wilkes later appeared in A Streetcar Named Desire with Vivian Leigh.


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

Barbara O'neil's name was mispelled (you know what, that word looks wrong no matter how i type it) in the credits and in nearly every piece of reference material regarding her.  She played Scarlett's mother, but was really only three years older than Vivian Leigh.  Olivia DeHavilland has said that the irony of playing Melanie Wilkes has not escaped her, as the only one of the main actors still living.  Hattie McDaniel had to be taught to talk like a southern black woman.  The sentence "I ain't seen Mista Ashley axin' fo' to marry ya" did not have any meaning for her, and she was reluctant to recognize it as English.  Butterfly McQueen was instrumental in teaching her to talk like a slave.
David O. Selznick hired a number of private security men to patrol Vivian Leigh's Hollywood home, to keep Lawrence Olivier away until after they had finished the picture.

If Melanie had actually been pregnant during all the battles mentioned during the time she was with child, she would have carried Beau for two and a half years.  Margaret Mitchell noted, upon hearing that, that "in the South, we like to take our time."

~robin


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

In the scene where Scarlett eats the radish and gets sick Vivian Leigh refused to make the sounds, she thought it wasn't lady like.  Olivia DeHavilland made the noises you hear.  When Rhett has the drink with Mammy after Bonnie is born for the first take Gable put real whiskey in her glass not the normal tea they use.  Hattie McDaniel didn't know it until she had gulped it, if you notice she sniffs the glass before she drinks, she wanted to make sure if was tea in glass.  Leslie Howard thought he was too old to play Ashley.  Half the soldiers in the Atlanta Depot scene when Scarlett runs through it are dummies so they didn't have to pay extras for all those parts.  Hattie McDonald was not allowed to attend the Grand Opening in Atlanta and Gable threatended not to attend because if it.  Gable didn't want to do the movie because of his bad experience with Parnell another costume movie.  Gable and Lombard got married during the filming of the movie, he talked Victor Fleming the current director and old drinking buddy of his into shooting around him so he could get off.  Selznick asked Margarte Mitchell for comments on the movie, she told him she didn't like the facade they used for Tara and he ignored her so she never sent another comment.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I thought she ate a turnip?

Shows how much GWTW trivia I know!

L


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I thought she ate a turnip?
> 
> Shows how much GWTW trivia I know!
> 
> L


It's a radish. I've read the book 19 times, the first time when I was 9, and I've seen the movie 21 times, I have 3 copies of the DVD's. Plus I have 9 books on the making of it and all my Dad's clippings from when they made and released it. When we would drive to Florida my father and I did the GWTW discussion through Georgia, we tried for the perfect recasting of it with current people in the movies, over the years it changed a lot. My mother just rolled her eyes, she saw the movie once and never read the book. Way too much information, right?


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Hahaha, GablesGirl, I am in awe of your knowledge! And I mean that in a good way.

I like GWTW. I have read the book two or three times and have seen the movie enough times that I lost track of how many times I have seen it. But I am not a font of trivia info. Thank you for sharing. I love this sort of information.

L


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2008)

Robin: I suspect you're thinking of George C. Scott, not Walter Matthau. The movie was Bank Shot, and they changed John Dortmunder's name to Walter Ballentine.

And we all know who the world's biggest DA fan is.


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

Indeed we do.  (It's me).

You are so right.  I knew that Bank Shot was a movie, but I kept not being able to find it on IMDB, so I thought maybe I had just hallucinated it.  We all know it was a trick by the government to make us think the 70s really happened.


Next thing you know, one of us will fall screaming into an egg sandwich.

~robin


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

I have to say, I've found the whole GWTW conversation fascinating. I actually started reading it a few days ago. I can't remember the last time I saw the movie, but once I'm done with the book, I plan to watch it again.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

robin.goodfellow said:


> Indeed we do. (It's me).
> 
> You are so right. I knew that Bank Shot was a movie, but I kept not being able to find it on IMDB, so I thought maybe I had just hallucinated it. We all know it was a trick by the government to make us think the 70s really happened.
> 
> ...


Directed by the late great Gower Champion.


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

I knew there was another book/movie that I wanted to talk about:
Bedknobs and Broomsticks...
The movie is great.  The book stinks on ice.  Honestly, I can't believe they could call the movie the same thing with a straight face.  I read more than half of the book before I realized the only thing the two had in common was the title.  It made me wonder if Disney couldn't get the rights to The Chronicles of Narnia at the time.

That is all.  I now return you to your regular Christmas activities.

~robin


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2008)

robin.goodfellow said:


> Indeed we do. (It's me).


BZZZZZ! I'm sorry, that's an incorrect answer. But we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including a year's supply of Star-Turtle Wax.



> You are so right. I knew that Bank Shot was a movie, but I kept not being able to find it on IMDB, so I thought maybe I had just hallucinated it. We all know it was a trick by the government to make us think the 70s really happened.
> 
> Next thing you know, one of us will fall screaming into an egg sandwich.
> 
> ~robin


I've been a huge Donald Westlake fan since around 1977. My mother introduced me to him through The Hot Rock and Help, I am Being Held Prisoner! I've read every Dortmunder book, several of his other unaffiliated works, and a couple of Richard Stark books. I dunno if you ever read my "Favorite Novels" thread, but Dancing Aztecs is in my Top Ten. I'm also a huge fan of the almost unknown Up Your Banners.


----------



## Wells83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Very rarely have I liked a movie more than the book.

_The Virgin Suicides_ was a wonderful movie, and while the book was great too, I think I prefer the movie.

I love the movie version of _Gone with the Wind_, but as great as it is, the book is superior.

I have the book _What's Eating Gilbert Grape_ but have yet to read it, although the move was superb, so I don't know if the book can compare.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Today I went and saw *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button* and I have to say, the only thing it shares with the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story of the same name is 1) the title; 2) the concept of "guy ages backwards"; and 3) the name of the guy who ages backwards. That's it. The short story was very short and didn't have alot of meat. The movie was very long and had alot of meat -- both literally (Brad Pitt looking buff!) and figuratively.

I enjoyed it. It may very well win the Oscar but I don't think it was the best movie of the year. I liked *Milk *and *Slumdog Millionaire* more.

L


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm apparently the only person on Kindleboards who doesn't compare movies and books.  The only connection for me is if I liked one, I'll try the other. But from the instant the first scene starts, book or movie, I'm into that as a whole new experience. Good or bad, each medium has to stand on its own. I've seen movies that had little relationship to the original book (_Running Man_ comes to mind) but I enjoyed them both.

But I have enjoyed the trivia! You people are good!

Betsy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I should also say I like Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz, despite being too old, but then I'm a Judy Garland fan.  She was from Grand Rapids, MN, about 30 miles west of my mom's home town, Hibbing!  

Betsy


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I like Judy Garland too, Betsy, and for people who don't think she's talented, watch this. It gives me chills everytime I see it. One long shot with one camera (once Judy comes on the screen). Watch her hands. What a voice. Amazing.





From *A Star is Born*, 1954.

L


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

> I've been a huge Donald Westlake fan since around 1977.


I think I did a book report one time on "Help! I'm being held prisoner!" It was my mission in life to make the teacher stop assigning book reports. I was never successful in making one of them stop, but I did make every teacher I ever had twitch when it was time for them to take the book reports up.

Mom's personal favorite is "Drowned Hopes". I got her an autographed copy from ebay one year as a Christmas present, but I think I need to get her another hardback copy so she won't read the signed one to death.

Additionally, and on an unrelated note, I should clarify that I do not think Judy Garland was untalented. Whiney, yes. Untalented, no. She indeed had talent in spades.

~robin


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2008)

I am not much on the Dortmunder books, but I loved the first Westlake Jim made me read.
Dancing Aztecs









Gotta Hustle.

sorry no image available


----------



## robin.goodfellow (Nov 17, 2008)

Have you tried "What's the Worst that Could happen?"  About the gang going to Las Vegas?  That one was funny, and more recent.  You might enjoy that one.  I didn't like what I believe was the last one, about the Indian casino.  I think it was called "Road to Ruin".  It was just okay.

You're right:  dancing aztecs is hilarious.

~robin


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2008)

Maybe I should give Dortmunder another try. But that would mean reading a DTB, as Jim owns most of them.


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Today I went and saw *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button* and I have to say, the only thing it shares with the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story of the same name is 1) the title; 2) the concept of "guy ages backwards"; and 3) the name of the guy who ages backwards. That's it. The short story was very short and didn't have alot of meat. The movie was very long and had alot of meat -- both literally (Brad Pitt looking buff!) and figuratively.
> 
> I enjoyed it. It may very well win the Oscar but I don't think it was the best movie of the year. I liked *Milk *and *Slumdog Millionaire* more.
> 
> L


It shared the title and that was about it. I came home and reread the story on my Kindle just to make sure I hadn't gotten it mixed up. Lots of Brad Pitt, the message to me had been changed from Fitzgerald's "youth is wasted on the young" to a "never know what is going to happen" one. I loved the New Orleans locations, but not a good adaption of the short story.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2008)

Drowned Hopes is probably my favorite Dortmunder book too. Just hilarious.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

The first book (I remember) I read that went to movie was "The Exorcist". OMG, I was so scared by that book it took me a while to read it because I had to keep putting it down and coming back to it when I was ready for it again.   By the time the movie came out (I was a teen then and we had to sneak into the drive-in) I was ready for it and my friends were all freaked out by the movie. After the book, the movie was easy!


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm apparently the only person on Kindleboards who doesn't compare movies and books.


No, you aren't!  

Mike


----------



## Gables Girl (Oct 28, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I like Judy Garland too, Betsy, and for people who don't think she's talented, watch this. It gives me chills everytime I see it. One long shot with one camera (once Judy comes on the screen). Watch her hands. What a voice. Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Garland in her prime could knock your socks off, some of her later stuff was more sad then bad, but then again many get worse in their later years.

Betsy thanks for the Hibbing mention, I wondered when you would get to that.


----------



## LSbookend (Dec 22, 2008)

books--hands down

LSbookend


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2009)

LSbookend said:


> books--hands down
> 
> LSbookend


+1


----------



## Avalon3 (Dec 3, 2008)

KindleJaneRRT said:


> You know, I actually thought that P.S. I love you the movie was better than the book but then again my love for it might be slightly biased because of the fact that I loved almost everyone who starred in it!


I saw the movie but haven't read the book. I liked the music in the movie and the stars that played the parts.


----------



## Mollyb52 (Jan 4, 2009)

Brokeback Mountain.  I thought the movie was great.  The characters were touching and the story was heartbreaking.  I thought the book seems much more course and gritty, too much so for me.  It is funny, I think the movie follows the book almost word for word.  But the actors brought the very human touch that it needed.


----------



## rayhensley (Apr 16, 2011)

Although I love the book, I felt the Forrest Gump film was better. It's my favorite, and I watch it all the time.


----------

