Books are always better IMO. Movies always fall short because they miss so much detail.

 

I pretty much agree with this. But I also think that a book like The Stand could be made into a decent movie. Sure it's 1000+ pages but so much of it is internal dialog and scene setting.

Surprised nobody mentioned Forrest Gump. The movie is much better than the book.

Edited January 9, 201412 yr by TaylorStSox

Surprised nobody mentioned Forrest Gump. The movie is much better than the book.

 

And almost totally different, right? Like Forrest talking to cartoon characters.

 

As awesome as American Psycho the movie is, the book is insanely violent.

Most of the movies I've seen that were based on a book that I've actually read have been Stephen King books.

 

Best: Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, The Mist, The Green Mile

 

Worst: Hearts In Atlantis, The Dead Zone, Bag of Bones, The Running Man, Tommyknockers, Dreamcatcher

 

Hearts in Atlantis was a weird choice to film, it's part of the larger Dark Towet story. So it doesn't really make sense because it is not really put into context.

 

That said, I like the movie

 

The Lord of the Rings movies far outdid the book in almost every aspect in my opinion. And I love the books.

Hearts in Atlantis was a weird choice to film, it's part of the larger Dark Towet story. So it doesn't really make sense because it is not really put into context.

 

That said, I like the movie

Hearts in Atlantis was essentially four novellas in one book with each novella relating to the other three. The movie was just from Low Men in Yellow Coats, and I didn't think they quite got the translation right. On its own, though, it wasn't a bad movie.

Hearts in Atlantis was a weird choice to film, it's part of the larger Dark Towet story. So it doesn't really make sense because it is not really put into context.

 

That said, I like the movie

 

Stripping out all the DT connections is why I didn’t like it. I also hated how they changed the ending.

 

The book is one of my absolute favorites and I thought King’s ending was one of his better ones. That’s something he tends to have trouble with IMHO.

Edited January 9, 201412 yr by Iwritecode

And almost totally different, right? Like Forrest talking to cartoon characters.

 

As awesome as American Psycho the movie is, the book is insanely violent.

Yeah, the book is pretty strange. He has a pet gorilla and becomes a pro wrestler. I haven't read it for at least 10 years, but I remember it being bizarre.

The Lord of the Rings movies far outdid the book in almost every aspect in my opinion. And I love the books.

I was very impressed with not only the beautiful look and feel, but really felt they added a lot of depth to Boromir. Really enhanced that character, and I think the actor deserved a supporting actor nod for the Oscars.

 

Master and Commander is a really great read. The movie is actually an adaptation of the first few books in a 17 book series...and it is one of my absolute favorite movies. I think it exceeds what I've taken from a few of O'Brian's book I have read..

Edited January 10, 201412 yr by onedude

The Lord of the Rings books are borderline unreadable. The movies are masterpieces.

The Lord of the Rings books are borderline unreadable. The movies are masterpieces.

One thing I thought they handled very well was all the singing. That happened twice in the movies, and both were done very well. In the books, it seemed like it happened dozens of times, and it was usually grating to read.

 

The Lord of the Rings books are borderline unreadable. The movies are masterpieces.

 

I find that interesting. Why do you believe you find the books borderline unreadable?

I find that interesting. Why do you believe you find the books borderline unreadable?

 

There is a lot of overdescribing of events and scenes. The Party lasts like half the book it seems. My best friend loves those books but even he admits that they are pretty rough at times

I agree with the LOTR books being very difficult to read. I saw the movies before I read the books and really liked them. But it took me a long time to really get into the books.

 

When I first started I would pick it up, read a page or two and then put it back down again. Normally I’m a pretty fast reader and will go through multiple chapters in one sitting.

 

As for all the singing, I mostly just skipped over it.

 

One thing I thought they handled very well was all the singing. That happened twice in the movies, and both were done very well. In the books, it seemed like it happened dozens of times, and it was usually grating to read.

 

This times a billion. That's an issue that I think comes up a lot in fantasy adaptations. Martin's characters meander a LOT in the GOT books, but the TV show has the ability to write out a lot of the meandering.

 

The one issue I had with the adaptation of LOTR was their treatment of Faramir - I thought him bringing Frodo and Sam to Gondor completely changed his character.

 

And yes, Jurassic Park does in fact win forever.

Anyone a Phillip K. Dick fan? Asides from being the brains behind hit-movies like Total Recall and Minority Report, he also wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time, Blade Runner, is based on.

 

I’m not big into reading books after seeing the film adaptation, but I am curious about reading Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human (written by a different author, K.W. Jeter) since Ridley Scott has been tossing around the idea of a sequel to the original.