does anyone think there are instances where a movie is better than the book it was based on?

Question

i thought "ordinary people" and "carrie" were good books, but i liked the movies better. "single while female" was pretty good IMO, but the book it was based on ("SWF Seeks Same"), I did not like.

Answer 1

Normally I would say that the book is always better than the movie. I thought Peter Jackson destroyed LotR, and only the first to HP movies even came close to the books. However, I saw the "Sense and Sensibilitly" directed by Ang Lee and starring Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Alan Rickman, and Hugh Grant. Thompson (the script-writer, I believe) gave a bigger place to the youngest Dashwood sister, Margaret, that was very nice for the story. There were about 2 things that I wanted to see in the movie that were not there, but in general, I think that movie picked out the best elements of one of Jane Austen's slower novels.

Answer 2

I suspect anyone who finds a movie better than the book either hasn't read the book, can't read the book, doesn't know how to read the book or is too lazy to really read the book. There is no way a movie can come close to actually portraying all that a decent author conveys in a book. Movies are the opiate invented to allow the unimaginative to imagine they have imagination.



No book worth the ink expended to publish it can be translated honestly and accurately to cinema, a media invented exclusively to extract the most profit from the largest audience at the least expense, and retain its' integrity or intent. Unfortunately, in a world of Nintendo and instant gratification, very few of us are able to read, imagine and think anymore.



Consequently, we will pay outrageous amounts for movie tickets, but don't possess free library cards. What a pity.

Answer 3

For me it was LOTR. I've read the books a long time before the movie came on but could not remember anything except for the general plot - probably because of too much detail and information in the books. However, when the movie came out, I could process it better. THen again, maybe it's because i read the books when I was 12.

Answer 4

Most of the time books are better than the movies but the only instance that I have experienced, where the reverse is true is



Fried Green Tomatoes.



The movie was great and the book-not so much

Answer 5

I agree Lord of the jewelry grow to be good. e book grow to be Phenominal however the action picture did a particularly good interest at shrinking it down yet giving it that extensive New worldwide sense. satisfaction and prejudice. Alot of Jane Austin books have been nicely achieved. Narnia Chronicals did an ok interest at it. I even have heard "the help'" that in simple terms got here out is a super e book and massive action picture. Jane Eyre Dances with Wolves Fried eco-friendly tomatoes Gorillas int the mist the guy interior the Iron mask Stand via Me Theres ALOT

Answer 6

The movies Lord of the Rings was alot better than the book.However the Harry Potter movies are not as good as the books.I belief the books are way better than the movies.This is because the movies leave alot of detail behind from the books.^~^

Answer 7

I don't that any movies are better than the books but I think one that came pretty close was 'The Notebook' by Nicholas Sparks, starring Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling. I thought the movie was really good, not as good as the book but it's the closest a movie's gotten to the book, in my opinion.

Answer 8

Yes there are many instances. Especially in case of fantasy Fiction. Most fantasy movies look better on screen than the books ( the visual part makes the movies better.)

Answer 9

depends on the book. I agree with the Godfather,the movie was kick ***. But other movies liek Harry potter, in her shoes, memoris of a geshia SUCK BIG TIME!!!!!! The movies suck soooooo bad it hurts!!!!! Aw,,I remeber sitting in my seat wanting to vomit on the screen,I thought Harry potter part 4 was so bad. So want i am trying to say is the books are soo much better.



Anyone hear about the DaVinci Code yet??? I haven't read the book yet. I was in school and had no time for pleasure reading. on my list after I finish In the Heart of the Sea.

Answer 10

I strongly believe that a picture cannot potray the matter of a book in a similar fashion like in Harry potter the book is a treat whereas the movie is a time pass comparitively

Answer 11

The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien .... the most horrible, dreadful long drawn out yawn of a book but 3 brilliant films!



The Wizard of Oz ... film far outshines the book.



This one's not a film but Sex and the City was a million times better televised than the rubbish, rambling, shallow, disjointed, pointless book of the same name!



All a matter of opinion though. Apocalypse now better than The Heart of Darkness indeed! lol.

Answer 12

I've personally never read a book that was worse than the movie based on it. But, I'm sure I'll run across one at some point.

Answer 13

I thought A Clockwork Orange was a great movie, but didn't like the book nearly as much; and Coneheads, the book just didn't work, for some reason.

Answer 14

about a boy was really well done on the screen - they invented things that hadn't been in the book, but they fit them in superbly.

but a film and a book are completely different ballgames - can't really be compared cos they follow utterly different rules etc. if at all, you can compare the way a film treats the plot given in the book, but the film will almost always lose there, because it is more limited.

Answer 15

Bridget Jones Diary. The first film was better than the book because it was in good humour, whereas in the book she keeps moaning about issues that most of us got over when we were 16.

Answer 16

Most of the movies based on books don't do them justice.They change the plot.The only exception is Lord of the Rings.

Answer 17

Books are always better than movies!

Answer 18

i like the movie of the "ya ya sisterhood" better than the book, i also liked the movie "practical magic" better than the book. I think that if i see the movie first i like it better and if i read the book first i like it better...ya know what i mean?

Answer 19

this is kinda embarrassing to admit but i have to say that the harry potter series on the silverscreens are crap as opposed to the books.



one good adaptation i feel would be prozac nation. it is better onscreen than in the book. but hey, this q is so subjectiv as it all boils down to a matter of taste, perception...etc..

Answer 20

i still think books are better than it's movie versions. books are more detailed and i like it that way, it still depends on the individual's taste. for lazy peole, they prefer watching the movie than reading the book hehehe

Answer 21

yes i always think the movie is better than the book simply because i cant be bothered to read and just because its so flippen long lol but yea definatly movie betta

Answer 22

Apocalypse Now was better than Conrad's Heart of Darkness on which it is loosely based

Answer 23

I enjoyed the Godfather more as a movie. The book was O.K.

Answer 24

i thought the movie trainspotting was well better than the book. same as the harry potter movies

Answer 25

trainspotting...but i think in most cases the books are better, you use your imagination and theres more time for explanations. for example Harry Potter is SO much better in the books, although the films are great!

Answer 26

NOT MANY MASH THE MOVIE WAS CLOSE TO THE BOOK.THEY USUALLY ALL WAYS MODIFY THE STORYS WHEN THEY DON'T ALL WAYS HAVE TO SO I DON'T WATCH THEM MORE THAN ONCE.BECAUSE ANNOYS ME.I THINK THE ANSWER TO GETTING A BOOK RIGHT IN ALLOT OF CASES YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT SPOKEN WORD, NOT A MOVIE