Based on Brew's thread about finding a good book to read, it got me thinking about something.

You read a book. They make a movie out of the book later. You liked the book, so you go see the movie. The movie sucked, or it didn't do the book any justice.

Are there any exceptions to this, in your opinion? Any movies you saw that you thought "this was actually better than reading the book".

The only one that was like that for me was "Forest Gump". I saw the movie first, and since I thought it was good, at some point later I read the book.

And I thought the movie was way better than the book.

 

Most of the books I enjoy includes a lot of things going on in the characters head and the movies have a difficult time communicating that. Russia House is a good example. I read the book and then saw the movie. I enjoyed the movie, because I realized what was going on in Sean Connery's mind. Why he did some things. My wife and daughter were bored stiff and had no idea what was going on. I think Hunt for Red October, the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the book. Most just can't.

 

I think the Star Wars movies did a decent job...their were a few differences but nothing major. Of course I believe it was initially designed to be a movie so that may have something to do with it.


Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are hatchet jobs...

 

"The Green Mile" was the only one I can think of that did the book justice.

Oh, and "Shawshank Redemption"

 

I think 'Of Mice and Men' by John Steinbeck was fairly close to the book. The movie left a few parts out but over all followed the book pretty close.

 

Nothing comes to mind, however, I always like to read the book first if possible. I think it helps you to get into the characters a little more deeply.

 

That's why I never read books, I don't want to be ruined for the movie...

 

Most of the time, the book is better.



Lord of the flies.

I liked the movie better and I read the book first.

 

I thought the book sucked. Then again, mine was black & yellow with diagonal strips on it.

 

Reading and liking the book first almost always means you won't like the movie.


My theory is that when you read the book, your mind creates all kinds of images about what things should look like, and you also emphasize certain plot twists that other readers (such as the movie's director) might not.

When the movie gets made, it will look different than you expected, and some of your favorite plot lines will get deleted or altered. So even if the movie maker does many things right, the movie will still bug you.

FWIW, I really enjoyed Peter Jackson's movie versions of Lord of the Rings trilogy. That was a monumental film making acheivement. As good as the books? No way, but still pretty darn good movies.

 

I read the book, Lonesome Dove. When they made the movie, I don't think they could have followed the book any more, nor could they have cast it any better. Plus, it is one of my all time favorite movies. It took about 6 or 7 hrs of movie to cover the book.

 

Never heard of it, but my testing has confirmed my suspicion...

 

Man, i can not believe you have never heard of Lonesome dove. One of the best westerns ever written or made into a movie. Based on actual events, written by Larry McMurtry.

 

 

I read the book and saw the movie.