Books vs. movies

So which do you prefer? I (obviously, hopefully) prefer books but there are several movies that are great adaptations - the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (by Peter Jackson) and the Hunger Games series come to mind. However, some films really suck.

My wife and I were cleaning out some stuff over the weekend and she asked if I wanted to keep my copy of I Am Legend (with Will Smith). I said no and she freaked out.

I loved that movie for a long time and it inspired me to finally purchase the novella. After reading the book, I realized how much the movie changed the plotline and I stopped liking it.

Hopefully this is enough to provoke some discussion. What is everyone's thoughts?

In my experience the book is always better.  Even with Lord of the Rings, they did a great job but change a few unnecessary things.  Then with The Hobbit, they veered so far off the book that I didn't know what story I was watching.

The Hunt for Red October:  Great movie but again, the book was better.

Xid wrote:

In my experience the book is always better.  Even with Lord of the Rings, they did a great job but change a few unnecessary things.  Then with The Hobbit, they veered so far off the book that I didn't know what story I was watching.

The Hunt for Red October:  Great movie but again, the book was better.

I've heard that about the Hobbit so I haven't even watched it.

I don't know if I would call what was done with The Hobbit so much of a "veering away" as it was a "taking liberties" and "filling in." As I understand it a lot was added, much of it from The Silmarillion, to flesh out the story enough to make three movies from it. IMO they still didn't have enough because the third movie was really drawn out to the point of dragging. Also, they cut out one of my favorite parts -- Tom Bombadil -- because that little side story of the book wasn't really integral to the entire plot.

I remember reading First Blood before the movie came out, then being surprised that Rambo let people live in the movie. Also, the Colonel shot Rambo in the head at the end of the book (sorry for the spoiler  ), but that wouldn't have allowed for sequels with the movie.

As to the topic at hand, I prefer to not watch movies based on books that I've read as they rarely pass muster. However, I don't mind reading the book after having watched the movie.

They took way too many liberties.  The first movie was good.  The second drove me nuts.  Didn't bother with the third.

I typically enjoy the book more.  However, I seem to watch a movie and then read a book afterward.  This way, you get to enjoy both knowing that they took liberties with the original story.

Sometimes, though, I like the movie and just don't bother with the book.  I have not read "I Am Legend" and like the movie as it is.  I don't want to ruin that.

alldatndensum wrote:

I typically enjoy the book more.  However, I seem to watch a movie and then read a book afterward.  This way, you get to enjoy both knowing that they took liberties with the original story.

Sometimes, though, I like the movie and just don't bother with the book.  I have not read "I Am Legend" and like the movie as it is.  I don't want to ruin that.

Yeah don't. The book is excellent but it's so substantially different that I couldn't take it.

While I agree that the book is usually always better, I don't usually want to read the books. Most movies that are based on books I don't like enough of the story to want to delve into the book.

The first movie that did interest me enough to want to read it was Jurassic Park. After having seen a few different adaptations (movies.TV mini-series) I do want to read the book for Ben-Hur. One movie that is being made right now is based on a book series that I have been into since book one is Meg.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg:_A_Novel_of_Deep_Terror

I've never heard of Meg - I'll have to check it out. 

I have to admit I love both the book and the movie of Jurassic Park. One of my favorites.

BearDad wrote:

I remember reading First Blood before the movie came out, then being surprised that Rambo let people live in the movie. Also, the Colonel shot Rambo in the head at the end of the book (sorry for the spoiler  ), but that wouldn't have allowed for sequels with the movie.

I don't know where I saw it, but they actually filmed footage for the ending of Rambo where the Colonel kills him in the end (I've actually watched in online somewhere).  
The story I heard was that the ending where Rambo dies didn't test well with audiences so they revised it.

I almost always prefer the book to the movie, even if I have seen the movie first (and read the book afterwards).  At some point I had just come to expect to be disappointed by the movie.  So instead of expecting the movie to live up the book I try to experience them as separate entities.  If I go in with the attitude that the movie is just loosely based on the story I read I'm not inclined to be as disappointed.  For example I recently watched "The Revenant" and "The Martian" movies within a few months after I had read both books.  I managed to enjoy both films (quite a bit) regardless of the fact that they differed substantially from the novels.

I have found one movie that I think is incredibly true to the original novel.  It is the 1992 version "Of Mice & Men" (with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich).  It helps that the novel is rather short, so they didn't need to cut a lot of the story for the film version.

I can also remember a film that I actually enjoyed more than the book (and I read the book first).  It is "Misery" by Stephen King.  I think part of the reason I liked  the movie better was because I remember the ending of the book leaving me a bit confused (and the movie didn't)...also Kathy Bates performance in the film was just absolutely fantastic.

I enjoyed both the Harry Potter and Hunger Games series in both book and movie form equally.

I prefer the films, mainly because I find it more relaxing.  I love a good night out at the movies, and seem to be able to get in to a movie better than a book.

However, when I do take the time books are great too.  It's just time is always an issue...

Staybrite wrote:

I almost always prefer the book to the movie, even if I have seen the movie first (and read the book afterwards).  At some point I had just come to expect to be disappointed by the movie.  So instead of expecting the movie to live up the book I try to experience them as separate entities.  If I go in with the attitude that the movie is just loosely based on the story I read I'm not inclined to be as disappointed.  For example I recently watched "The Revenant" and "The Martian" movies within a few months after I had read both books.  I managed to enjoy both films (quite a bit) regardless of the fact that they differed substantially from the novels.

I have found one movie that I think is incredibly true to the original novel.  It is the 1992 version "Of Mice & Men" (with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich).  It helps that the novel is rather short, so they didn't need to cut a lot of the story for the film version.

I can also remember a film that I actually enjoyed more than the book (and I read the book first).  It is "Misery" by Stephen King.  I think part of the reason I liked  the movie better was because I remember the ending of the book leaving me a bit confused (and the movie didn't)...also Kathy Bates performance in the film was just absolutely fantastic.

Yes! Of Mice and Men was great, how could i forget that one? Malkovich was so convincing as Lennie.

Fundy wrote:

I prefer the films, mainly because I find it more relaxing.  I love a good night out at the movies, and seem to be able to get in to a movie better than a book.

However, when I do take the time books are great too.  It's just time is always an issue...

Says the man with young children....I know all about it. 

ishmael81 wrote:

Staybrite wrote:

I have found one movie that I think is incredibly true to the original novel.  It is the 1992 version "Of Mice & Men" (with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich).  It helps that the novel is rather short, so they didn't need to cut a lot of the story for the film version.

Yes! Of Mice and Men was great, how could i forget that one? Malkovich was so convincing as Lennie.

I was pretty much impressed with most of the performances in the film (included Sinise and Malkovich).  Casey Siemaszko as Curly, and Ray Walston as the old farm hand Candy I thought were great as well.

I like reading a book while listening to music more than I like watching a movie. One can create one's own images and voices while reading.

I'm generally a book is better person, but Silence of the Lambs is a major exception.  

Alldat mentioned the Harry Potter films--I kinda have to think of them as separate works to keep from being disappointed in the movies from Azkaban on.

It’s almost unfair to compare books to movies… A typical movie is ~two hours long and a typical book takes about how long to read do y’all think? Much more than two hours. So just by their nature, you’re going to have more information conveyed through books. (I realize that a book can only communicate line-by-line whereas a movie can have multiple things going on in a scene, but even taking that all into account, I still think books generally have much more to them.)

Anyways, I really liked the Coen Brothers’ film version of No Country For Old Men so I started reading the book and got about 1/3 the way through it when I put it down. I didn’t care for the way it was written and it brought just about nothing more to the table than the movie did in terms of details and such.

kerrick wrote:

It’s almost unfair to compare books to movies…  A typical movie is ~two hours long and a typical book takes about how long to read do y’all think?  Much more than two hours.  So just by their nature, you’re going to have more information conveyed through books.  (I realize that a book can only communicate line-by-line whereas a movie can have multiple things going on in a scene, but even taking that all into account, I still think books generally have much more to them.)

Anyways, I really liked the Coen Brothers’ film version of No Country For Old Men so I started reading the book and got about 1/3 the way through it when I put it down.  I didn’t care for the way it was written and it brought just about nothing more to the table than the movie did in terms of details and such.

Interesting. I always thought the book was good - Cormac McCarthy, right?

Of course the movie was excellent.