Did You Ever See A Movie Loved It, Then Read The Book And Wonder...???

really cant name one right now but I do know the books are alot better than the movies on alot of them.

I was actually disappointed with the movie versions of classics like The Count of Monte Cristo and Les Miserables... they like removed the best part of the book... and turned the story upside down... I know they need to fit the story in a 2 hour movie... but to change a lot of the story is so uncalled for... they should also changed the title... so that people will not be misled...

Oh, the worst one for me was "The Shining" by Stephen King. I LOVED that book!!! I still have a hard time with closed shower curtains because of it. When the movie was coming out I was so excited! I wanted to go see it and my father was really excited about it too. So me, my father and my step-mother went to see it. And the whole way through the movie I'm like "Hey, are we in the right theater???" There were like 3 things that matched the book and about 200,000,000 that didn't. I was so disappointed that I wrote a letter to Stephen King to tell him. I got a post card back stating he was sorry I didn't like it but his screen play was rejected and since he'd sold the rights to the movie he had no decisions in what was done. I think I still have that postcard. Since then I have been very leery about seeing a movie - especially if I'm paying for it at the theaters - if I've read the book. They're usually not the same. Now I can remember one movie - another Stephen King - that I was watching before I realized it was Stephen King. "Stand By Me". I was watching it and it was just so familiar... I kept thinking "I've read this book" but the title really threw me. It was from a short story of his (and may have been written under Richard Bachman, I can't recall right now) called "The Body". I did "feel" the Stephen King-ness of the movie and started looking through my collection. I found the short story before the movie was over with.

I did watch and read Interview with a Vampire. It is one of the best movies I watched but reading the book is much better. It was already summarized in the movie since maybe they don't want to make it that long. Same with the Queen of the Damned. I loved the book rather than the movie. I love all of Anne Rice Novels but I guess it is really much better to read them than watch them because the movies are incomplete.

Recently I have been utterly disappointed by Inkheart....like so much to the point where I had to be held down by my daughter or I would have walked out of the theater. Twilight was bbbbaaaaaaddddd. But I won't elaborate. I dont subscribe to that cult. And I know I am going to be spitting nails after I go see the Half Blood Prince this summer.

well with sin city they stayed so true to the graphic novels to the point where even the actors looked like frank miller's creations. most of the stephen king book based movies have attempted to stay true to the story. with hellboy there are bits and pieces here and there that match, but that does not matter because the stories can be stand alone too so that you are not left with that wtf feeling when you watch them. honestly a lot of the people who watch these movies do not even realize that they are based on books.

With the exceptions of GONE WITH THE WIND and THE SECRET LIFE OF BEES, I'd have to say almost all of them. I think that these are the exceptions that prove the rule because I've come to the conclusion that good movies start with good original screen plays and not screenplays based on books. For the most part books and movies are different media and don't translate back and forth all that well.

It's called creative license. When average people do it online, vie youtube or fanfiction, few people complain...but when movie producers do it, or comic books writers do it, there's always gonna be some griping. Me? I'll either like it or I won't. Oftentimes, I like the books better than the movies. The Seeker and the series it was based off of...I didn't like either of them, but I disliked the books more than the movie. Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Da**ed...well, like most classic and popular works, I couldn't get through them, so it's OK that I like the movies more, xD Harry Potter series (movie-wise) annoys me, for the most part, because they began cutting out and tweeking parts after sticking close to the series for the first couple. Holes was good both in book form and in movie form, but then they were more or less the same. xD I usually have read the books before it ever meets the big screen or the little screen...because I read alot, but every once and awhile it's stuff I haven't read yet. Dinotopia was one of those, xD The Stand was another, and so was Tenth Kingdom...and I love all of them. Creative license worked out in all those cases and those books were already pretty awesome to begin with.

The book version is always better than the film version. For one thing the book goes deeper into character building and you will have a much better understanding of each character, and then there is the "Hollywood" factor in the films that seem to demand sensationalism and shock value. Ratings and crowd pleasers are dominant because it is all about the money in the end. I always read the book first and then may see the film based on my feelings about the story. Sometimes (rarely) the movie is actually better because the book sort of fell flat, but this is a very rare and subjective occurrence. The one movie I can think of that was nearly identical to the book was The Stand by Stephan King. Although to keep it that way they had to make it a mini-series that lasted about 4 episodes.

I have read a few books, thought that's really good I want to see the movie and was disappointed in the movie. I finally realized my Dad was right. You read a book, you visualize all the details, then you see the movie and it's different and disappointing. The problem with most movies based on books (as you pointed out) is that it's not just the details you visualized that are different and disappointing, the story line rarely follows the original. I don't remember any books I read and then saw the movie because it's been so long ago. I just remember if I see a movie and read a book I might as well be prepared for two different stories. Oh, yes I do remember one. . .Dune. Terrific book. Not a bad movie, but just not the same.

Hi pye When I read a book I prefer not to watch the movie as I know I would be disappointed with it so I have watched the Green Mile but have not read the book although I have the book which my husband is reading at the moment and he has seen the movie as it was only shown again a few days ago on TV. Bright Blessings. Tamara

Hi Pye darlin; I rarely get to buy books anymore and I think they did a really awesome job with the movies on Harry Potter, that's the only movie/books I've read that come to mind, and I Loved Lord of the Rings, I had only ever read the one book on it and that was long before the movies was released; so for me, they've done a pretty good job on those I think!

well here the situation is a bit different first i read a book which i did found a bit intresting in the beginning but the end wasnt good at all..i saw the movie of it which was just thrash from the beginning till the end as far i liked the book a bit which now i hate the most after seeing the movie on it.

I agree, there are very few movies that follow the books the were based off of. I prefer reading the books over seeing the movies becuase there is so much more detail. I guess I also like to imagine what the characters look like too. I read all of the Twilight series books, and when the movie came out in DVD I saw it. I didn't like the movie. However, I think if i hadn't read the book than the movie would have been just fine. There were so many things in the book that should have been included in the movie. And yes, I did wonder if it was the same story!

There have been a lot of movies where I read the book first and was like huh when I watched the movie. Most of them have been Stephen King books, I like watching the movies anyway. He was known to be in many of the movies that was based on his books. I have read the Thorn Birds in a couple of days, because it was coming on tv that following Sunday. I wanted to compare the book with the film. I don't know why a movie that's based on a book can't follow the story line. I don't think I will ever get the answer to that one. I do like to watch them, just I can put faces to characters. Now if I see the movie first, it does ruin my chances of reading the book. Mainly I already know the storyline and the outcome. I do wished that I read Marley and Me before the movie came out, along with The Notebook. Two great movies, which I believe the book would have been just as great. I'm currently reading Lisey's Story by Stephen King, at the moment I don't see that one becoming a movie. It's hard to tell these days, which ones becomes a movie or not.

I have been lucky , either I have seen the movie and didn't read the book , like The Hours. Or I have read the book and didn't see the movie.and when I saw the movie And read the book , they were real close . like Tales Of the City and Tess D'Orberviles, the 1980's version.What I hate is when the movie veers off and doesn't display the historical truth. The movie The Other Boleyn Girl for example. It is pure fiction.If a story is to be based on an historical event, they should get their facts straight.

I thought Interview followed the book pretty well, up until the very end that is. I so disliked the movie Eragon that I didn't bother with the book. And it happens a lot a script is loosely based on a story but it is nothing like it. The Reader the movie follows the book rather well, I thought. Can't make a comparison on Angels and Demons yet, still waiting for the book to show up--I traded for it. One that was way, way off was Exit to Eden by Anne Rice under her nome de plume. The movie a whole different story. I think the Haunting was fairly close (at least the original one), I actually read a lot of books that movies are based on--Inkheart is laying around here somewhere--haven't seen the movie yet either. We all know they took some advantages with LOTR. But I don't know that I have ever seen a movie then read the book and wondered how they got from here to there.

Hi Pyewacket, I remember readin Bridget Jones Diary and laughing out loud at it but then seeing the film and not finding it that funny. I have read Angels and Demons and am waiting to see the film they have just released of it to see how different it is going to be. I tend to read the books before seeing the film. I haven't read the Green Mile but that film has me in tears every time I watch it. huggles. Ellie :D

Pye- I sort of put movies into their own category if that makese sense. I love books for their ability to shed light on things, and I love movies for the ability to bring a character I admire to life, even if the story is told in a quick amont of time due to our inability to sit still as an audience. I loved The Green Mile, Interview with a Vampire, and Eragon. I agree that sometimes things change for time sake, but they somehow are good in their own merit. I remember when LoTR came out and how everyone was angry apparently over the lack of battle scenes. I still consider them one of the most well done movies of our time. My thoughts were, if Peter Jackson had filmed every battle scene in those bloody long books we'd end up with 20 hours of film. (Ok, over exaggeration but you get the point). The remarkable talent about movie making is to take a very long story and condense it. In a book the author has the ability to paint the pictures with words in some detail. A director has to capture that moment in a few seconds. An author friend of mine who is working on his first screen play was telling me the rule of thumb is one page per minute. That's a very short space to write action and dialogue. One of the things I enjoy about Del Toro movies is that he has this ability to put so much symbolism in the set design that you get much more of the story that way. I was very impressed with his presentation of Hellboy. Just as much as I was impressed with Batman Returns and The Dark Knight. I suppose if I am disappointed in movies it's not because of their translation from story, game, or what not to film but in the film itself. I truly hated Silent Hill because the acting sucked big time. I hated Pet Semetary for the same reason, not the story line but because the acting was atrocious. I disliked Queen of the Damned because Tom Cruise was not in it, and the girl playing the Queen couldn't act to save her life. Oh, and I hated all the Grudge movies. Namaste-Anora

Yes, I think books are always better than the movies. I try to read the books before I go see the movies but that doesnt always happen. For example, I saw twilight the movie before I read the books and I liked the books so much better and I was sort of dissapointed in the movie.