Books vs Movies

I HATE watching films of books that I've really enjoyed! Your example of the Da Vinci Code is a perfect one; I went to watch the film just a week after finishing reading the book and I spent the whole time I watched it complaining to my daughter about the differences in it; even to the colour of the Smart car in the film; and the ending was COMPLETELY different!! Another example is 'Flowers in the Attic, when I first read that book I was hooked so much that I stayed up until I finished it, I was so looking forward to the film - which was DREADFUL, the story was different and it had none of the tensio

Yeah! I agree with you here, the movies are always fail compared to their books. I would say Harry Potter is an exception because both the book and the films blew everyone away. Say "Twilight", the book was quite alright but the movie was just truly wrecked it for me personally. The books always have more detail and it truly brings out your imagination. Then, when you see the actual film, it has to skip parts and it simply ruins your imagination. It kinda ruins the whole plot of the book and movies tend to do a poor job. I rather film makers not use books to produce a movie, books on it's own are much better!

Like you and others responders said "Da Vinci Code" is a perfect example of a bad movie adaptation, but I think that some movies are as good as the book : "The Name of the Rose", by example, where Annaud spent more time to prepare the movie than Umberto Eco to write the book. Speaking of the "Da Vinci Code" Ron Howards was nominated "worst director" for the Razzie Awards 2007, while "The Name of the Rose" was awarded two BAFTA and a César : the profession and the public know when a movie is good or not.

I have read many books that were turned into movies, and you're right, some of the movies do not give the same effect as the book did. Here is an example, I read Stephen Kings Pet Cemetery, The book was awesome, it kept me going and I loved it. Then they made the movie, a good attempt, but failed from the book. So I totally understand where you're coming from.

It happens every time. Sometimes I prefer to see the movie first,and then read the book!This way, I already have a picture in my head for the characters in the book,some of the scenery... Usually the books are much better,because is pretty hard to make a 90 minute movie from a few hundred page book!So if I go to a movie made from a book I read,I think of it just as inspired by the book,and I enjoy it.

I don't usually read books except those that are really interesting. I've watched the Harry Potter movies before I read the books, and I agree that books are better than movies because it gives you the whole story whereas movies are limited in this regard.

This happens to me all the time. I will not watch a movie based on a book until and unless I have actually read the book. I don't need my first impression of the story to be from a movie, I'd rather enjoy the book.

Yes, and many times that's why I wish I had not read the book before watching a movie. But then there are times the movie does well to depict the book and it's aspects.

I actually thought that some of the Harry Potter movies were a bit better than the books. I hated the whole Elf Liberation Front junk in Order of the Phoenix and was so glad that got left out in the movie. Granted, every time they animated the elf in to the movie it was a million dollars, so the less seen of them the better for the movie...

I think that there are lots of books which are turned into films and the films turn out to be a little bit disappointing. But the thing is, one of the most amazing things about books is the description used by the author in order to create a picture for the reader. If they are not present, which of course they can't be in films, then there is no way that the film would be able to be quite as exciting for the viewers as the book had been for the readers. I always think that you should read the books of films that you enjoyed, as you might find that they're even better.

Books and movies never come together. Books are meant to be thick and there's a need for the suspense to build up, whereas movies can't afford to do so as it's expensive to produce one. Writing is much easier to express the writer's thoughts than having actors who can't express themselves in the right way. I would choose book over movies. What's more, movies are often incomplete due to cutting and editting, which is not the same as the actual book.

Oh yes, i have read all he 3 books of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It was nice to be able to read them all , before seeing the two other movies. At least, i understand well, the circumstances of the events and the names and backgrounder of each character. Also, i have read the Pelican Brief, though after the movie. I think , with the book you really can understand what really happened.

hi, actually i still dont have any books that iread then watch in movie,i am more on watching of movies rather than reading of it because i will more feel the story when i have seen actions and movements.

yes! in my case it was new moon i was reading the book before i have watched the movie. the book scenes were really romantic but the ones in the movie was not showed well there were revisions and it is so disappointing if they would revise it then they could have done a better revision. i was expecting much from the film because the book was so good. but anyway that was just my experience maybe the set up is too good to be true set up that they cannot make it or the setting is just too expensive that they cannot afford it. anyway the book is thick and they have to summarize what was written to place all the good things in one movie so i also feel for the directors,writers and producers anyway.. lol!

I feel the Twilight series as well as the book "PS I Love You" was much better than their movie counterparts. These are the stories that involve a lot of thoughts and feelings in them. It is not easy to fully portray the characters thoughts and emotions on screen. Actors also require a lot of talent and experience to be able to properly convey them.

Sometimes it's fun to watch the movie after reading the book but the movie doesn't always live up to expectations. The main problem is that they just can't put all the details that are in a book into a movie. If they did, it would be like 12 hours long. You also get much more insight into the characters in the book. The author tells you much more detail about what kind of person they are and what motivates them. You know what they are thinking. In a movie, it's up to the viewer to just assume a lot by how the character is portrayed by the actor at any given moment. The thing I hate though is when they make major changes in the story, especially if I really liked the book and I expected to see what happened in the book on the silver screen. If the story takes a different turn, I'm usually disappointed. I mean, maybe the movie is okay for what it is, but it's just not the same story at that point. It's a new story separate from the book and I consider the book to be the real story. Sometimes they even omit major characters or they change the substantially. It's just not the same. I've done it the other way around too by seeing the movie first and then reading the book. It's really great to read the extra detail and understand more about the "behind the scenes" type of stuff. Overall, when it comes to movies made from books, I guess I would have to say that I enjoy both, but the book usually gets my vote.

I think that however many high technology effects they put in movies, it would always fail when compared to the book. When a reader gets engaged in a story, he or she uses her imagination and feelings. And these things would be always be different for different people. Plus of course there is a preconcieved expectation when a book is read before the movie.

Yeah, I have read lots of situations like that..in reviews of movies.. I seldom read the books though and just check out the movie, since I may become like you, who is disappointed with what the movie is like.. I always hear this abut Harry Potter series though, the movie is too short to cover the entire book so some good parts are left..

I know that it`s better to read a book,but I like to watch a movie..The movies based on a book are very interesting and you can watch them for 2 hours..it will take at least 1 day to read the book..The movies helps me to imagine the facts in the movie...So if I have to read a book and there is a movie based on it i`ll watch the movie..

It happened to me a lot of times. The newest examples of great books which was turned in bad movies were The Lord of the Rings and Percy Jackson. They changed a lot the original story! As you said, I think it is imposssible to do a movie exactly as the book, but sometimes they change the too much and it becames no more an adaptation, but a new way to tell the story, for me. Sometimes I do the inverse way: I saw a movie to decide if I buy or not a book. Did you do that too? HAppy mylotting.