Books turned into movies (2 Viewers)

[bazookajoe]

I got so annoyed that Jack Nicholson was cast as McMurphy because he didn't fit the physical description that the author has gone to pains to express... haven't actually seen the movie though, so I can't say anything else about it.

Yeah agreed with my first thought of the casting. I think the most obvious difference is the red hair that Nicholson lacks. But once you see the movie, you'll see why Nicholson was cast as he was brilliant in the role.

 

[modelzsuck]

I have never seen a movie that was better than the book, I liked A walk to remember as a movie but the book was definately betta.

 

[bazookajoe]

You seen Shawshank Redemption? I thought that was better than the book.

 

[Jumbo Cactuar]

You seen Shawshank Redemption? I thought that was better than the book.

I liked that movie, but I guess I'll skip on the book then.

 

[Grobus]

Sometimes films are better than the books though.

I thought Fight Club as a book sucked, but the movie was much better.

Same with Seven Pillars of Wisdom/Lawrence of Arabia, Chopper/the numerous books it was based on and a few others.

 

[Benny_]

Wasn't the book Fight Club based on the movie though?

 

[Grobus]

No. The book was released very close to the movie, but it was written long before.

 

[bazookajoe]

Aah yes, another one. I also believe Fight Club the movie was better than the book, and I read the book first as well. The book was published in 1996, and the movie was produced in 1999.

 

[something_funny]

i think books that are real dramatic are always better as books but the ones that are a little comical are better as films because they can use physical humour.

Bridget Jone's Diary is a great example of that

 

[Mr_Shrimp]

books and film are two totally different mediums that really can't be compared so simply. Of course they have to cut things from books for the movies, they are movies, not accurate representations. Books are aimed at a somewhat different audience than many films. I'd say that there are some great 'book to movie' films but they will never be the same as the books, it's impossible. You just have to go and watch the movie, forgetting you've read the book. Forget all the characters and the story and let the movie make it's own characters and plot . you'll enjoy the movie much more if you arent constantly saying "hey, that's not what happened! first they went to xxx and did yyy, THEN they went there and did zzz".......

 

[INXS]

A Clockwork Orange, Pride and Prejudice.

 

[cholly]

they totally destroyed harry potter in movies, especially prisoner of azkaban, i mean, how the hell could they get away with leaving out the whole moony/padfoot/wormtail/prongs explanation???

 

[hipsta_jess]

I usually prefer books, because then the author can really convey the thoughts and emotions of the characters, whereas films you're usually just seeing what is going on at a very surface level, you rely on characters speaking for you to know what they're thinking.

 

[green_fairy]

they totally destroyed harry potter in movies, especially prisoner of azkaban, i mean, how the hell could they get away with leaving out the whole moony/padfoot/wormtail/prongs explanation???

I so agree. I really liked the book but when i saw the movie i was like wtf. Killed it.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

the harry potter movies are a prime example of how NOT to adapt a book to film...all the movies so far have been pretty bad. of course they cant possibly include everything, but i just think the way they are made takes so much away from the book. virtually nothing in the movies is how i imagined it when i read the novels, which i guess could only be expected but it kinda ruined it for me.
having said that, some books do make good movies. i think classics like pride and prejudice, emma etc for example make very good films, and like someone else said, funny novels like bridget jones diary sort of lend themselves to the physical humour that can be used in film. but for the most part, i steer clear of film adaptations unless i either really love the book, or i havent read it at all.

 

[jhakka]

the shining and misery were indeed the only 2 of the hundred stephen king movies better than the book

You're joking! The Jack Nicholson version of The Shining was awful.

99% of books are better than their film adaptations.

 

[TaEkWoNdObArBiE]

Movies are very rarely better than the books they were based on. A few examples I can think of off the top of my head are:

Million Dollar Baby
The Shawshank Redemption
The Shining
Misery
Schindler's List
Dr Strangelove

Was the Shawshank redemption a book? We watched it in P.E last year. I loved it!

 

[kimi]

Movies tend to leave so many important parts of a book out- and the only way the movie will actually make sense is if you've actually read the book. Like Harry Potter- it cut so many things and it totally ruined my perceptions that i had whilst reading the books. Thats why i like reading books rather than watching the film cos they're much more meaningful and there are many more things taken into consideration such as characterisation, imagery, thematic concerns, etc.

One of my friend luvs to watches these kind of movies adaptations cos then he can go and tell people that hes read the book to make himself sound intelliegnt..lol!

 

[jhakka]

Was the Shawshank redemption a book? We watched it in P.E last year. I loved it!

It was a Stephen King one.

 

[happy cup]

I saw War of the worlds today and I think the book would be a very interesting read.
I think books are better because they can fit so much more in them that's why I always watch the movie before reading the book so it's easier to picture what's happening when I go to read the book version.