movies or books?

can anyone think of a movie that is better than the book?

 

nope. thers one simple reason why.

The ability to create images internally is a function unique to human conscioussness and if not nurtured will die out someday. Television is the death of imagination. Please discuss in parenting forum if you are concerned about your childrens TV habits. Thanks.

 

i've never read the 'fight club' book but the film is a real killer...........hmm

 

There's only one that comes to my mind: Lord of the rings. The book was so boring I couldn't even finish it coz I kept falling asleep every time I tried to read it. I liked the movies though. Other than that, I've never seen a movie I'd prefer over the book.

 

The Fight Club book was better, more indepth.

 

I can't think of any but that is probaly because when it's a book it is the straight art but after big budget producers, directors, and screenwriters toy with it, it gets lost. If the original author was the one doing all the work it would probaly be alot better. I would say Green Mile but the movie and books are totaly different. If you include comics Spider-man.

 

yeah, i liked the book "fight club" better, but the movie is a "killer" too...def read the book...great adaptation

 

I generally prefer books to the movie adaptations. However, when I read the first Harry Potter book, I wasn't overly impressed. The movie version was awesome. It prompted me to take another look at and read the rest of the series. They're really good and keep getting better.

I have to admit to having some difficulty with LOTR myself. I listened to the unabridged books on tape. They were really good, but at times hard to keep up with because of the sheer volume of characters, places and whatnot. I really did love the movie versions, and agreed with some of the alterations made in them, but, I'd still have to stick to the actual books as liking them better (even though they were tough!). There were some really beautiful moments in the books that never made it to the screen (even in the extended versions) that were priceless.

 

LOTR was made exceptionally well and I applaud Peter Jackson and the whole crew for really bringing that book to life, but the thing is, I get disappointed when I see movies that I've read and what I see while I'm reading the book doesn't come up on the screen. It's complicated, but books are always and will always be better.

 

For the most part, I agree with you. A funny thing happened to me when I read Jurassic Park years ago. I'd seen the movie first, and then read the book. While I was reading the book, the imagery was so vivid that I'd swear I saw those scenes in the movie. And then when I went to watch it again I was like, hey! Where's the boat scene? :& Ooops.

 

that's the same effect for me with LOTR's...i loved the books more though and was totally consumed by them for weeks..I was so sad when the journey was over that when i found out there were movies a comin' i was stoked!!! the imagery is so startling

 

The rapport with Sean Astin and Elijah Wood was so cool. The looks Sam would give Frodo when Frodo would start to get wiggy, that uber hurt expression, tore my heart out. Sam is my favorite character from those books and he was played really well in the movies.

 

LOTR, the movies put me to sleep... The books, I don't really remember, I read them when I was 10. But, I imagine, now they would put me to sleep... LOL

I have yet to find a movie that is better than the book, but then I'm not a big movie buff, so I really don't watch a lot of them. However, tonight when my bf and I were at the movies, we saw a preview for the movie: The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I had no idea they were making it a movie and I definitely have to see it...

 

John Huston's movie 'MOBY DICK' really brought to life Melvile's often tedious yet famous book of the same title.

Nabokov's writing style feels odd to me, but Kubrick's movie of Nabokov's 'LOLITA' with the great Peter Sellers and Shelly Winters was an excellent dark comedy.

'Starship Trooper' the movie was different enough from Hienlien's book that the movie created that great Fox-News parody. Hienlien however, being a Neo-Nietzschean, was unable to make out the parody, because he saw no problem in journalists presenting subjective opinion as objective facts.

 

They're two different things with the different aspects of imagination.

 

I cannot possibly see this. Nabokov is an amazing writer. He is one of the best character developers, and one of the funniest and wittiest writers out there.

 

Nabokov is usually found on the top 5 list of great writers in english in the 20th century.

Being an immigrant himself, may explain why his main character seems so inadequate; alienated within his own skin.

Which is why being raised in the inner city, ones' first instict is simply to punch the punk out , and just take the girl.

That means that, while I might have patience for a movie version, I got no patience for a long Nabokov book.

 

It does make sense. I am Russian by birth though, and his books in Russian are amazing... much better than the translations... that is probebly why I hold him so highly.

 

Autumn - i really want to read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy...ive hearda lot about it and also heard there will be a movie...ill have to read the book first, otherwise the imagery is replaced by the movie...

 

'Master and Commander' was in my opinion a better film than it was a book.


I love the freedom of the seas, and all seafaring stories, but Patrick O'brian falls off course in his exhaustingly desperate effort at character development.

However, the movie's effort at character development was far more simple, more to the point, and in the end, more effective.

Patrick suffers from the knowledge that most adventure writers are inadequate at character developement.
While most adventure writers are smart enough to write within their own limitations, Patrick, unfortunately, ruins the rythm of his stories in his desperate and futile attempt to overcome his character inadequacies.