Ever Liked the Movie Better, O Fellow Bookworm?

[NadineTimes10]

Otherwise, 90% of the time I can only watch movies that were made from a book I read at home so I can yell at it. Alone, of course, because my family members prefer to watch the movie rather than listen to me moan about every little detail they got wrong.

All kinds of funny!

Oh--and if you happen to be talking about the movie version of Pride and Prejudice with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, I, for one, am not mad. I wouldn't say that I like the movie version better than the novel, but I have such respect for that 1995 BBC miniseries. It's on my list of all-time favorite films.

And if that's not the movie version you're talking about, I don't know what to tell ya'.

[lilulock3]

I have to agree, 'The Notebook'. I'm not a fan of Nicholas Sparks' narrative tbh...

[orangehornet57]

How about the two movies based on Charlie and The Chocolate Factory? The director of the first movie wrote a book called Pure Imagination. He noted many of the changes made from the book. Charlie sometimes had racial conotations. Since Willy Wonka was the main character, why not name the film after him? Mr. Bucket got killed off in the movie. We didn't see what happened to the other 4 children. The ending was very different from the book. Rumor has it that the author was so angry over the movie that he refused to allow one of his sequel.

The second movie was much darker. In some ways it followed the book more closely. Charlie's father was still alive. We saw what happened to the other children. Some parts from the second book got included. But the part about Willy Wonka's dentist father wasn't in either book. Who else still prefers the first movie?

[TheMusicalMuse]

I have to echo everyone else on The Princess Bride theme. I need to get my hands on the book Cary Elwes recently wrote about it..."As You Wish"?

Someone said "Forrest Gump", and I agree with that too.

My submission is "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas". The book was haunting in its innocent since it's told from the perspective of the young boy. The movie, however, has the power to portray the true horror, especially at the end (sorry, no spoilers). I ugly cried for half an hour after watching the movie.

I know there are a couple of others, but they aren't coming to mind right now.

[orangehornet57]

Here's a lighter example from nonfiction. Jeff Foxworthy's autobiography, "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Problem," had several sections about his father. They called him Big Jim. It was hard not to think of G. W. Bailey. He played Big Jim in the second season of Foxworthy's sitcom. Others may remember Bailey's work as Rizzo on MASH. Younger viewers will know him from The Closer.

[abauermeister]

I can honestly say there are less than 5 movies I have seen in the course of my life that have surpassed their book counterparts. I won't go into all the details of those rare cinematic masterpieces, but instead I'll focus on the one that surprised me most. I devoured the entire Hunger Games series within a week after purchasing the first book, and I love the world Suzanne Collins created. However, I became increasingly disappointed as the series went on, and literally threw my copy of Mockingjay when I reached the conclusion. I went to see Catching Fire in theaters with minimal expectations as I am always disappointed by movies inspired by books. I could not tear my eyes away from the screen for that entire film. It was masterfully done, and captured all the things I had loved about the book in addition to fixing those things that had most irritated me. I can honestly say I don't believe this phenomenon will happen again in my book-loving lifetime.

[craftyreader]

I usually prefer the book over the movies. Seems like the book gives me something that I don't get from movies. Also, once I've read a book, I picture characters in my mind and sometimes casting in movies just will not match what I had in my mind. If I see a movie before I read the book version, it sort of ruins the book for me and I find myself saying the book is nothing like the movie.

[Tumi91]

One becomes critical of the movie after reading the book. But do not that the target audience for the movie and that of the book is quite different. I prefer not watching the movie of a published book because I know I will not critique the quality of the movie for the movie, but the quality of the movie for the book. Avid readers spoil their experience of the read when they have viewed the movie, they forget what they took from the book.

Do not spoil your reading experience with a movie experience.

[NadineTimes10]

One becomes critical of the movie after reading the book. But do not that the target audience for the movie and that of the book is quite different. I prefer not watching the movie of a published book because I know I will not critique the quality of the movie for the movie, but the quality of the movie for the book. Avid readers spoil their experience of the read when they have viewed the movie, they forget what they took from the book.

Do not spoil your reading experience with a movie experience.

Yes, a good point! The target audience for the movie often does differ from that of the book.

I'm avid on both sides, being both a bibliophile and a cinephile. Most times, one experience doesn't ruin the other for me, as they're just two different experiences--kind of like my love of strawberries doesn't ruin my love of strawberry ice cream. One is based on the other, changes are made, they're reminiscent of each other but don't taste the same, and yet I find them both satisfying in different ways.

Or maybe it's kind of like a woman loving her son as much as she loves her son's father. The younger man is "based" on the older, they're reminiscent of each other but not the same, and yet the woman loves both men with all her heart, just in different ways.

Might not be the most perfect examples, but that's how it is for me at least, loving both forms of art.

[Tumi91]

A wonder comparison. Very true. Tastes differ according to format. Some readers base their critique on the movie after they have read the book. There have been numerous books that have been converted to a motion picture that really do encompass the components of its literary reference.

Remember what you read and enjoy the cinema experience.

[Max Tyrone]

I'm not sure if anyone has either read or seen the adaptation to Kaui Hart Hemmings' "The Descendants". I find the movie a lot better than the book, even though the novel is written well. Maybe it's the cinematography (which gets me since I'm also in love with movies). Maybe it's George Clooney. Either way, the film has become one of my favorites. The book, not so much.

I'm also interested in seeing the difference between film and novel with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Rebecca". I saw both movies before I knew they were novels. (I know, I know.) Any opinions on the differences?

[Tumi91]

I have only read To Kill a Mockingbird and Rebecca, but never seen the screen play. Max I have read The Descendants a great novel, I look forward to watching the movie, if it is as good as you say it is.

[Max Tyrone]

I have only read To Kill a Mockingbird and Rebecca, but never seen the screen play. Max I have read The Descendants a great novel, I look forward to watching the movie, if it is as good as you say it is.

Of course, this is my opinion. I read the novel after watching the movie; and while I read the novel, I said to myself, "Manowar?" seeing as there was no reference to the sea creature in the movie. There will be lapses between film and novel, like any adaptation, but the bread-n-butter of the movie is in the cinematography--for me. Hemmings did well with the plot enough for me to still have an immense respect for both avenues. Enjoy the movie

Also, I guess to add to the general topic, I have a hard time choosing between film and novel in the case of Cormac McCarthy's "No Country For Old Men". I love both book and movie. The Coen Bros. did a stupendous job (obviously, since they've earned the Academy Award for best picture). And McCarthy is one of my favorite authors.

[mluthe1]

Stephen King's The Mist: While the novella as a whole is slightly better than the movie, the drastic differences in endings is night and day. This is one of the few movies that is pushed above it's mediocrity solely by the ending. Without giving away any spoilers, the ending to the novella was really amateurish, especially for a titian like King. It falls into the easy trap of never really ending. The movie adaptation however, is perfection. Reminds me of something out of one of Shakespeare's plays.

[britt1125]

This is going to sound horrible and don't get me wrong I LOVE Stephen King, but I'd rather watch his movies. It just takes so long to get to the good parts of the books. I know the information he puts in the beginning of the books is important to understand the rest of the novel, but it's just so hard to drag myself through it. I've read a few of his novels and for the most part they are better than the movies but at least the movies don't drag on and on before you get to the 'good stuff'. Just my opinion.