+Doc+

that is better than the book it's based on?

I am legend
Jurrasic Park
Fight Club
Angels & Demons
Da Vinci code

None of them a patch on the books.

EddScott

I think its because a book demands you use your own imagination to set the scene. As you have a vision of what the scene looks like, when you see that scene from the interpretation of the director, your not always in agreement with how the scene should look.

Not quite the same but there are certain scenes in Watchmen which mimic the graphic novel to a tee. This I really liked, others said well whats the point as its already in the graphic novel. To me the film gives a moving image to the pictures in the book.

Nimbus

It's not just that you need to use your imagination when reading a book. The book also (usually) has much more depth and has a longer story line than a film. There's so much more you can have in a book that would not work in a film. You also need to account for the fact that books are much less expensive to produce than films, so to a certain extent to not need to be "watered down" to make it appealing to a mass market.

sarasquares

iTrader: (1)

I newer watch the film if i have read the book as i know i would be disappointed

Coffin Dodger

I just watch the film, save me having to read the book then

SJ_Skyline

I preferred the film of Jaws to the book but that's about the only one I can think of.

jonc

Lord of the Rings. Film was excellent, the book too bloody long winded!

Jamescsti

Should read the Bourne books then you will wonder what the film is actually on about, especially the later books, no resembelance to the films what so ever

ronjeramy

iTrader: (1)

So was the bloody films

bigsinky

What!!!!!!!!!!! film missed some great pieces in the book

fitzscoob

Agree, there were loads of good parts missed out of the films. I recently bought the directors cut of the trilogy, it added something like 30 - 40 minutes per film - even then they still missed loads.

Having said that, my ex gf read the books once and after about 10 pages I asked her how she was getting on. She looked at me and said, "so far all they have done is walk"

bigsinky

yes tom bombadil, fight with the barrow wights. as for 10 pages, they really don't start until chapter 3 "three is company" when Frodo moves to his new house in Buckland.

Sorry, I am being a pedant

Geezer

The film is what the books should have been (and yes, I have read them all, in all their drudgery...)

The bit about Tom Bombadil and the barrow whites is utterly irrelevant to the story, I'm not surprised they left it out.

Tolkein came up with a great story, shame he was such a poor writer.

Geezer

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

Running Man originally by Richard Bachman (Stephen King) was sooooooo much better than the movie.

hodgy0_2

yep Bourne Identity is a good one

book not as good as the film

as for LOTR great book great films -- when I saw the films I could not believe how close Jackson came to matching my imagination -- the Balrog scene was spookily how I had imagined it

Lydia72

Not better than but perhaps equal to - The Godfather, love the book and the (first two) films.

Devildog

You can read?

Lee247

The only Stephen King book I did not enjoy was Misery. The film was fantastic.

hux309

Id say the closest adaptation for me was silence of the lambs, was rather eerie having the film follow the book so closely.

bigsinky

that's why his LOTR was voted book of the century

Bubba po

I thought Blade Runner was an excellent adaptation of a superb book. The only things the film could have done better would have been to reference PKD's idea of the cultural pressure for people to look after an animal, as most creatures had died, and how it related to their status; I thought it was brilliant in the book how Deckard was ashamed of his electric sheep which he had to look after to "keep up appearances"; the need to buy an extremely expensive real animal to look after was his motivation for taking on the bounty hunting of the replicants. It didn't explore quite as thoroughly what it means to be human, either - Dick envisaged a certain type of real human being with abnormalities of personality, being indistinguishable from a replicant when tested. Dick was obsessed with the blurring of distinctions between "real" and "not real", and was the central theme of the story.

MJW

I think Randall sums it up quite well in this video clip :

Click here

[Warning - contains naughty words]

lovinmescoob

The Watchers - Dean R Koontz, book was brilliant, film version was a load of sh**e.

Imagination is a brilliant thing!!!!!

thesyn

I read Philip K Dick's " Do androids dream of electric sheep" as a teenager and to be honest had no idea it was the basis for Bladerunner when I first watched it.
Still a great film although lacks the darkness and bleakness of the short story. I haven't bothered with the directors version but the Hollywood need for a happy ending did detract

+Doc+

This is one problem with a lot of adaptation imo, they always want to ruin it by making it happy in the end.
I am legend was like that, the book was more meaningful than the all American hero rubbish the film portrayed.

john_s

iTrader: (1)

Trainspotting... got about 10 pages into the book, and CBA set in; it was just too much like hard work trying to read it. I think it's the only book I've ever started and not finished.

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

The Stand by Stephen King, read it years ago, then a couple of years ago watched the mini series. I had forgotten I had read the book, until near the end of the series when I kept getting a feeling of deja-vu. It actually meant the mini series was great to watch.

Similarly reading the Horatio Hornblower and Sharpe books, then watching the mini series on TV. I tend to forget the specifics and they turn out to be a great watch - kind of adds flesh to the memory.

Massively popular films to books (or books to films) where I read or watch one right after the other, I tend to find more disappointing. I remember most of the specifics that were in the books and not in the films, and invariably a passage that I thought was great and would have been brilliant on film, was missing.

Jerome

Sometimes it's better to see the film first or never read the book at all.

I read the book Alive about a plane crash in the Andes where the survivors had to resort to cannibalism to survive.

I then watched the film which missed out so much that it was almost infuriating.

As for LOTR, I endured the first film and, after wasting what seemed like a billion hours watching it, almost nothing had happened yet. The directors cut must be total torture.

If the books are even more long winded, I'm glad I've never attempted to read them. Maybe if I develop chronic insomnia or something I'll give them a shot.