Dispelling the myth that you should "read the book first"

veryangryman

What a load of horse-doody

Im sorry, but there is no way i have ever enjoyed a book more than the equivalent movie. Not unless the move was awful.

Am i the only one out there?

MaybeLogic

I'm the opposite, in general.
The movie can't touch a good book.

gagiteebo

Hmm I don't know about that In rare cases I have found the film to be better but usually the books are way better!

The Harry Potter series are fantastic but the films didn't live up to them at all. More recently 'The Lovely Bones' was a great book but I didn't think much of the film. They're 2 examples off the top of my head.....

Maybe others disagree but that's just my opinion

we'llallhavetea_old

books are always better for me anyway.

krudler

There are a few better movie than book exceptions

The godfather: awful book, classic movie
Jaws: same

I like to think of one or the other as a companion piece, although reading the book you make up a persons appearance in your own head given what info you get from their descriptions, but after seeing the movie its al most impossible to read the book again without a picture of the actor as the character, has anyone read LOTR after seeing the movies and NOT thought of Ian McKellen as Gandalf?

ChocolateSauce

A great film can pay a great tribute to a great book, but never can it be better.

Except Lord of the Rings.

Formal shorts

How is it a myth? It's merely a recommendation, one that is not always applicable.

I do enjoy books far more than movies though.

Risteard

I've always preferred books. I wish I'd never seen LOTR now, because I know that if I read the book, it won't be as good as it could have been.

Cookie_Monster

LOTR

Books>films

Golden Compass (and dodgy title conversion)

Book>film

they come immediatly to mind

MaybeLogic

krudler wrote: »

after seeing the movie its al most impossible to read the book again without a picture of the actor as the character, has anyone read LOTR after seeing the movies and NOT thought of Ian McKellen as Gandalf?

Whenever i read 'the Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius, I always have the voice of Richard Harris booming in my head. :pac:

Biggins

veryangryman wrote: »

What a load of horse-doody
Im sorry, but there is no way i have ever enjoyed a book more than the equivalent movie. Not unless the move was awful.
Am i the only one out there?

You obviously haven't read "The Firm" then.
The film - Utter rubbish that half way thru goes completely off in another direction and turns into American dumbed down tripe of a daft plot-line.

Dudess

Depends on the individual's preference I suppose. I think the medium of film can do stuff the written word can't, and vice versa of course.
Nineteen Eighty Four the movie (with John Hurt) made me cry, the book just left me shellshocked and cold.

Sea Sharp

The book is 99% of the time better.

Similarly with computer games, I preferred it when you just had to read the subtitles. Final Fantasy 10 was bad because of the whiny ponsey American voices.

GLaDOS

Saw the movie IT there recently, disasterous, ended up rereading the book it annoyed me that much

Similarly with computer games, I preferred it when you just had to read the subtitles. Final Fantasy 10 was bad because of the whiny ponsey American voices.

Agreed, I loved in previous FF when you could let their personality form without crappy voicing

fontanalis

I think it depends on the book; take LA Confidential, an amazing film with a good complicated storyline but the book made it look like an episode of Murder She Wrote.

lizardfudge

There's a good chance that you might be suffering from 'NO IMAGINATION'

You should have it checked out as soon as possible.

Biggins

Read "The Runaway Jury" by John Grisham then watch the film.

Then come and say the film was better.
Hell of a difference in quality. The book being much better, serious, funnier and suspenceful in many more parts.

bonerm

I find reading fiction generally boring and certainly cannot enjoy it as much as the movie.

That said tho I find most movies boring too and would be happier reading an encyclopedia or a reference book.

Stephentlig

veryangryman wrote: »

What a load of horse-doody

Im sorry, but there is no way i have ever enjoyed a book more than the equivalent movie. Not unless the move was awful.

Am i the only one out there?

I find I can enjoy both, it depends on ones disposition and preference of course, a book contains the info and gives more of a description of whats going on which leads one to use their own imagination and create their own movie. where as when we watch the movie itself its like we are watching someone elses image of what they saw in the book rather than our own.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Andy-Pandy

The road is the first one that springs to mind. Even great films, like let the right one in for example, dont live up to the books. Books take time, they give you more to time to reflect and think about what is going on. They take more imagination, you have to picture the scenes in your own head.

Ohh, the lovely bones as well.

Fago!

I'm with ya op.

Biggins

Try reading "Mission" by Patrick Tilley.
Absolutely brilliant book.
(Re-read by myself many times)

Then when your finished, try imaginging it as a shortened dumbed down version for the screen.
I shudder at the thought.

I like that books are individual. Your vision/image of someone/thing is never going to be exactly the same as anyone elses. How you read a book is unique to you.

4zn76tysfajdxp

I don't understand why you would want to make the comparison. The film of a book should be good on it's own merits, not compared to the novel and vice versa.

Pompey Magnus

I dunno, I remember reading one book, it had way too much filler, the character development was virtally non existent, and the later plot was internally inconsistent with earlier parts. An awfully written book to be honest.

Then Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ came out from it, much more entertaining in my opinion.

MickShamrock

Books always top the movie for me.

nlgbbbblth

Books usually beat the films for me - but not always.

Some people say

"Once you've seen the film, there's no need to read the book"

b*llocks, I say.

LenaClaire

I would say that usually the book is way better than the movie. The problem with turning a book into a movie is that you have to take so much inner dialogue and explain it to people. And a lot of the time they change the book so much they might as well not even pretend they are related.

For example in all three of My sisters Keeper, The count of monte cristo, The Bourne Identity series they start the same as the book and then it is like someone hit the characters over the head and dragged them into a different story. Very annoying :mad:

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Forrest Gump book is fantastic! Much more far fetched than the film (and the fil was fairly farfetched) but in a highly entertaining way.

The only thing it was missing was the soundtrack

Helix

im all for watching the movie first then reading the book, coz the book is always superior

citizen_p

im not really a book person, not enough time...

Biggins

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I dunno, I remember reading one book, it had way too much filler, the character development was virtally non existent, and the later plot was internally inconsistent with earlier parts. An awfully written book to be honest.

Then Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ came out from it, much more entertaining in my opinion.

Baa... re-makes! I prefer the Cecil B. De Mile earlier version.

the keen edge

Yeah I'd have to agree with the OP. Take for instances two of my favourite movie's; Asian Gangbang Bitches 4 and Relax he's my Stepdad, both excellent on the small screen,............ both sh*te books.:)

TheIrishGrover

veryangryman wrote: »

What a load of horse-doody

Im sorry, but there is no way i have ever enjoyed a book more than the equivalent movie. Not unless the move was awful.

Am i the only one out there?

You're entitled to your opinion of course and it's neither right or wrong because it's an opinion. But d'you mind telling us what books you have read that drew you to this conclusion?

I much prefer books to the films. His Dark Materials are some of my favourite books with some of the best writing I have ever read but the film was pretty bland.

BUT Bladerunner was much better than the book Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep (IMO of course )

TheIrishGrover

the keen edge wrote: »

Yeah I'd have to agree with the OP. Take for instances two of my favourite movie's; Asian Gangbang Bitches 4 and Relax he's my Stepdad, both excellent on the small screen,............ both ****e books.:)

Dunno..... Couldn't open the second hand copies you leant me

Dudess

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

BUT Bladerunner was much better than the book Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep (IMO of course )

Prefer the book for the story, but the film obviously has those incredible visuals.

Biggins

"Dune" by Frank Herbert.
World class recognised book.
(Many decades alone ahead in its ecological message)

The film? - sucked so bad, they dropped all ideas of making the rest of the books in the series.

Dudess

Probably my favourite book of all time is The Handmaid's Tale. The sh1teness of the film is saddening...

the keen edge

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Dunno..... Couldn't open the second hand copies you leant me

Well I only said they were sh*te, I must admit though I found the texture of the binding mildly arousing! As you may tell I'am a desperate man.

OutlawPete

Bad Book will never make a Good Film but a Good Film can make a Bad Book.

No wait .. I fcuked that up.

Good Films can't come from Bad Books but a Bad Book ... wtf!!

Wait, Good Books can make Bad Films but Bad Books will never make a Good Film?

Stephen King's book, Different Seasons was a great collection of four short stories that made two classic movies, Shawshank and Stand By Me.

Fantastic read and fantastic films.

Apt Pupil is is a far better read that the film is a watch though.

cashback

The most obvious example for me is The Beach. Watched the film years ago and while I thought it was ok, it didn't leave a huge impression. Then I got around to reading the novel while travelling last year and I absolutely loved it, the film is toothless in comparison.

jonnybadd

The book will always beat the film hands down I think, and at best the film will be more of a companion piece rather than a true adaption.

The only exception to this would be if a film is based on a short story, such thats already been discussed, like Shawshank etc

GLaDOS

For me, books are simply a better medium than films. You get so much more involved and makes you think about it a lot more.

Exception to this might be comedies, but even then, the likes of Terry Pratchett has you laughing the whole time.

General Zod

I don't know, there are certain nuances that the filmed version of "Anal Angel" managed to display that the written version didn't quite manage.

gonnaplayrugby

losers prefer books.

gonnaplayrugby

ScienceNerd wrote: »

For me, books are simply a better medium than films. You get so much more involved and makes you think about it a lot more.

Exception to this might be comedies, but even then, the likes of Terry Pratchett has you laughing the whole time.

you a bohs fan man so your not a loser but i disagree completely.

General Zod

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

losers prefer books.

You're still living at home, aren't you?

cashback

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

losers prefer books.

A considered judgement, to be sure.

Dudess

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

you a bohs fan man so your not a loser but i disagree completely.

:eek:

You support a Northside team?

gonnaplayrugby

how can a book possible beat the visual?

gonnaplayrugby

Dudess wrote: »

:eek:

You support a Northside team?

they're a dublin team and they were founded by trinity students(even tho im going to ucd next year :cool:)