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

veryangryman · 11-03-2010 08:50PM #1

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 · 11-03-2010 08:52PM

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

gagiteebo · 11-03-2010 08:54PM

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 · 11-03-2010 08:54PM

books are always better for me anyway.

krudler · 11-03-2010 08:59PM

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 · 11-03-2010 08:59PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:00PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:00PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:00PM

LOTR

Books>films

Golden Compass (and dodgy title conversion)

Book>film

they come immediatly to mind

MaybeLogic · 11-03-2010 09:01PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:03PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:03PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:04PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:04PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:09PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:14PM

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

You should have it checked out as soon as possible.

Biggins · 11-03-2010 09:22PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:32PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:32PM

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 · 11-03-2010 09:37PM

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! · 11-03-2010 09:47PM

I'm with ya op.

Biggins · 11-03-2010 09:48PM

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.

11-03-2010 09:56PM

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 · 11-03-2010 10:00PM

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 · 11-03-2010 10:06PM

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 · 11-03-2010 10:08PM

Books always top the movie for me.

nlgbbbblth · 11-03-2010 10:14PM

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 · 11-03-2010 10:21PM

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 · 11-03-2010 10:27PM

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 · 11-03-2010 10:41PM

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

citizen_p · 11-03-2010 10:48PM

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

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

Comments