Topic: The book was better . . . | |
---|---|
Edited by
ThomasJB
on
Wed 03/11/09 04:32 PM
|
|
I have seen many movies based from novels that just sucked, but the book was great. One of the best examples I can think of is Queen of the Damned. What are everyone else's experiences?
|
|
|
|
The books are always better.
Except for PS I Love You. I actually liked the movie better. |
|
|
|
DaVinci Code. Book was way better than the movie.
|
|
|
|
In general, I enjoy the books more than the movies.
|
|
|
|
Bridges Of Madison County
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Filmfreek
on
Wed 03/11/09 04:45 PM
|
|
Most of Stephen Kings book to films (with the exception of Shawshank Redemption)
Midnight Meat Train The Great and Secret Show (the film was retitled as Lord of Illusions...which Clive Barker also wrote and directed) but I enjoyed the book much better. Into The Wild Watchmen Helter Skelter |
|
|
|
Most of Stephen Kings book to films (with the exception of Shawshank Redemption) Midnight Meat Train The Great and Secret Show (the film was retitled as Lord of Illusions...which Clive Barker also wrote and directed) but I enjoyed the book much better. Into The Wild Watchmen Helter Skelter Hearts In Atlantis only used the first half of the book. |
|
|
|
*Sighs* It's simple. Books are almost always better because there is more time for character and plot development.
|
|
|
|
*Sighs* It's simple. Books are almost always better because there is more time for character and plot development. very true... |
|
|
|
The Hunt for Red October is the first one that comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
Louis L'Amour's western novel, "Conagher", was much better than the movie. Actually, so was "Hondo".
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, The books are always better than the novels...the novel allows you to put yourself into the story, rather than being forced to look at every single detail as another wrote it, such as in the movies. :)
|
|
|
|
LOTR
The Bourne books were a completely different story than the movies Total Recall is one that the movie was better than the story |
|
|