WAIT, WHAT?! The book wasn't as good as the movie?!
 

(I was unsure as to whether this thread belonged in Books or Media~ feel free to move if needed)

Just recently I finished both "A Walk to Remember" and "The Notebook" by Nicholas Sparks after viewing the movies. I fell in love with the characters on screen, and expected the books to bring even more dimension to them. But I was terribly disappointed after finishing the novels, I thought the movie adaptations did a MUCH better job with the story and portraying the characters (surprising!).
Granted, I'm not a huge romance reader, but even I could tell that the characters were as flat as they came. The books were even sappier than the movies and the writing turned out to be pretty mediocre.
[/end rant]

Ever had the experience of diving into a book after watching the movie, only to end up disappointed?
Discuss it here~

haha - I've never been able to slog through the LOTR series - I always get 1/2 through the 1st book and forget the whole thing

the movies were amazing tho

aw! LoTR is an amazing book.

i can't get used to you people who've only ever thought of it as 3 books, it was only ever printed as 1 originally.
i've owned a copy for nearly 20 years, and have read it over and over again, i can open it anywhere and be lost in it within a few pages.

and i can't get into the films at all, because i know the story so well, and have my own mental images of the characters i find them really hard to watch.

IMHO the movie "An Interview With a Vampire" was far and away better than the book. I am not a big Tom Cruise follower/fan and never have been but I thought he did an amazing job of portraying Lestat as I pictured him from the rest of that Vampire series.

I think I may have to agree with you on that.

Even though I haven't read "Queen of the Damned", I have watched the movie.. and from many of the fans of the book I can see how they don't like how. I watched the movie and thought of it as another vampire movie and not from a book. It's completely opposite from what this topic is about. Being that the book is most likely better than the movie.

on that i do agree, i've seen the film and quite enjoyed it, but i found the book rather hard going, though i really don't like Tom Cruise as Lestat, he's too short and ugly to play him, plus he looks hideous with blonde hair.

it's a shame Rutger Hauer isn't younger, he'd have been excellent as Lestat
i wouldn't watch any other vampire chronicle films though, because i love the other books and i wouldn't want them spoiled for me.

From what I hear, Lord of the Rings is one of those where the book is really dry for the first half, and then you get into a lot of the action. That said, if you're not inclined to the fantasy genre to begin with, then it can still be difficult to make it through if you're just a casual fan of the films.

Nicolas Sparks is kind of a fluffy writer. His stories are always sweet and easy to read - they're kind of feel good with less depth to them, in my opinion. I actually preferred the book versions of those to the movies, especially, for instance, A Walk to Remember - the ending was completely different in the book than in the movie.

Generally, I don't compare books to movies because I think they're entertaining in their own way. The two media are so different, that even though they're telling the same tale, it's almost as if they're two entirely separate entities. I do admit, I loved the LotR movies much more than the books. It was kind of neat reading the books after seeing the movies, but they were a little on the dry side, I thought.

It is. Most of the first book is really, really slow. It sets up little things that come into play later on. They cut all those extra parts out of the movie.


I can't think of any movie that's better than the book it was based on. Uhh.. Uh.... *Wanders off*

Hrm. I'm going to have to join the legions who say Lord of the Rings. Why? I just simply couldn't stand Tolkien's dry, repetitive writing. yes yes, the concept is brilliant and all that delightful stuff. But he's soooo dry. ;_;

Eek, I really haven't seen as many movies based off books as i should~ xP
But most of them turn out with them being equal in greatness when taken in different perspectives. But I've got to admit that I like the movies based off of Anne Rice's novels better then the novels them self's. I haven't even been able to read more then a chapter in her books, but find myself watching the movies over and over again. Im sure if i were to pass that chapter hum then maybe her books would seem as interesting, but, meah. I agree with Aliena when they mentioned the two media being so different, that even though they're telling the same tale, it's almost as if they're two entirely separate entities.

Yeah sometimes it happens.

My English class just recently read and watched Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me/The Body, both by Stephen King and though the novels are great, the movies are more understandable and it's more entertaining to see something visually rather than just picturing it. That's my opinion at least.

Yeah, reading the novels help to understand the movie better. But I thought there were good and bad points to either novel or movie. I happen to think that the Standy By Me/Body movie was better than the book, though from the book, I imagined different images. I thought Vern would be...hmm maybe about the same, and then Chris would have been chubbier, Gordie look like Teddy in the movie, and Teddy look like Gordie in the movie. Except switch the glasses/hearing aids. :/

It's true actually the Stand By Me movie was better than the book, albeit much shorter since it seemed about an hour long in total.

Shawshank Redemption--the movie vs. the book. In the end of the movie we actually see Red getting to Zihuatanejo, though in the book we just read that Red wants to see his friend again.

Yeah I noticed it was much shorter as well. And it was quite entertaining seeing all these actors I've known at younger ages. xD Though the leech scene didn't affect me as much as the book. Probably because it didn't bust when he took it off.

Hmm. Shawshank. I liked both, for different reasons. I guess the movie is better with the book though since I think I understood it better. If I just saw the movie, I think I would have been confused as to any point in making it. I love the quotes in both though. You already know them. The "Alexandre Dumbass" one in the movie and the "shiiiit oh shit it's shit!!!" one in the book. xD

I love that movie... I personally think Tom Cruise plays the hero too much then the somewhat bad guy...

As to A Walk To Remember (movie), I thought it was way better than the book. Where the book made me teary eyed, the movie made me bawl xD

I know I am likely in the minority but I have never understood what all the big deal about Steven King was.
I have actually found that with alot of King's books. I cannot read them, but some of his movies are alomst watchable. I did like "Stand By Me" as a movie but the only book of his I ever halfway enjoyed was "The Talisman" but that could be because it was co-written by Peter Straub who I do enjoy.

I thought the same thing. The teacher says his writing is fabulous and detailed, but when I read the book, it didn't seem special to me. I actually expected so much more! o.o;
Well, the only book I liked was "Rose Red", and extremely enjoyed the movie as well, and was later compelled to read the diary of Ellen Rimbauer.

Some movie versions are more convenient than poring through the book, but I think most movies "lack something" when it comes to the translation of a given book into that media. The director's, editor's, actors' interpretations of the book are just naturally different than what I see in my head while reading the book, and it just doesn't compare. Sometimes it's nice to see somebody else's interpretation, and occasionally I come away with "wow", but it's more often the idea of "well, that was quite different", even if the movie or scene was absolutely true to the book.

I was the same way. I read it when I was pretty young (probably too young to really appreciate it) and I found that my mental image of the world and the characters was so deeply engrained that I didn't like the films very much at all.

I just realized a book that I read in the seventh grade -Where the Red Fern Grows- does anyone else know which book I'm talking about?

Well, I remember reading the book in class, and loving it because it was so emotional and such an exciting plot. Then, as a reward, the teacher let us watch the movie at the end of the year, and it was absolutely horrible. If a person had never read the book, they would've hate it if they watched the movie first.

hmm, i seem to remember a disney film about a red fern, it grew where a dog had died and the other dog sat there and pined for it.

that film made me sob my little 6 year old heart out.

i told my Mum i wanted to write to Disney and tell them off for making such sad films :oops:

I loved Stand By Me, both the movie and the book, although I do agree with you about Steven King's writing. Most of the books strike me as being thrown together because he has to meet some kind of deadline. For me it just doesn't flow.