The wizard of earthsea! that movie destroyed the book!

all the ones stated i agree :!:

and also if any one has seen/read Howel's Moving Castle- myazaki did great but the book is WAY better!

oh and the sister hood of the traveling pant- i just thought the book was better

Originally Posted by Kazzy1231

Pride and Prejudice

I agree!

Blood and Chocolate, Ella Enchanted, Pride and Prejudice, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and The Lord of the Rings where all good movies yes, until you read the books and if you are like me and are a stickler about them getting most everything correct, then the movies begin to bug the hell out of you.

Hey, I don't know about you guys but I was kind of pissed off on the 4th Harry Potter movie, with the hypogriffs (I don't know if i spelt that right)
But in the book there were 4 others besides Buckbeak. I would have liked to see the other 4...
Well thats all I can think off right now...
Ta Ta~
b-ooger

Harry Potter definitely.
There are innumerable flaws in the movies compared to the books.

Chronicles of Narnia is one of my favorite books but the movie didn't cut it.

Jurassic Park was a nice movie. It suck to the book far better then the book-turned-movie items coming out now.

books are usually better than movies in general.. allows for more imagination and they don't cut/change important scenes lol. And somethings are better left as words anyways. movies only offer viewers one lens of interpretation... that is, the director's view.

Originally Posted by Dakota Wolf

I have read the books "The Outsiders" and "Animal Farm" and my english teachers have said that the book was far better then the movie because the movie was really inacurate.

I agree with you there.
I remember reading those books,
we're currently reading Animal Farm again though. :S
But the books are way better. <3

i think for the most part, the books are always better and i have come to the conclusion that if you want to ruin the movie for yourself go and read the book first. i do love to read books that are being made into movies or that have been made into movies but i think sometimes you have to really look at the movie as completely separate from the book or else you are really going to be disappointed with them. my best personal testimony to this is Memoirs of a Geisha. i loved the book. it was brilliantly written. the people and places were so well developed that you get a clear picture of what is going on and you can see it in your mind as if they were really. but when i went and saw the movie i wasn't sure if i liked it or if i hated it because of the changes and because of how the characters were interpreted. that is alway the problem no one is ever going to be completely satisfied with another person interpretation of a beloved character. but when i though about it and i watched the movie again i realized that it was a very good interpretation in itself. that it worked well as a movie and that the actors that were chosen were perfect. they weren't what i though the characters should be but they grew on me after a while. now when i go to see a movie, if i have read the book, i tend to go in with the idea of watching for the sake of watching as if i had never read the book and i am looking to be swept away in a similar story but it will never be the same.

Now this doesn't always mean that sometime people hit right on the mark. a really good example of this is anyone who has seen Pride and Prejudice and read the book. now there are two main interpretations of the books out there right now. the A&E mini series staring Colin Firth, or the Movie Staring Keira Knightly. Personally i think the mini series is right on. Elizabeth is exactly as i pictured her in my head and so was mister Darcy and Mrs. Bennet could not have been more spot on. but when i saw the movie i cried because i felt it was so bad. i was so upset that they had interpreted the characters so wrong in my mind and that they had ruined a good thing by putting out the movie when the mini series had already been made. but i have spoken with a lot of people who simply adore the movie and think it is the best interpretation out there. i don't agree and i never will but that is the thing about books to movies. when you read the book your mind paints its own pictures of whatever wonders the books have in store. movies are someones else's minds eye being expressed.

i'd say reading harry potter is way more better than watching the movies.. i still don't understadn why the durmstrang boys did breakdance when they were introduced in the movie... *flails arm* >.<

Originally Posted by Amecia

Harry Potter definitely.
There are innumerable flaws in the movies compared to the books.

Chronicles of Narnia is one of my favorite books but the movie didn't cut it.

Jurassic Park was a nice movie. It suck to the book far better then the book-turned-movie items coming out now.

I really liked the Chronicles of Narnia movie. I thought it was pretty comparable to the book, even after rereading it last month in my fairytales class. Then again, that wasn't my favorite book in the series, I liked Caspian the best. I'm just hoping that the Prince Caspian movie turns out as well as Lion Witch and the Wardrobe did, since its coming out next May. :D

I'm going to say that The Lord of the Rings books are way better than the movies. My ignorant brother says that the books don't have anything in them other than describing scenery and other stuff that the movies show, but then again, I've read the books and he's read like one so I think he's just being stupid.

I think I like the book Eragon better then the movie! Maybe because I'm a book nerd!=]

It pretty much can be made as a general law that the movie is never quite as good as the book, and all dedicated fans of the series would DEFINATLY find the book to be much better then the movie. XD

The best example as everyone else put here is Harrpy Potter. I, myself, find the movies to be so bad that I might not even watch them anymore. Some of the differances in the movie and the book are too much for me!

Another example would be Howl's Moving Castle. The movie was actually really good! Just wonderfully put together and everything, but it was very differant from the original book. The plot behind it changed completely that it wasn't even like it was the same story aymore.

Howl's Moving Castle and Eragon. The Eragon movie missed like... half of the book! That had me furiating! It was all the best parts, too! And Howl's Moving Castle had a completely different plot when compared to the movie. It just wasn't the same, though the movie was still pretty good on it's own.

Originally Posted by Deidara

Howl's Moving Castle and Eragon. The Eragon movie missed like... half of the book! That had me furiating! It was all the best parts, too! And Howl's Moving Castle had a completely different plot when compared to the movie. It just wasn't the same, though the movie was still pretty good on it's own.

8D

Personally, I liked The Series Of Unfortunate Events books better than the movie. Although, the movie only covered the first three books in the series, I didn't think they did the best job. But then again, it's hard to fit three books in one movie >w<. I adore the book series though <3. Some of my absolute favorites :3.

Harry Potter- I only approve of number two. It was my favorite of all the movies but the book was way better. The others were all messed up.

Eragon- totally messed up. Sapphire the dragon was so ugly. the graphics was a major dissappointment.

Hitchikers Guide to Galaxy- so stupid. They added alot of unneccessary humor that made the story stupid. It was overall a really bad movie.

Lord of the Rings- meh. the movies were actually very good. Peter Jackson did a very good job in the trilogy.

I usually do prefer books over movies only because I like to interpret my own visualization of what I think's going on. I don't much like someone to show me what they think I think when I read something. but that's just me. :wink:

[quote="Deidara"]Howl's Moving Castle and Eragon. The Eragon movie missed like... half of the book! That had me furiating! It was all the best parts, too! And Howl's Moving Castle had a completely different plot when compared to the movie. It just wasn't the same, though the movie was still pretty good on it's own.[/quote
Miyazaki really killed the true story for howl's moving castle. I still prefer the movie over the books but there is no reason to kill an original!

Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Where the Red Fern Grows (the new version), The Black Stallion, and Black Beauty were all a disappointment to me, as I truly felt the books were so much better than the movie.

Eragon was the ultimate disappointment... everything else seems okay after that...

Eragon was a TOTAL dissapointment, nothing was like the book and half the book was cut out :(

LOTR was not much of a dissapointment, I really only liked the violence xD, Bridge to Terabithia was really dissapointing; Chronicles of Narnia destroyed my faith in the film industry as well as Harry Potter.

I would have to say The Count Of Monte Cristo. The movie is good, but the book is utterly amazing. But I guess there is no way t fit over 1000 pages into a movie that would be admitted into theaters. Harry Potter was a let down too. They just left to much out.. As in the Quidditch world cup! I wanted to see that!

Eragon. the movie leaves out so many important footnotes and major events i was really dissapointed with the movie..It just dosent have what the book has.