• Eragon anyone who read the book knew the movie sucked story wise they missed a lot thats my 2 cents

Definetly Harry potter. the books though are always better than the movies and in my opinion the movie doesn't even stand up to them. But HP has so many details it's a wonder how they fit in as much as they do in the first place.

I LOVED the Eragon books, but the movie was the most disapointing thing I have ever seen.

I always say the any book is better than the accompanied movie.

I find that if a movie was based off of a book, the book will be better, since movies always have to leave things out.

I usually prefer the original book to the movie.

A. Golden's MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA is one of my favorite books, even though inacurrate at points, it is brilliantly written, it made me laugh at some parts and cry at others, and I re-read it instantly after finishing it.

The movie on the other hand was weak, I mean, they gave Nobu (the one-armed guy) two healthy arms, give me a break! Also, they completely omitted something that made the story in the book so precious - the friendship between Sayuri and Nobu.
Also they screwed up tons of other stuff. :/

:::::::::::::::::


Then Antonia Fraser's Marie Antoinette. Brilliant book packed with historic facts. And now look at Sofia Coppola's crappy movie. Sure, it is eye-candy. Very pretty to look at, but still hurts your teeth. From grinding them, because the movie BUTCHERS the book.
What a missed opportunity. Sigh.

I think most books are better than movies, I think the question should be, which movies were equally good to the book.

Queen of the Damned: Awful, awful movie. The book was amazing, so involving, and I loved how it was told from the point of view of so many different people before they merged near the end. I could bitch for England about how completely @#%$ the movie was in comparison.
I mean Interview with the Vampire was by no means faithful to the book but it was a million times better then the bilge that was the Queen of the Damned movie.

Pride & Prejudice: The one and ONLY screen version that does the book justice is the BBC serial adaptation. The movie was pants. Keira Knightley was not a believable Elizabeth.

Memoirs of a Geisha: The movie was visually stunning. But the changes they made in the film were bad, for one Sayuri's okiya was not the one that burned down in the book.

Harry Potter films: I know there are obvious time restrictions in films but c'mon..some of the stuff was just painfully jarring.

harry potter is a good example ^^

ERAGON!

the movie was good, but then I read the book and it was AMAZING

Originally Posted by Kasana

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 thought Bridge to Terabithia wasn't bad!! It pretty much followed the same story line, they even added a few bits and made it a beautiful story to watch

I almost walked out of Eragon. I ended up staying until the very end, then standing up and screaming all of the flaws. Now I won't even let my family watching it, and if/when they do, I'll have to leave the house. x]

Watership Down was actually quite like the book, and I liked it. Bridge to Teribithia was a book i never liked, so when I saw the movie, i figured it must have been "loosely based" off of the book....

Aquamarine. The book was sweet and charming, but the movie wasn't very good. And the Eragon movie was just horrible.

Harry Potter, obviously. Compared to the books they all failed immensely, as most directors felt it not necessary to add details, but to glorify everything with a green screen. I'm not stupid, I understand some things which overall don't add to the plot should be cut, but they cut a lot of stuff that was important to the overall plot. Especially in the 4th. D:<

Ella Enchanted was nothing like the book, all the pop culture references drove me nuts.

Eragon, well, that's really obvious. No one disputes it sucks. It's an accepted fact. I wasn't a huge fan of the books, either, but they were still way better then the movie.

Everything is Illuminated was a good book and a movie, but on different levels. They cut out the entire back story of his great great great great great grandma, and his grandfather, which I admit, was slightly disturbing, but I loved how they did Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. Such a bitch. ^__^

Every book is always better then the movie. Movies cut to many things out for many different reasons, being to graphic, book is to long, etc. I also enjoy the books better because you can imagine everything for yourself.

Originally Posted by Lady Taurus

Every book is always better then the movie. Movies cut to many things out for many different reasons, being to graphic, book is to long, etc. I also enjoy the books better because you can imagine everything for yourself.

For me, at least, it's actually a matter of which one I encounter first and get used to. Usually the book is the one that I have the longer acquaintance with. The ones that annoy me most, I think, are several series of books that have been converted into TV series, such as Horatio Hornblower.

i would have to say eragon.
i adore this book.
i was so excited when i heard
there was going to be a movie.
but when i saw it
i was really disappointed.
they took out alot of scenes from
the book that i thought would look
awesome on the big screen.

I think that if directors claim they can't add every little detail from the books then they shouldn't add a bunch of stuff that WASN'T there. For example all the make out scenes between Aragorn and Arwen in LOTR. We could have done without that stuff. If they had cut it out maybe they could have put Tom Bombadil in? I mean Arwen was hardly even mentioned in the books until the very end.

Also I don't think the characters themselves should be tinkered with. Like in Harry Potter. They give Hermione all of Ron's good in depth lines that prove that he is a competent character. They try to make her seem super smart and perfect. But in the books it's obvious she has faults as well. They also stopped trying to make her even look like Hermione, and in book three they gave her a line about her hair.

"Does my hair really look like that from the back?" Are you fricken kidding me? She doesn't spend time caring about her hair even on a regular average day and they want me to believe she's going to question what her hair looks like in the middle of a dangerous mission involving time travel and innocent lives? I don't fricken think so. They also make her wear an awful lot of pink and I was never under the impression that it was her favorite color. In the books she wore blue to the yule ball.

And while I am in the middle of ranting about character changes. Nancy Drew. Same name and the similarites end there. I don't care what the movie is called that is NOT Nancy Drew. Nancy was far cooler than the drippy overly perfect fricken idiot in the movie. At this point I'm not even sure if the people writing these screenplays have ever really read the books.

I am writing some novels myself. If they ever get published I am keeping the film rights and the movies will be done MY way.

Just about every book I've read that's been made into a movie has been better than the movie. It's par for the course, it's very rare that a movie is on the level of a book let alone better than.

Stephen King's Hearts in Atlantis is a really good book...but the movie was disappointing. It was a shame that they cut all the Dark Tower stuff out of it. Come to think of it, The Dark Tower is a book series that should really be made into movies, but I'm afraid that it would get butchered as a movie.

Actually, I think all books are better than movies. Movies leave out important deatails, and they sort of sabotage the books they came from.

I almost always prefer the books to the movies. I like to see the movies first, so there are still some surprises left for me in the book, because they always leave things out. Plus, if you see the movie second, you'll sit there in the theater steaming mad for what's been changed and left out, and think, 'That's not the way it was supposed to happen!' haha

My favorite example is Jurassic Park. I've read that book three times, and I absolutely love it. I also love the movie, and I can appreciate the differences. Besides, they went and tried to make up for lost scenes in the first movie by creating the majority of the third movie out of them. I haven't read any of the Jurassic Park sequels, but I do love Michael Crichton's work.

I would have to agree with Fin Raziel, book are usually better than the movie. One of my favorite books White Oleander has a movie, but it's really lacking.

Most books are better than their movie versions. Just period. I love the book "Howl's Moving Castle" and even though I do like the movie (and it has Christian Bale's voice XD) it can't compare to the novel.

There are hundreds to list!

-Harry Potter
-Eragon- although, it wasn't that good of a book either, in my honest opinion
-Ella Enchanted
-Blood and Chocolate
-Timeline

... to name only a few

Although, I have to admit, I liked the Miyazaki version of Howl's Moving Castle more than the book. Go figure, but then again, I saw the anime before I read it and was biased towards it instead.