Personally, There are almost no books that I liked better as movies. I guess my imagination just tells the story better than film does, but I can't stand watching the movies of books I've read. It's very hard to detatch myself from the Book to enjoy the Movie.

Most of the time I think movies and books don't mesh. Generally speaking the movie is no where near as good as the book. I think the reason is that it can never truly live up to what you can see in your head. When you read a book you get to see things the way you want them to be and the movie can never equal that.

Hm, I would have to say the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I can appreciate that from the radio show, to the book, and the tv series (as well as the many other adpatations) there were a lot of changes made but I think the film went a step further than that and rather than follow the evolution they just plain made a bunch of stuff up.

I've heard Douglas Adams had given his blessing to the screenplay but I still think there was nothing wrong with the original story for them to change so much. I still enjoyed the film, but I can't help but think it could have been a lot better.

I have to say Harry Potter and Eragon.

I hated how they ruined Eragon and completely messed up the storyline and the characters. I mean, Brom wasn't supposed to be mean and demanding, he was supposed to be kind and helpful.


I also hated how the third Harry Potter movie had Sirius give Harry the Firebolt at the very end, the complete lack of explanation as to how the Marauder's Map was created, and overall, the explanation that Harry's father could also turn into an Animagus.

Same with the 5th Harry Potter movie, in which they left out a lot of things, like the Quidditch matches and how Ron came to be the goalkeeper, how Harry saw Snape's memories through an error in the Occlumency lessons instead of through the Pensieve, and Harry's complete lack of anger at the end (in the book, he was completely destroying Dumbledore's office, while in the movie, he just had tea with Dumbledore). The fourth movie was bad too, skipping my favorite scene in the whole book, which was Fred and George giving Dudley a Two-Ton Tongue candy, and Michael Gamdon ruining Dumbledore's kind character when he rammed Harry against a cupboard.

Books are almost always better than the movies because of the fact that they cant have everything in there. but i was actually very impressed with the way they did the golden compass... right up until they switched two major events around. i had read the book just before and couldn't help but wonder how hard it woulda been to put the events in order since they already had them in there. to me that just didn't make any sense at all. the only exception there may be to a movie being as good as a book if not better is if its been animated and they can do everything that happened in the book and in the right order. and this has all prolly been said before im just adding my two cents.

Well, I've not got anything in particular in mind but most of the movies that came out after their books were a total let down in most aspects in my mind. Not that the movies were too disappointing, they all had their small niceties but it's much better while reading the books seeing as your own imagination can take over the way you want it to.

My mother though, prefers any movie laid in front of her, due to her dyslexia. Which is the beauty of films being released, because then I can discuss the books to a certain level based on what my mother saw in the films. It comes into those special mother-daughter bonding moments. XD;

My dad probably thinks the same as I do, we're much alike in personal interests.

In any case, no movie is going to be as good as the book but it's nice to see them being released sometimes even if they do kill the book a little.

On the one hand, Troy is an absolutely awful rendition of the Trojan war and the Iliad (which I really like), but when I saw it for the first time just recently, it was with a bunch of students from the Classics department at my university, so the experience was sort of like MST3K. I did like the brief bit with Aeneas, which almost made up for all the other sequels that were rendered impossible by certain untimely deaths.

I Am Legend was a much better book than it was a movie. They changed too many details in the movie to appeal to a wider audience and had to give it that Hollywood ending.

As to the person who said that the Dark Tower books by Stephen King should be done as movies, I disagree. That is one of the most amazing book series I've ever read and with how they bring most of King's books to film, I hold little to no hope that those books would be faithfully adapted. They are making another of his books into a movie though and if it ends up being as good as The Mist was, maybe the Dark Tower could hold up in movies as well.

I definatly agree with you about the Harry Potter series and Ella Enchanted. The books are just way way better than the movies.
Also, I only read the the first five or so books in A Series of Unfortunate Events but after I saw the movie I was ranting about how much they ruined it for hours after we left the movie theater. Oh! and The Golden Compass! Oh my gosh, the His Dark Materials Series are some of my all time favorite books since I first read them when I was really young. The third book in the series, The Amber Spyglass, is one of only three books that ever made me cry. And the movie absolutely butchered it!
For the most part I think the books are always better than the movies because when you invest so much time using your imagination to create the worlds your reading about real life can never measure up. My only exception is Lord of the Rings. I thought the movies where exceptionally well done and although they left out or outright changed parts I still think they did Tolkein justice.

Memoirs of a Geisha; the movie just did not capture half of the emotion and characterization that the book did. It also skipped many of the important scenes from the book.

Hmm.. I think Eragon was NOTHING like the movie..

Nearly every book I have ever read is better than the movie. While the movies look really neat, and they get the general story across the book has a feel to it that a movie can never have. I would much rather read the book than watch the movie, though in the end I do both.

I don't read all that much so I tend to watch the movies first. Harry Potter being the exception of course. But when comparing the book and movies you have to understand that they're two completely different mediums. A movie is never going to be the book word for word. If it was it'd be hours and hours long.
One of peoples biggest complaints is usually about actor choices. When you read a book, you imagine the characters as looking a certain way, based on whatever vague or details description you may be provided with. So when the actor appears, and isn't exactly what you pictured when reading the book there will always be a sense of disappointment.
Another big complaint is of course skipped material. Not everything that works well written down, works well on screen, and the opposite is also true. Just because it works well on screen, doesn't mean it would make a good book. Plus the fact that a movie is an adaptation means they have certain creative license, while still getting the story across.
Books and movies are two completely different things, and should be looked at as completely separate. When you watch a Harry Potter movie, ask yourself 'was that a good movie?' don't ask yourself 'was it as good as the book?'

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, since I did not want to read through all the pages.

But the two movies that disappointed me the most where Blood and Chocolate and Queen of the Damned. It used to be that QotD was my top pick for worst portrayal, but B&C took the cake when I saw it.

It pissed me off to no end. It just .. ugh, even thinking about it gets me irritated.

I just hope that Twilight won't be butchered as badly as B&C was. Though I know it'll be nothing like the book, but still, one can only hope. They already disappointed me with who they chose to play Edward Cullen. :?

I agree with you about Harry Potter. I can barely stand the movies. I watched the first one and enjoyed it, but I kept wanting to say something whenever I felt they skipped a part. That happened more and more as they did later movies, and it got so when I saw the third movie, after 10 minutes I turned it off in complete aggravation.

Recently my parents were watching Prisoner of Azkaban on HBO, and I tried to watch it again from a middle scene. Once again it felt they were moving way too fast through everything (it felt "rushed" to me) that I had to get up and walk away feeling irritated.

I love the books way too much to like the movies.

Another movie/book combo I felt that way about was Audrey Rose. I had read the book first, and when I saw the movie I was very disappointed. Somethings were even the opposite in the movie of what they were in the book.

I often find that books are better than the movies. There's a movie (I can't remember the name of it) that is coming out soon, and my sister bought the book but won't read it until after she sees the movie. She knows that otherwise the book will spoil the movie for her. She probably has the right idea. (Although with me, I'd most likely go ahead and read the book first, and then just be very disappointed in the movie.)

I think there must have been at least one instance where I preferred the movie version to the book version of something, but it doesn't come to mind.

Oh! One instance of that is Pride and Prejudice. Although I love the book, I loved the BBC miniseries much more. (The one with Colin Firth.) Now I re-read the book and although I like it, I still prefer the mini-series. :) I read the books first in this case, too. I just think they did a really good job with that series. (And Colin Firth was hot in it!)

I agree about the Harry Potter films. I don't really like how jumpy the movies are. It's like they tried to stick in as much of the magical and 'fantastical' stuff as they could. "Let's go here and see wonderful thing. Then let's go there and see that wonderful thing. Then let's go do this amazing whatever." It just made it very awkward for me. Another thing I didn't like is some of the stuff they cut out.

Also agreed on the 'Queen of the Damned' movie. That was my favorite book out of the series, and the movie was such a disappointment.

The original will always be better then anything else. it could be a play, movie, musical, or whatever. But the orignial context is always best no matter how you looki at it

Thats what i think. some people prefer the movie instaed o f the book.

Hmmm... Eragon, definently. It differed so much from the book. It was actually a disapointment to me. :(

Harry Potter wasn't that bad. It was different, but in a good way. :)Although i still like the books better.

That's all i can think of right now. Haha. But in my opinion, the books are usually better than the movies.

One of my favourite books is 1984 by George Orwell. (In fact, I'm re-reading it now- well, when I'm not online >.<). I saw the movie many years back, and it just sucked eggs. There were so many things left out- small details, albeit important details.

The same thing with Brave New World by Aldus Huxley. The book is AWESOME, but the movie was meh. Actually, it was worse than meh. It, too, sucked eggs.

Lord of the Flies by William Golding is another book I really enjoyed (I love political literature, if you haven't noticed >.<). I own the movie, but have yet to watch it. I haven't read the book in over 10 years, so I'm tempted to re-read it before I do watch the movie.

I understand the OP's dislike of the details missing from the Harry Potter movies- but I think that the screen writers and directors did a great job with what they had. They couldn't tell the ENTIRE story in a 2.5 hour movie. Even The Lord of the Rings movies had much cut out of them (due to length), but the movies still turned out quite well.

Trimming something due to length is one thing, but butchering a book to make a movie is another thing. Oh, man, I had an example on the tip of my tongue- but lost it as I was typing that *DOH!* Great, now that's gonna bug me until I can recall a movie that destroyed the book. Well, I think my original book choice (1984) is a great example. That movie did butcher the book something fierce.

I'm the sort of person who likes to see the movie first (if possible) to see how the screen writer and director interpret the books, then go back and read the book to get the full feeling of it. I think doing it that way makes the book even more enjoyable. I saw Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy in the theatres THEN went and read the entire anthology of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker stories. The movie didn't play out much like the books did- but since I was unaware of this before I watched the film, I really enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed that HUGE book, as well :3 Two books that I could not read after watching the movies were: One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest and Clockwork Orange. The first is written in first-person from the point of view of someone in the hospital, thus the language was hard to understand (it was a character to whom English was a second language, I believe). The second one is written in the British "Cockney" style- and I couldn't make heads or tails of half of what the writer was saying :? (I have seen the movie version of Clockwork (LOVED IT), but not Coo Coo's Nest).

So, do you watch a movie first, then read the book- or do you start with the book then watch the movie?

Oh my, the list of murdered books into movies is hilarious at most. One of my all time favorites to think of that happening to is Gone With the Wind. The movie is done so gloriously, but if you have read the book. It was hacked into pieces that some are so small you cannot even see. The greatest example of how this book to movie is murdered is that Scarlett has three children and then the miscarriage in the book, but in the movie she only has the one daughter and then the miscarriage.

A Walk to Remember was another book to movie that was taken apart. But that is not even the worst of it. It was a book that went from book to movie to book. With the last book not even matching the first book because it was related to the movie not the original book.

Blood & Chocolate is another book that was completely changed when the movie was created. I like both versions equally, but it still drives me nuts to think about it.

Harry Potter of course. Everyone knows the movies only match about 60 to 70% of the books. And the fourth movie was the worst of them all. I still to this day cannot stand watching that movie. And the sad thing about all of this is, J.K. Rowling helps the director and the writers of the movies with the script and how the movie should turn out. She helps with the butchering of her own books.

Pride & Prejudice was done no justice in the Keira Knightly version. She did good in her part, but that is it. She did good, not great or wonderful. It feels way too rushed and just in general too fast paced. The only version I have been able to watch and enjoy is the A&E version with Colin Firth. It is the only one that I have seen to do such a great tale justice.

Lord of The Rings as far as I can tell did an okay job at keeping with the book. I only read the first book. So my judgement could be off by some. I literally lost pace with the book and could read no further than I did.

Chronicles of Narnia did a beautiful job at keeping with the book. I loved it dearly. I just hope they keep that up with the next movie coming out. Prince Caspian is one of my favorites of the series, so here is to hoping with all hope the movie turns out good.

I like the movie Troy. They portrayed Achilles well. But compared to The Illiad, there were plenty of mistakes. Example being: the so called cousin of his in the movie is his lover in the Illiad. So yes Achilles had his gay side just like all the great heroes of that time. Woot to Greece and their sexy men. Also the girl Achilles meets while in Troy is supposed to be Cassandra. The prophet no one listened to, but she always told the truth. If you love Greek mythology greatly, then you know how considerably off this movie is.

There are many more movies I know I have seen with mess ups of the greatest kind, but because it is so late at night. I have forgotten some. So until I remember some more, I will leave my list as it is.

My favorite books which has been turned into movies: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia. In my opinion, the movies based on books are not as good as the books. That's because there's a lot of stuff that can't be included in three hour long movies and were removed. I liked that they showed Mad Eye turning Draco into a ferret and bouncing him around in Goblet of Fire though. That was one of my favorite parts in both the book and the movie.

My favorite book that was better as a book than a movie would have to be A Clockwork Orange. Don't get me wrong the movie was good, but a book just gives you more insight as to what Alex had gone through. Another book would have to be Fight Club, good as a movie too but there is just something about the book that made me feel like I could get a better connection with the character's issues then I could with the movie.

Lord of The Rings was a great book and even though tehy had to leave a lot out for the movies, it was still spectacular so far as it goes. I think for the books being as big as they were, the movie renderings were just...amazing. The movie kept up and was great to watch...the graphics were nice and the actors were splendid. I stil can't get over the fact that the guy who played Gimli voiced Treebeard, though. >w<

I also liked the first Chronicles of Narnia movie that they made and am eagerly awaiting the second one. Did the same fellow direct it? I think that would be very awesome, since he did a good job with the first movied. I'm anxious to see the second one...there haven't been a lot of really good fantasy movies out recently, in my opinion, and I DID very much like Prince Caspian as a book.

And...anyway, to get back on topic:

I think Queen of the Damned absolutely sucked as a movie rendering of a book and sucked as a movie itself. I hardly even understood the plot! It just kept jumping from place to place and...I liked the book so much better. The two were just WORLDS apart.

The Dragonlance movie (Dragons of Autumn Twilight) reeked. The book was SO much better; I'm apalled that they decided to make this movie animated--even though it was from budget cuts and everything, it still could have been so much better...the movie might have followed the plot in the big picture, but they missed out a lot of little details and characters and development and such.

Also...Eragon wasn't so swell a book (I'll admit, I did read it just because everyone else was...) and it was a very, very bad movie. :c But Garrett Hedlund? He was hot.

Lord of the Rings, obviously. But that was really a foregone conclusion. Don't get me wrong, the movies were fantastic. But no writer or director, no matter how talented, could ever suitably convey the sheer volume of material there is contained in those books. It covers thousands and thousands of years of a fictional history. The world is just way more vibrant and populated than a movie could ever hope to make it. There's only so much you can cram into a script, after all.

I'd venture to guess that almost every book anyone's ever read is better than a movie. You can't beat unlimited budget, unlimited casting, and unlimited special effects that are only limited by your imagination :}

Plus, as Berzerker said, movies are often forced to leave out a lot of things from novels. But because of that, people should consider movies a standalone from the books, since they are limited by running time. In my opinion, though, that doesn't really excuse HP movies, which were disappointing as movies in the beginning.