Books that really are Better than the movie
 

Oyur relatively new member "the relic"'s name reminded me of the book and the movie. now, i saw the movie long before i ever read the book, and i enjoyed it. The swat guy getting chopped in half while coming out of the skylight, and the other onbe gettinghis head scissored off right in front of the camera were awesome.

But then i read the book, and although it is LONG, especially for horror, it was way better. In fact, the best character from the book never even made it into the movie (the FBI agent). Lind Hunt's chatacter in the movie was a caring older woman (as are pretty much all the women she plays), but in the book, she was a mean old bitch who i was hoping qould get her brain eaten.

There are plenty of other ones. Jurrassic Park was a Great book (decent enough movie, i love dinosaurs), but the sequal was bullshit. The Lost World Book was fantastic. Sarah Harding was my favorite character, even though Ian Malcom was my favorite from the first. What they did to her character in thwe movie infuriated me. Not only was the movie retarded (fun, but retarded), but Sarah went from a strong, intelligent, capable woman to a skinny, screechy, airheaded whatever the fuck she was. She was NOT a damsel in distress in the book...

Then, they took the white gitrl and black boy from the book, turned them into a black girl, and (Yay for the pc folk. dickheads) made her Ian's kid. The politically correctness in that movie made me want to puke.

Isn´t it rare that the movie is better than the book?

Anyway i would like to say "IT" from beginning to end. The end in the book was mindblowing, with the universe and the giant turtle and all. The ending in the movie sucked and ruined a lot of what was good in it (The first half).


I know that people who hasn´t read the book are thinking "Universe?...Turtle??... WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT!!????".

To those people i can only say: Read the book! ;)

It´s one of the best.

:cool:

Movies that are better than the book are exceedingly rare, but they do exist. I loved Bladerunner the movie, but found the book boring as hell.

books are always better than the film, you get more involved in the story, descriptions of horror is always better read, makes your mind work overtime.

I agree with Angra, IT by Mr. King is the best book i've ever read by a long way, and i was so disappointed when the mini series was bought out, it was ok but not a patch on the book.

Other book to films i've read and are way better include :-

the shining
jaws
running man (wicked story - nothin like the film - in the batchman books (stephen king))
pet cemetray
children of the corn
misery

i liked the shinig movie better then the book

this is sometimes true, I read the book Patriot Games by Tom Clancy, then saw the movie. The movie didnt follow the book at all! and the movie sucked!
They made a remake of The Shining that followed the book more acurratly, but I'd have to say I liked the origanal better:D

Needful Things

GOR *john norman series*

i read one of those Gor books years ago ..

sold a few on Ebay too .. they are worth a gew bucks these days

...
 

The Queen of the Damned.

Ive got the first edition prints autographed, took me years to collect them. and they are indeed worth a few bucks.

The last offer I got for them was 860 bucks for the set.

they'll be worth a lot more in time.

the only one i read .. was the one where he killed a guy while he was playing chess with him .. drove the king up into the guys brain through his eye - and escaped.


i remember the movie version .. it was limp as hell compared to the book.

That would have been Preist Kings of Gor.

And yeah the movie was a MAJOR MAJOR let down. Serious waste of film there for sure.

I wonder what Mr. Norman will think when and if one of his 3 kids ever get ahold of his books and give em a read. Pretty barbaric society and they dont beat around the bush on descriptions either lol

yeah a little more meat and gristle ...
i'm a big fan of the older stuff .. John Carter Warlord of Mars, etc ..
and the other series written by Moorcock .. using a pseudoname
that i cant remember..
I enjoy pretty much anything written by Burroughs.

Now thats something i have .. book 2,3,4,5 of the Tarzan series ..
I believe they are 1st edition hardcovers ... not mint .. they came from an old USA military library ...so there are a couple of stamps inside.

Still cool to have.

I've always been a book collector ... i get rid of the stuff i dont want to keep on ebay but the collection I am keeping ..fills a room (in boxes .. wall to wall ceiling to floor)

our next project is to get a library built in the front room of the house

Books are a great investment if you know what you are doing. Hell just one of my Gor books is worth 250. I try to go for 1st editiion prints as often as possible. I'll sell everything off when I retire. Hell Ive got a collection of trading cards *various types* over 300,000 from the early 1940's to the early 1990's. I dont even remember what all is in there. and honestly dont really care, just havent dumped them off yet.

kinda of off topic but you mention about getting rid of stuff you dont want on ebay. Read this guys feedback on ebay, he is NUTS.


http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...&iid=-1&de=off

thats funny !!

its the guys gimmick ... he's smart.
People will want to deal with him to see what he writes next.

pretty unexpected too, he sells and buys some pretty high end merchandise, but I agree. I've been watching his replies for months now

I've always found it puzzling how folk can compare films to books in any way other than scripting - they are two very different media.

Often the best literary work does not translate well (if at all) to cinema, simply because working the imagination of the reader is a skill a 1000 times more pure and creative than the effect any film - with its images, sound and flashy trickery - can have on the viewer.

Cases in point: The Beach (engrossingly dark book, pretty but soulless movie), American Psycho (mind-blowing, unfilmable violence in the book - commendable but glaringly restrained movie), The Shining (characters, supernatural elements and angle of King's sinister novel significantly altered by Kubrick in his effective but rather mechanical film).

Fight Club to a lesser extent - Jim Uhls and David Fincher did just about as good a job as anybody could possibly do with Palahniuk's book.

One other thing - don't you find some who crow about the book being much better are simply trying to advertise their intelligence in that they actually read books, instead of sitting in front of gormless videos scoffing popcorn like you do...?

Stuck up gits.

Okay, then let´s try to turn it around and mention wich movies are as good or better than the books. This is much tougher....


I would say that the screen version of John Steinbeck´s classic "Of mice and men" with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich was very, very well made and acted.:)



Tobe Hooper`s version of Stephen King´s "Salems lot" is also scarier than the book. That´s gooooood!!:D

there are some films that do try to translate the book very literally (hmmmmm ....thats kind of redundant to say)

The most notable being the Harry Potter films.
Lord of the Rings was a good try but with that much content ... impossible.

It's much more possible for kids books.

I really became aware of this when i Saw the 2nd potter movie .. and felt like i had already seen it .. right down to every set .. especially the Weasleys house ... it was as if the images were picked right out of my head.

You´re right Urge. The movies was almost taken from your own mind/imagination? Kinda weird?....

I also loooved Lord of the rings, but havn´t read the books. Only the comics.:rolleyes:

I think Jurassic Park turned out pretty good as fared to the book. Same thing with The Relic.

This is just my opinion, but I don't like ANY movie based off of a Stephen King novel or short story. Not one.

Have you seen "Shawshank redemption"???:confused:

That movie is bloody awsome!!

Books are books, movies are movies. They're two completely different mediums, why try to compare the two? There are only a couple instances where I would really say "the book was better", and that's only because the book had more to it, and I refuse to count that because books can be a lot longer than movies.