wilkes

Movies rarely hold a candle to the book I saw the movie "One flew over the kookoo's nest" before reading the book and the book was much more descriptive. but that is the problem, trying to bring that level of "color" to the big screen. The movie would have to be so ***bersom . as to be unenjoyable, which is why movies are so seldom, true to the book

Fantasy seems to really suffer from bad translations.

Ursula K Le guin's "Wizard of Earthsea", Almost any "Discworld" novel and of course young adult fiction such as Eragon and Golden Compass (both still on my reading list as my friends can't say enough about the books).

All Hollywood wants to do is make money (obviously) and copying other movies cheaply with as little creativity would seem to be the prudent thing to do to make the most money.

I don't think it ever works.

I also think they'll never learn until independent and smaller studios (no doubt brought on with the increase of CG technology) run them out of business.

I agree with mlm, no king book was as good as the book. the worst was misery.

Any Stephen King book that was turned into a movie. Also, Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal.

ALL of the Harry Potter books are better than the movies....

The closest I have EVER seen was LOTR. and the books were better for lack of time to make the movies identical...but for true to the story, my only complaint was using Liv Tyler for the elf that saved Frodo, Really that was a male elf.

The movie Twilight coming out in December looks like the book is way better so far. Has anyone else read the book and what do you think about how the movie is evolving

"The Memory Keeper's Daughter" - book was much better than tv movie.

1. "The Client"
2. " Message in a Bottle"

I thought The Devil Wears Prada book was WAY better then the movie.

The One Who Fell Over the Cuckoos Nest is a good movie. Never read the book though.

The book " The Horse Whisperer " was much better than the movie. I really liked the book but when I watched the movie I was so disappointed. Alot of the good parts were left out.

I always thought Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining" was better than the book by the same name, written by Stephen King.

I love reading books and then watching the movie to compare. The only one I've found that the movie was better was What Dreams May Come. That is an awesome movie.

Almost all of the books are better than the movies. Reading the books even help you understand the movies, examples Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers and the Return of the King. I was so glad that I had read the books before I saw the movies. It helped me understand what was going on. I find this true with most books and movies!

I don't think there will ever be a movie as good as the book but Peter Jackson, In the words of FosterAunt, did give LOTR a *** good try.

It is like Alfred Hitchcock said, "The most frightening scene remains in the viewer's head." No matter how good a movie is, it puts a limit on what we imagine afterwards in regard to that book and movie.

I think Saw I was the best movie in this respect because it only showed before the deed, and after the deed. All that lies between lies in our imaginations. Interview with a Vampire was a total bust for me as a movie.

Is there really a movie better than the book?

I think the books, if they are good to begin with, will always be better than the movies because when we read them we have our own version of the screen play in our head. No amount of computer generated images can ever match that. To attempt the movie diminishes the story, even though Peter Jackson gave LOTR a **** good try. Still, another movie could have been made with all he left out. And he did take liberties with the plot. Arwen wasn't as much of a heroine as PJ's version made her. In the book, some of the deeds credited to her in the movie were actually those of her brother. I've forgotten his name. That's not to say the movie isn't worth watching. It's just that if you don't read the book, it's like getting icing without the cake. For some people that's okay, but some of us require a little more substance.

Gone with the Wind is my favorite book and movie. However, the movie left out some very important characters and changed the way some of the plot really went down. The characters fit to a T but Scarlett had a child by charles and Frank and were mentioned throughout the book, which was left out of the movie.

I think the Harry Potter movies have done ok so far. I have not gotten to see the Order of the Phoenix but the books keep getting longer so of course the latter movies are going to more deleted scenes. Also, movies can never capture the imagination of all the individual readers on screen.

I though The Notebook was pretty close to being "right on." Cold Mtn the movie was a dissapointment compared to the book.

While Forrest Gump was a WONDERFUL movie. (I love Tom Hanks!!!) The book was WAY better! All the Harry Potter movies are great, but of course the books are ALOT better.

Let's see...

-Anything by Nicholas Sparks...that was made into a movie

-The book...Bridge of Taribithia...was so much better than the movie...

-Anything by Tom Clancy...that was made into a movie

-The old movies (made from books)...were so much better...ex...To Kill a Mockingbird...Of Mice and Men...Gone with the Wind...The Great Gatsby.

Most books are better than the movies at least in my opinion, but I also seem to enjoy the movie more when I have read the book previously. It helps in the understanding of what's going on, especially in complex movies with less than simple plots like Lord of the Rings, etc...