the book is always better than the movie...

[Dtergent]

Fight Club the movie, for me, was better than the book. I can't stand Palahniuk's writing style.

 

[glitterbizkit]

wow, that's a first.

i normally get called a heretic and blasphemer and get banana skins and soiled contraceptives thrown at me for proclaiming such a thing.

I agree with you too. I really, really enjoyed the book, but I doubt I would have liked/understood it as much if I hadn't already seen the film.

 

[noone1]

I thought stand by me was better than the novella the body by Stephen King. Maximum overdrive the movie is better than the short story trucks, but only because trucks isn't much of a story to begin with and King made one of the best worst B movies to watch. I agree that his books are always much better than his movies probably because his ideas are too cheezy to portray on film.

No country for old men... never read the book but I can imagine it being worse or at least on par with the movie.

Fear and loathing I think is niether better nor worse than the book they are companion pieces and equals. Still waiting for the rum diaries Depp

 

[Belisarius]

I used to be a stickler for "the movie has to follow the book or else it's shit" school, but I've mellowed a bit. After all, film and books are completely different media, with different "needs", as it were.

For instance, though the books are "better", I can't imagine a much better adaptation of the LOTR. In fact, the books are only better in that they give voice to things that the movie couldn't possibly cover, in the way they enrich certain scenes with the melancholy nostalgia so key to the novels--and difficult to convey in film.

A recent good adaptation I saw was Pet Sematary. Yes, I liked the book more, but only because the book has the added richness of literary vicariousness, as well as the fact that it explains things the movie glosses over or ignores--indeed, that would be difficult to convey in film, period--such as the hypnotic hold the graveyard has over its users that blurs the line between free will and manipulation.

 

[noone1]

I used to be a stickler for "the movie has to follow the book or else it's shit" school, but I've mellowed a bit. After all, film and books are completely different media, with different "needs", as it were.

For instance, though the books are "better", I can't imagine a much better adaptation of the LOTR. In fact, the books are only better in that they give voice to things that the movie couldn't possibly cover, in the way they enrich certain scenes with the melancholy nostalgia so key to the novels--and difficult to convey in film.

I'd like to add Tom Bombadils exclusion isn't the crime, it's getting rid of the scouring of the shire. The ending is like a flacid penis nothing really gets resolved without the socuring of the shire. Yeah Tom bombadil is interesting to literary nerds (like myself) when you get past the corny gay songs he sings and see that Tolkien included him as a mystery figure, he is cool but not necessary to the plot.

A recent good adaptation I saw was Pet Sematary. Yes, I liked the book more, but only because the book has the added richness of literary vicariousness, as well as the fact that it explains things the movie glosses over or ignores--indeed, that would be difficult to convey in film, period--such as the hypnotic hold the graveyard has over its users that blurs the line between free will and manipulation.

The only thing that saves the movie Pet semetary from being a bad movie is Fred Gwynnes performance. Stephen King coached him on the absolute perfect maine accent. The movie would be total shit without him.

 

[who_can_say]

Da Vinci Code the book is way better than the movie

 

[Belisarius]

The Scouring of the Shire exclusion I can agree with; it's ridiculous how quickly they got rid Saruman, and it is indeed integral to the book. That said...the movie was already pretty long, and time is money for everyone involved--especially since the project as a whole was a gamble. I actually take more issue with the Elves helping at Helm's Deep (and surprisingly, they all get killed in spite of Tolkien's implication in the books--the Silmarillion, especially--of the Elves' superior skills.) and Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath than the lose of the Scouring. But hey, if wishes were horses, right?

As for Pet Sematary...guess we'll agree to disagree on that. And the accent *was* excellent.