Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the books are way better than the movies...

40 replies

BlueEyesWhiteDragon · 29/12/2021 20:02

Specifically related to Harry Potter but it applies equally to any movie based on any book!

DS is watching the Harry Potter Houses thing on Sky and the majority of the questions seem to relate to the movie (what happened next, where is this from etc etc). That sent me on a bit of moan about the movies and DS.. DS to my HORROR said the movies were better than the books Shock

DS is an avid reader as well so its not even like he has the excuse of not liking reading to hold such a wrong opinion.

We've had a spirited debate about it and agreed to disagree whilst DS reads the books as he can't remember them from first time round and I watch the movies as I gave up after the utter atrocity that was Goblet of Fire Wink

So .....

AIBU - yes absolutely... movies are better, easier to digest, and bring grest stories to those who otherwise wouldn't access them.

AINBU - DS is a heathen. Books are where its at.

OP posts:
Everydaydayisaschoolday · 29/12/2021 20:06

I can't vote. Some books are better. Some movies are better. I think it often depends which you see or read first.

I agree that HP books are better than the movies though. But the Johnny Depp Alice in Wonderland is way better than the book. So is the Wizard of Oz. Gone With the Wind is equally great as a book or a film.

over2021 · 29/12/2021 20:09

Like PP I agree some books are better films; Harry Potter the obvious example. For me I preferred the film version of Time Traveller's Wife and Mary Poppins (the Mary Poppins books are a bit scary for kids!)

I would struggle to pick between Rebecca; the book or the original Alfred Hitchcock film - both amazing!

Ohmych · 29/12/2021 20:11

I agree with you. The Harry potter books are so much better than the film's.
I had to turn off ready player one in disgust after reading the book.

Aroundtheworldin80moves · 29/12/2021 20:15

Theres too much of the fine detail missed out of the HP films that makes the stories make more sense.

Some films are completely different to the books which make them more logical.

ChocolateCakeYum · 29/12/2021 20:16

I think some of the later HP books would benefit from a better editor, there’s a lot of useless filling and The Deathly Hallows especially needs to be less of travel hunt (go to one place, find token. Go to another place, find token etc) but that said the movies are appalling and timid and the whole nonsense with how Voldemort died at the end in the movies still annoys me.

Artemis Fowl books are better than the movie too, same with Percy Jackson. Hobbit as well.

That said there are some movies that are better than their book source material. The Manchurian Candidate is one of the worst books ever written but the 1962 film adaptation is one of the best movies ever made. Similarly The Quiet Earth novel is an average book but an amazing movie. Godfather films are better than the books too. I’m not a fan of The Lord of the Rings books either to be honest and I’m sure some purists with be “but, but, but” and my only response to that is Tom Bombadil.

BasiliskStare · 29/12/2021 20:20

I can't vote - the films are pretty rubbish (HP) but much as I love JK Rowling I thought she felt she had to have too much of a hand in them ( and I can understand that - they were her creation - but being a novelist and a film director / producer are different things. ) DS was of an age when the films would be good but we stopped going to the cinema half way through .

Not film , but TV series the 80s version of Brideshead I thought was just great - but it did stick very closely to the novel.

Whatelsecouldibecalled · 29/12/2021 20:36

Books way better than films. Only minor exception hands maid take seasons to three. Great job of adaptation but book was still better

JohnHuffam1812 · 29/12/2021 20:40

They've still not made the movie or TV serial from which I take my username. It would be amazing as a TV show by HBO but far too much would be edited out by a movie.

TheLeadbetterLife · 29/12/2021 20:41

The Harry Potter films are rubbish compared to the books (and a bit rubbish in general, with the exception of Goblet of Fire).

Mostly films can’t capture the depth of a good book, though there are some wonderful adaptations (e.g. Howard’s End).

There are some fantastic films and TV series based on mediocre books however. Both versions of House of Cards are far better than the book, which was a trashy beach read. Also apparently Die Hard is based on a naff novel, and that has a sublime screenplay.

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz · 29/12/2021 20:44

Most books are better tha their movies. HP for sure is better as books. The films are so flat.

Life of Pi movie is better than the book though. I loved the book. But the movie is just breathtaking.

OldaRailer · 29/12/2021 20:47

The only film I can think of that I liked better than the book was probably Last of the Mohicans.

SpikeDearheart · 29/12/2021 20:52

Mostly true, but The Remains of the Day film is just as good as the book, IMO.

DropYourSword · 29/12/2021 20:52

Jaws is a fine example of a film being better than the book.

Waxonwaxoff0 · 29/12/2021 20:53

Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books. The books are dull and a slog.

Everything else, the books are better.

BusySittingDown · 29/12/2021 20:56

YANBU Our imagination way surpasses any film budget. Also, most of the time, if they stuck truly to the book films would be hours and hours long so they have to cut loads out.

WreathSupreme · 29/12/2021 20:57

The film of “Carrie” (Sissy Spacek one) is better than the book.

Changechangychange · 29/12/2021 20:59

I hate the HP books, whereas I don’t mind lying on the sofa half watching the films.

I could never get more than 10 pages into LOTR and the Hobbit without falling asleep, so the films were way better IMO. Still went on a bit, but at least they were nice to look at.

So I guess I prefer films of books I don’t like?

MorningStarling · 29/12/2021 21:01

YABU and YANBU. The Harry Potter books are shit, the Harry Potter movies are shit, I guess the movies are "better" because they're quicker to get through.

Generally speaking books are probably "better" in the sense that usually the story is written to be a book then adapted into a film. Thus they're closer to what the author intended.

If you take a film like "12 Years a Slave" that's basically faithful to the book apart from a couple of bits of poetic licence (i.e. lies) added (for example SPOILER ALERT where a sailor stabs a slave to death on the ship, that's not in the book and unlikely to happen because the slave would be much more valuable alive), the film is basically as enjoyable as the book. But you can watch enjoy the film with a few drinks and snacks in a way you can't with the book.

Campervan69 · 29/12/2021 21:02

I'd love them to do the HP series as a Netflix type show. Would be great to see a whole new take on the stories, a new cast, introduce them to a whole new audience.

TheValeyard · 29/12/2021 21:11

Can't speak for Harry Potter as I haven't read the books, but as a general rule of thumb books are usually better, but there are exceptions - Jaws, The Godfather and The Exorcist are examples of masterpieces being made from pretty trashy books (or, in the case of Jaws, genuinely terrible books), then there are the likes of The Shining where the film interprets the book so differently they are difficult to compare.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 29/12/2021 21:28

Films of short stories have room to do everything in the written text, if the director chooses to. The Birds was one of those. Films of books simply do not have time to put in everything in the book, so if you liked the book there are almost certain to be bits you feel a lack of.

The LotR trilogy annoyed me by putting in a lot of stuff that Tolkien didn't write, and wouldn't have done because the story didn't need it, while missing out other things which did add to the book.

The three films of The Hobbit make a very good seven minute long movie. Shame about the other 467 minutes.

JohnHuffam1812 · 29/12/2021 21:34

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Tom bombadil for example

GreenGreenTreesOfHome · 29/12/2021 21:41

@MorningStarling

The Harry Potter books are shit, the Harry Potter movies are shit.

To think the books are way better than the movies...
Summerof74 · 29/12/2021 21:47

I loved the film 'Chocolat' but hated the book!

TheValeyard · 29/12/2021 21:52

Tom bombadil for example

I would say Tom Bombadil is a fairly obvious excision if you were adapting LOTR, as it doesn't advance the actual plot at all - I thought stuff like the Elves being present at Helm's Deep was more questionable.