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

[BlueEyesWhiteDragon]

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

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

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.

Hmmm, I don't know how to answer this, because, as has been said, some films are better than the books. EG, I thought The Lovely Bones film was better than the book, and so was Revolutionary Road, and Carrie. I also preferred the JAWS film to the book, and The Exorcist film to the book too...

But then I have found some books better than then films. 'The girl on the train' book was very good, the film was shit, ditto The Rats, by James Herbert .

The Amityville Horror by Jay Anson, and 'The Fog' by James Herbert, again, the books was good, the films ok but not as good as the books.

Then there's a few where they were both good/OK - like Flowers in the attic, Gone with the wind, and the Jackie Collins Novels, and IMO, the Harry Potter films were as good as the books, but the films did miss some stuff out, like Peeves the Poltergeist for example. Never mentioned in the films.

But I do think it's best to watch a film first, as the book is more likely to be better, or just as good, The book will rarely be worse than the film...

The only film that is better than the book is The Princess Bride.

I read the book "Hidden Figures" before seeing the film. The film was very disappointing.

[quote JohnHuffam1812]@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Tom bombadil for example[/quote]
Yes, missing him out did mean that the hobbits went straight from the Shire and not a lot in the way of battle murder and sudden death, to having to fight off the Black Riders. Without Old Man Willow and the Barrow-Wights to give them a bit of training, they would have crumpled like a used Kleenex at the first sight of a Black Rider.

I'm not a Bombadil fan; he's too cutesy and at the same time all-knowing, in the book. But he did have a function in the story.

I read a lot . I don't watch many films , but one of the first films I watched after reading the book was Love Story in 1970. The book was definitely better than the film .

The Lord of the rings films make zero sense in the book they get the letter from gandalf that's why they go with strider in the film they randomly fuck off with a total stranger for no reason I mean? Then there was the random angst scenes cutting between strider and the broken sword on fucking repeat the films were longer than the old testament just what did that scene bring to it that a little fine detail wouldn't?

Harry Potter films are watchable but seriously no where is it as good as the book except maybe the Knight bus that scene was classic

I prefer the Catbus. ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/Catbus

HP5 film is better than the book, because the book is tedious. The film is a bit tedious too but has some great moments (twins fireworks, foe example) that stand out, whereas the book is just... long! The rest of the books are better than their respective films, except for 3 which is a masterpiece both times (in comparison with the other HP works).

Stardust the film is a million times better than the book. Everything about it is better.

Also Neil Gaiman, I think the TV adaptation of Good Omens is just as good as the book. Some bits are better, some are not as good. I love both!

Muppets' Christmas Carol beats the book any day

I don't think I've seen a film that's better than the book. I'm an avid reader.
But Harry Potter! The films are no way near as good!

All the adaptations of Terry pratchetts disc world are inferior to the books

@Theunamedcat

It was always going to be that way, there is so much in a Pratchett book.

@Summerof74

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

I am the opposite. I read the book first and then the film disappointed me so much... Johnny Depp with his Irish accent for starters.. the guy he played had a thick Marseille accent in the book. The priest in the book was dark and unpleasant. In the film he was ridiculous.

@nocoolnamesleft

The only film that is better than the book is The Princess Bride.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK (although the film is phenomenal)

I really enjoyed the Good Omens TV series, having never read any Terry Pratchett books but knew they were popular I bought the book to read poolside on holiday. How disappointing to find out that they were completely faithful to the book and they were pretty much identical. Disappointing in a waste of suitcase space way, not disappointing because I didn't enjoy it.

DD found the same with the Unfortunate Series of Events books and the TV series. The TV series was so close to the books there was little point in reading the books - brilliant if you read the books first I suppose.

Disney+ are making the Percy Jackson books in to a TV series, I hope they are faithful there's an awful lot that could be done with those books. Is a shame the two books that were turn into films missed so much out.