Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).
This. I've said this on fandom messageboards before, and met with aghast reactions. But the books are just too much like hard work. And I've read some big books.
I just re-read the book, Seska, and, yeah, the book is much, much better in the plot- and character-development departments.
I need some easy reading during final-month-of-dissertation hell. I shall dig out The Shining and see how it compares.
The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.
Never read The Omen books - but I think American Psycho was far, far scarier in book form than what passed for an adaptation on the big screen.
Oh, lord, the LOTR movies are way better than the books.
Jumping on LOTR movies are better train.
I think so, too.
"Clockers" the movie is as good as "Clockers" the book, while "Freedomland" didn't translate to the screen at all.
I'm now trying to search for and cannot find the 2001 book my father bought me which seemed to have been the novel and the making of story. There was a separate publication that was a novel only?
This was the cover of the one I read. It might have had behind the scenes of the movie pictures included, but I'm not sure. Must have been twenty years ago that I read it, and I don't think it was technically my book, probably borrowed it from my dad.
This is an odd choice, but the book The Wolfen scared me more than just about any other book I've read (Totally a freezer book for me), and the movie just didn't do much for me.
I was roaming through the Horror section at Half-Price Books a few weeks back and noticed that Whitley Streiber wrote both The Hunger and Wolfen. I guess his alien abduction claims have overshadowed his other work but he was turning out the high quality pulp there at the turn of the eighties.
In the TV series land, both "Gossip Girl" and "True Blood" are better than their books.
"The Princess Diaries" movie was better in many ways than the first two books.
"Sin City" worked better for me as a movie than as comics.
"The Devil Wears Prada" is a jillion times better as a movie. HATED the book.
I also liked "High Fidelity" more than the book version, but that could be my Americanness preferring that setting. Also, Cusack.
ETA: Twilight improved on the book, in my opinion. Not that that was that hard.
"The Devil Wears Prada" is a jillion times better as a movie. HATED the book.
Totally agree.
I haven't yet found a 'young woman paying her dues' book that I can enjoy. But the movie was fun.
I thought the movie could have actually been better. I disliked the book and found it repetitive and it was a mystery why the assistant was staying at the job. I found that the movie didn't enlighten me further regarding this issue and with a bit more character work I think they could have explained this.
I also think they made Streep's character a bit too sympathetic, but I understand that was Streep's recommendation.
In the TV series land, both "Gossip Girl" and "True Blood" are better than their books.
I love True Blood but I think the books are better than the series. Sookie is much smarter and less annoying in the books.
