Book Vs. Movie

[GeorgeMichael]

Which do you think is better, obviously most people will say Book and I agree for the most part (Harry Potter, nearly everything else) but occasionally there are some movies that come out that I think are better than the book I.E Lord of the Rings and several others. Which do you think is better and how do you think movie making people can make book transitions better?

Discuss.

[Andy]

Books are usually better than movies because the author's able to fit a lot more into them than a movie director can fit in a movie. Not to mention books usually have a lot of major themes which the director might cut out of the movie in an attempt to market it to a wider audience. For example, the newest movie of The Time Machine was horrible. There was way too much romance, and no sense that mankind had devolved a lot, which was a key point of the book.

I think another reason people might not like movie versions as much is because when they read the book, they get to imagine everything the way they want it, and when the movie portrays it differently, people naturally think, "No, that's not how I saw it!" and sometimes conclude that the movie did it wrongly.

But there are a lot of movies which are way better than books. Usually these are the kinds of movies with lots of special effects or ones which can make the book better by cutting out a lot of the unnecessary details and tedious parts.

I think movie makers can make transitions better by interviewing fans of the books and deciding what parts really should not be cut out, or what parts should be re-created a certain way. Otherwise they might cut out a lot of the best parts just because the movie could have been done without them.

[Shadow]

Aw, come on! I was ready to give all my views, and they're exactly the same as Andrew's. :glare: Except the Time Machine thing, I haven't seen that movie. This is happening to me a lot... makes me look like a bad debater...

[Andy]

Aw, come on! I was ready to give all my views, and they're exactly the same as Andrew's. :glare: Except the Time Machine thing, I haven't seen that movie. This is happening to me a lot... makes me look like a bad debater...
Awww *Headpat* Don't worry, Shadow. Think of it as payback for ruining my fun accent post in the wish breaker thread.

End spam.

So, what did you all think of the Harry Potter movies, compared to the books? I feel they screwed up the scene where the twins fly away from Umbridge in book 5. That really upset me, especially since they've never included Peeves.

[GeorgeMichael]

Yeah, the exclusion of Peeves in all the movies has always irritated me. This new movie in my opinion was the worst book to movie transition of the Harry Potter series so far. Personally I felt that the only things that the movie makers did right was the character of Umbridge and Luna Lovegood, those actresses played them just like I imagined them. Not much else was doing it for me though, especially not the big battle at the end.

[Nyx]

Yes, the battle in my opinion wasn't all that great, I'd imagined it with much more details. Luna Lovegood really impressed me though, the actoress played the part perfect without a flaw! My favorite movie so far has been the fourth one which is wierd because it also happens to be my least favorite of the books!

[Ichigo]

Well everyone has pretty much said what I wanted to. Generally, books are better. But movies do have some moments that are quite good (ie. LOTR.)

[Shaun]

When you go to a movie based on a book you have to go into the movie with two minds of thinking. One, you have to view the movie simply as a movie. Sometimes books don't make good adaptations, but sometimes the movies themselves are actually quite good. Two, go into it realizing that it is going to be different than the book, period.

For the most part, though, I prefer the book to the movie, but I also find a lot of movies to be quite good when they are relatively faithful to the books. I know Imelda hates the HP movies, but I actually quite enjoy them because the general feel of the books is still there even though much of what is in those books has been lost. You have to remember, though, that it's hard to put a lot of background stuff into a 2 hour movie when a book is 500+ pages...
So, I think I fit into a middle ground here. The book is almost always better (except for LOTR, in which case the movies were fabulous and the books were crap). I've not read Stardust, but I can tell you that the movie diverts a LOT from the book because I have heard interviews with Gaiman, who worked on the project. The movie HAD to divert from the book, so it was inevitable that some things would change to make a cohesive movie.
Blah, I think I said my pieace :P

[Dunnskee]

On the Harry Potter movies, I've always felt that they were nowhere near as good as the books. I've always missed Peeves, yet he would have been an unnecessary distraction in the movies and wouldn't have provided the same comic relief as he does in the books. Fred's and George's escape from the castle irritated me and didn't live up to my expectations. Umbridge was great though. I hated her the entire movie. Luna Lovegood... Wasn't that great. Her acting was poor, and I felt she didn't fit the character the way I had imagined her.
Voldemort is done well, though. One question... In the books, were the wizards always teleporting all over during their battles in great white and black flashes? Not that I recall... It felt like anime almost.
Dumbledore has NEVER lived up to my hopes. The Dumbledore from the first two movies, though raspy-voiced and slow, was far better.

Lord of the Rings was done VERY well. What would have happened if Michael Bay had directed it instead of good ol' Peter? The books, though good, are SO descriptive that it takes away from the amazing storyline, while the movie was constantly amazing because it didn't require 3 pages to show you what the city looked like.

[Shaun]

LOTR would have sucked if anyone but Jackson had done it. That might sound contrived, but Jackson has proven he's a genius. The King Kong movie was fantastic, though it might have been shorter if they could afford to cut scenes.
Honestly, I don't remember the wizard scenes in the books being like in the movies. I think the movies were a lot more effective for me because they were a lot more action packed. I know they aren't entirely true to the books, but for an audience that hasn't read the books and isn't going to, it's entertaining and works well enough. I think one thing that does get lost in the magic scenes in the movies was that the younger students shouldn't be very good at casting spells without the incantations. So, in the 5th movie, Harry is doing that and it just didn't make a lot of sense because he has to use words all the time anyway. It was weird. But the scene was still amazing and action packed. I loved the Dumbly vs. Voldy scene. That was so amazing in my opinion. Not accurate, but awesome nonetheless.

[GeorgeMichael]

Oh yeah Dumbledore and Voldemort's fight was pretty cool in that movie, and yes no one but Peter could have directed the Lord of the Rings movies which I think are the best book to movie adaptations.

[The Incredible Night Elf]

I'm kinda on the fence about this one (a rarity for me)

Some movie adaptations suck... (harry potter for instance)

some are far superior to the book (lord of the rings)

and some are equally good (Of Mice and Men)

and others are crap both in the book AND the film (Kes)

:)

So, in my opinion.... it depends on the book :cool:

[Nyx]

Um Georgy, there's already a thread for this here. (http://www.youngwritersonline.net/showthread.php?t=451)

[GeorgeMichael]

this one was here first :( :)

[Nyx]

Oh I see.:)

[Lykaios]

I generally think the books are far better than the films.
The Thief Lord comes close, the book was great but the film gave it a nicer ending and more character references to the gang.
LOTR's was a brilliant film, I tried to read the book but got bored about halfway through the first one.
Other than that I'm not sure on films that come close to the books, I have never seen a film that has been better than the book other than Bridge to Terabithia, which was an awful book but an amazing film.

[ScottyMcGee]

LOTR was a great movie series. In fact, surpassing the books even.

James Bond books and movies are give-and-take. But usually the books have been more realistic and plot-intriguing. The movies were all like "ZOMG! LAZER BEAMZ! LAWLZ!"

Harry Potter movies are borderline. Some sucked and some were okay, and even those that sucked had okay parts.

Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was good, both movie and book.

The Minority Report surpassed the story because it was a short story. Steven Spielberg elaborated on the idea of having a "pre-crime" department.

Movies based on books are OKAY. Just as long as Hollywood doesn't go overboard. Like now, they're going overboard. A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Dark is Rising, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Golden Compass---NO. Just. No. Just, stop. Like now.

I would have said more if it weren't for this damn Arister meeting I have now.

[Lykaios]

Golden compass was good but they skipped bits and muddled up the events on Svalbard. Oh, and they cut off the ending. :(

I read the Dark Is Rising when I was eight. I didn't like it but the film looks good, maybe I should read it again?

[Shaun]

The book and the film for Dark Is Rising are FAR DIFFERENT. Be aware. The author had no input and they basically turned everything around in it.

[lango]

Bad adaptation example:
Eragon
Sure, the book by itself wasnt the best thing ever written, but come on? a dragon growing up in a flash? Literally?

Good adaptation example:
LOTR
Ok, they removed tom bombadil and I almost cried because of that, but the movie doesnt describe every single leaf of grass on the floor to the minimal details, it just shows it, takes a split of a second, or maybe a full minute, to show the woods, it doesnt have 5 pages on it. :D

Indeed, book and movie are quite different, its very hard to make decent adaptations, specially when you try to make it all fit in the 1:30, 3 hours max time a movie is usually allowed. I usually sepparate them, just watch them as movies.

[Zombified]

I Am Legend was a disappointing movie adaptation of a great book. The story was so drastically different from the book that I was really let down.

However, I bought the edition that has the alternate ending, I was a little happier.

Best movie made from a book: The Mist. The director added in scenes that Stephen King had approved for the movie. So if you read the story, you got a few surprises.

Thats my two cents in the horror department, back to you guys.

[Chie'N'Kadath]

occasionally there are some movies that come out that I think are better than the book I.E Lord of the Rings and several others.


GAH! I'm tired of people saying that the LotR movies are better than the books. I loved the movies, but I remember when I saw RotK in the theaters and during the first half I was going 'WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING TO THE BOOK!?!'

Anyways, on subject, the book is almost always better than the movie, though I am generally fair to adaptations unless they just totally mutilate the work it is based upon. If the adaptation can at least get the story down while keeping a good style (Though I can't have style over story or story over style, a good example would be some of the Harry Potter movies. 1 & 2 were a little stagnant in style in my opinion, although I admired some things about them, though 3 had excellent style, but it totally RUINED the book. Maybe I'm also biased cause 'Prisoner' was my favourite in the HP series.). The movie only really has to keep the main plotlines from the books, I'm willing to forgive them leaving out sub plots or things that can make the film overlong, slows the plot, etc. because I know that with a book if you become tired, it's easier to put down and pick up later than movies are, especially in theatres (Though it's easier on DVDs). I am almost never forgiving of a movie that totally ruins the original story or ideas, but there are a few exceptions: Thinner (It's not a great movie, but it's one of the few Stephen King books I honestly hated, and the movie was a little more enjoyable to me. Can't really say why) The Naked Lunch (The movie was a brilliant portrait of the man who wrote Naked Lunch, and considering that the book would be IMPOSSIBLE to adapt closely in film, it's just a little too avantgarde, and the movie was plenty warped.) and The Fly [The 1986 'remake', not the old black and white one, which sucked.] (Except for 'scientist gets in teleporter and merges with fly' the movie had nothing to nothing to do with the original short story, but the movie is a brilliant tragedy and reminds me much of Franz Kafka's excellent 'The Metamorphosis,' but with more than just one main important character.).

I'm also protective of stories based upon 'Graphic Novels.' Although super hero movies and movies based on long running comics that don't follow a singular plot, just follow singular groups of characters, the movie is almost always more interesting to me, but there are many 'Graphic Novels' that truly live to the title of being a 'novel' through visual telling, that deserve good treatment on film. One of the examples is the Japanese bred 'Koukaku Kidoutai,' or as it is known in America, Ghost in the Shell. I hear anime freaks talking about how great the film version was, but honestly it was awful. We are talking a story that is very allegorical and very much a tribute to one of my favourite novels of all time, [I]Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick (This is another novel adapted into a movie that is very popular, but IMHO is total s***. The movie version was 'Blade Runner.' Basically it took the main character from the book, removed the entire plot and idea from the book, and attached it to style but NO substance. Phillip has never been done justice on screen, the CLOSEST any film adaptation of his has come within 300 miles of the novel was A Scanner Darkly.) and the film stripped the characters and turned them bland and monotonous, which ruins the point of a story that is driven by characters to support it's theories, and the director attached great style and animation, but once again, no substance. He also has an annoying habit of spending 12 minutes on scenes of nothing but characters staring at things to ancient Japanese music. (Although I hated the film of Ghost and the Shell, I did like the sequel. Although it still had it's flaws, such as bland characters, it did a good thing, rather than base it directly of the story/ies from the graphic novel, it created it's own story inside the universe, and brought new ideas, very much inspired by ancient Japanese religion while melding it with the graphic novel's original metaphors and ideas, making the film a great allegory as the first should have been.)

I am a huge fan of movies, although books almost always come first. There are some movies however, that like some books don't work as movies, that I feel don't work as books. Many modern comedies would be tiresome as an entire novel, and I feel that sometimes, films that rely on visuals would be hard to transfer into a novel, because although if one has masterful telling in a novel they can create any image they wish, sometimes visuals just have to be seen to be believed. Some movies also need to be heard. One example of a film that needs to be both seen and heard is Pink Floyd's 'The Wall.' Although it is an excellent album, the film adds a lot of unique imagery to match the unique telling in the lyrics, and a movie (or album) like that just doesn't work in novel format.

I think that the best movies are movies that use unique ideas and styles, but there are a few great adaptations, and as I said, I am often fair because it's hard to adapt a book perfectly. Possibly the only exception where the movie kept EVERYTHING from the book was the absolutely beautiful film 'The Green Mile.' Considering half of Stephen King's novels suck on the big screen, I was amazed they could do such a good job with Green Mile, one of my favourite novels by him. The Green Mile was beautiful and is the only movie that comes to mind as 'perfect adaptation in every way.' I can't count the other Stephen King prison tale, 'The Shawshank Redemption' (Based upon the short story 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption') because although an excellent film, it actually made the original story longer, and so it still deviates from the story it was based upon.

Okay, I've said enough. I sometimes really go on rants, sorry. :blush:

[Shaun]

The LOTR movies were better simply because the books were poorly written. Peter Jackson brought us an elaborate world in such a way that it was entertaining and beautiful. The books simply couldn't do that for a lot of people. Brilliant world building, but Tolkien was not the best of writers. He had a style meant for a time that doesn't exist anymore. The books are good, but the films did for the story what the books could never do: shine.

As for "Blade Runner". The story is still the same, it's all the deeper meanings that were left out. Blade Runner is okay, but it's not the masterpiece people claim it to be. Visually stimulating, sure, but that's not enough for a film that could have been much more. Plus, Ridley Scott is a complete arse. I hate him.

And you also have to remember that most Americans aren't aware that Ghost in the Shell was based off a manga. I wasn't aware of it until you just said so. So it's hard for people to make the comparison if they've never even heard of the book :P.

[Starry]

My general opinion is that whatever is created first, movie or book, is almost always better. Granted, that's usually the book, but occasionally a book is written based on a movie and it's way worse than any movie based off of a book. It all really comes down to originality. The original author or director has an artistic vision when they create their work, and whoever comes to it and tries to adapt it isn't doing much more than making it more commercial. Or trying to.

I think a lot of the problems with adapting books into movies is that when they're in series, you have to think of what's important to the plot of the entire series, not just the one book you're currently working with. I was completely mortified when Harry Potter 3 came out because I had no idea where the storyline was anymore with everything they took out (there starts my chronic hatred of the Harry Potter movies). And they've got to realize that no matter what creative license you want to take with the book, adding something that runs completely contrary to the world of the book (Algaesia dragons do not spontaneously quadruple in size when thrown into the air!).

All in all, I'd say that whenever a book is adapted into a movie, it falls flat of the fans' expectations.

[Chie'N'Kadath]

As for "Blade Runner". The story is still the same, it's all the deeper meanings that were left out. Blade Runner is okay, but it's not the masterpiece people claim it to be. Visually stimulating, sure, but that's not enough for a film that could have been much more. Plus, Ridley Scott is a complete arse. I hate him.


The story is far from the same. The only real thing they kept in the movie are the Voight Kampff tests, and the fact there's a bounty hunter going after androids cause they aren't supposed to be on Earth. I could fill a lot of pages with the story elements they threw out of the book.
Ridley Scott did Blade Runner? Huh, didn't know that. I'm not much a fan of his, but you gotta at least give him credit for Alien. Yeah, I agree with everyone else that Aliens is better, but I still really like the first, especially the scene in the derelict spacecraft. H.R. Giger is a freakin' god, and the other alien they show, the huge one in the chair still gets me. I've still yet to see another movie that does justice to H.R. Giger's brilliant craftsmanship. I even think the Alien creature itself, although the effects got better, is kind of like Freddy Kreuger. He was just a lot creepier when he was slimier and gorier and you only say tiny bits of him, and if you look closely at the Alien in the first movie, although it's movement isn't nearly as smooth, there's a lot more detail to it than any of the aliens in the other movies, it stays a lot closer to H.R. Gigers original sketches. I still would love to see someone use Geiger's original face hugger though. MAN that thing is creepy. (For the curious: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Gigerfacehugger.jpg)

[Tsuki]

The only movie that I ever thought was better than the book was The Painted Veil.
I mean, the book was short so when they made the movie they added stuff in there instead of taking stuff out. The only thing that was different was the ending which I preferred. The movie was far more interesting than the book and was way more emotional.
I think a lot of it has to do with the length of the book because, I mean, look at Harry Potter and LOTR. They're really long. When you take a book and adapt it to a movie you HAVE to cut things out because there simply isn't enough time to put everything in there. Therefore, if you have a shorter book such as The Painted Veil the movie turns out better.^^

[Shaun]

I think the problem with the HP movies is that what they cut out has a serious impact on later films, and a lot of things they decided to cut out could have been put in without adding much more than 2 minutes of screen time, without CG or anything. There are little tidbits in the books that would really add to overall appeal of the movies. With LOTR, however, there are lots of things that just don't belong in a movie version. They took out Bombadil, but fans really wanted him there...but he just didn't belong. If you added him in it would destroy the films entirely.

[Imelda]

Bombadil never made that much sense in the books anyway. When I reread them I was all O________o when it got to that part. Never would have made it past a modern editor ...

[GeorgeMichael]

Plus, Ridley Scott is a complete arse. I hate him.




... ... ....


WHAT????




This is a whole other discussion Shaun :), I mean really...


but I agree on that part with you, I heard all about the masterpiece that Blade Runner was supposed to be and while I liked the movie I did not think it was by far the greatest Sci-Fi movie ever made...

[Shaun]

Don't get me wrong, Ridley Scott is a great director. I love his work (Alien was amazing and still is to this day...it's a permanent classic when people still knew how to make films). What pisses me off about him is his self-centered arrogance. He knows he's good and he doesn't hesitate to make sure everyone else knows it.
Take Blade Runner as a prime example. When the final cut was being released he never once gave props to Philip K. Dick, who was the person who wrote the original story (called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"). I can't stand that. It pisses me off. He didn't write Blade Runner as far as I'm concerned. Philip K. Dick did. It doesn't matter that they altered the story a little, the story still remains Dick's. It always will be.

So yeah, that's why I don't like him. His work is a whole different thing though.

[Chie'N'Kadath]

Sorry about the length of this post, I'm posting some more responses myself, and then Chie finally wants to say something to the community. Her post isn't as long as mine though, they will be separated by the dashes.


He didn't write Blade Runner as far as I'm concerned. Philip K. Dick did. It doesn't matter that they altered the story a little, the story still remains Dick's. It always will be.


I could not agree more.

With LOTR, however, there are lots of things that just don't belong in a movie version. They took out Bombadil, but fans really wanted him there...but he just didn't belong. If you added him in it would destroy the films entirely.


Despite the fact I will defend LotR with my life as being superior to the movies (Although I think Peter Jackson still did what is probably the best anyone could do on film, I was actually quite shocked with the results, the only real disappointments being in the first half of the third. I still clap whenever I see the Balrog, considering Tolkein's vague description of 'Smoke and fire,' because the film crew did an amazing job of making a memorable creature even more memorable.) I will agree that Bombadil would not work in the film. When I went to see Fellowship in the theater, I was curious to see Bombadil, but I wasn't too pissed over the fact they cut him out. I love the part in the novels, but in a movie some things slow down the plot more than advance it, and while Bombadil was fun, he doesn't contribute a major part of moving the plot forward. As far as how LotR is written, I think it is well written, and the whole argument that it is stuck in the past.. well, I have no problem with that. Being inspired by many of the old Anglo Saxon poems, I think LotR did an excellent job capturing that style. Obviously different things cater to different people, but I like how he wrote it in the old stylings. Maybe it's also the fact that despite being only 16 going on 17, I'm really just an old man with a distaste for the modern. I am very proud of my complete Charlie Chaplin collection as well as my huge library of classics like Sunset Boulevard. The same goes for literature too, although my favourite author is Neil Gaiman (And my favourite book being one of his works), I am a huge LotR nut (As previously established) and the prize of my library is my LotR box set, leatherbound hardbacks, each with the eye of Sauron painted on them beautifully, silk bookmark, and foldout maps. It's in near mint condition, and if ANYONE touches it, they get their hands sawn off. Even when Chie decided to read them, I put a glass door and a lock over my 'collectibles' shelf because she wanted to read from those copies. Thankfully, I convinced her to just read the paperback 'all in one' copy I had for 'reading' purposes.

I love much of J.R.R. Tolkein's other work as well, although I will say one thing: The Silmarillian is awful. I don't think I've ever gotten that bored reading a book before. This is one of the few places where me & Chie disagree, she thinks the Silmarillian is like a bible and considers it fascinating.

I recently watched 'The Mist.' I was absolutely stunned. I mentioned before that I think possibly the only perfect adaptation was The Green Mile, but The Mist shocked me. I expected it to be crap considering how Stephen King's horror movies usually end up, but I was amazed, it was practically word for word and even shocked me in one area: The ending was actually better. In my opinion, it was so much more powerful with emotion and terror than the vague ending in the novella. I have a hard time saying the movie itself was better by more than the ending, otherwise, I'd say they are about the same. I also loved the visuals, the monster they show towards the end is absolutely awe inspiring. It's not a 'perfect' adaptation, but it's one of the first times an adaptation of a Stephen King novel has exceeded expectations. I guess I can't assume just because there's trash like the adaptation of DreamCatcher that all films based off of his novels are bad. DreamCatcher is named only because, even though I have a feeling King fans will disagree, DreamCatcher is still my all time favourite Stephen King novel, right next to It. Although it's not a novel, my favourite story by him would be Storm of the Century. Linoge is by far one of my favourite villains of all time. Born in sin, come on in. Born in lust, turn to dust. I get shivers whenever I recite that line in my head.

- Kadath

----------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, Chie here. this is my first post for the community, felt like finally speking up after Kadath brought up some of the subjects talked about here.

im not a huge film buff, although there are many I like, sometimes i get bored. even if the movie does a great job, im often more enticed or excited reading a book than watching movie. I think the only movie adaptation i shall boast about is Uzumaki. it may be based off of a comic, but the film caught perfect style for Uzumakis story, and although there was much filmmakers could not do with low budget, in some ways the mysterious 'static' death scenes (rather than showing them in motion) adds an extra layer of cheesiness as well as creepiness. it isn't as brilliant as the manga, which is very Lovecraftian, but it acheves its own brilliance and is my favourite 'adaptation' from graphic novel, novel, or otherwise.

[rorygilmore]

i guess it's the book, yeah it's books definately. i mean they're just..the first, they have it all.
But i HATE it when books are written after a good movie comes out because i think that's so tacky, like they copy the movie, but you already have a picture in your head and you don't need to read 5 pages of discriptions about a person, because you already saw the movie........
mmmmmmmmmm... yeah that's what i think :)
over and out :)

[random_writer]

Although movies are better for some (i.e. My sister...) who are basically illiterate, because they provide visual stimuli and action, I am a firm believer in reading the book first. I always seem to get more out of the book. I realize this is probably because the author can put more in a 500+ page novel than a director can put in an hour and a half of film. A few times, though, I have read the book before seeing the movie, only to find out that the director has chosen to leave out important scenes, which have been replaced by artistic fluff that wasn't in the book at all. Other times, I have seen movies where the ending is completely different from the one in the book.

[Phantom]

Her sister is nearly illiterate...
I digress, I think that books are almost always better than the movies...
I read the books before I see the movies.
Always.

[ScottyMcGee]

The James Bond books were utterly godly.


But the movie series got seriously f-ed up.


Really.


F-ED UP, MAN!

[Paradox]

The book is always better than the movie, no matter how great the special effects are. How can you put a whole book worth of story into a 2 hr movie?

Proof? Three words. The. Golden. Compass.

*Paradox* has spoken.

[Simmi]

Well... I always choose book better than movie. Like Jumper for example... they like didn't follow the book at all they just took the characters and made their own story... I actually hated the movie, well besides Hayden Christensen he was the best part :D But I think for movie makers to help make the movie almost better than the book is to actually try and follow it and use I guess more effects.

[Midnight_Moon]

Books aren't always better then movies. Yes, usually they are. But "Princess Dairies" and "Around the World in 80 Days" both movies were better then the books. Don't read "Around the World in 80 Days" if you don't have to. It's really slow.
But "Eragon" was such a better book then a movie. The movie was really bad. Period.

[electrilad]

Hmmm... it depends on which was better. It can't be judged because there are many books that were soooo much better than the crappy movies made, and there are some movies that are amazing next to the books.

As a very visual person (who hopes to be a director one day), I definetely appreciate seeing the movie after the book. It gives it a sense that's its really real and stuff that's hard to explain.

Final conclusion- MAYBE!!!!!

[Midnight]

It depends on the movie! Not all are bad when they are changed. The worst is when they try to make a book out of a movie! It usually turns out pretty bad.