blonde poker forum

I watched the film 'The Scarlet Letter' today for the first time and really enjoyed it.  I've never read the book, but did a bit of looking around on the web and it seems the movie doesn't tell half the tale.  I'm now forced to find the book so I can read the 'real' tale.  Not a problem because I love to read. 

I was given 'Gone With The Wind' many moons ago and loved reading it so much, I still have the book to this day.  When I watched the movie version, it just didn't do it for me.  It was grand, but for me, the book was far superior. 

Your favourites...book or movie version.  Which do ye prefer and why?

I personally prefer to watch the movie, then tell people it was ok but not as good as the book, occassionally throwing in a 'there was so much they left out of the movie!' and pretend to moan about it.

I do it for all the Harry Potters, none of which I have read.

Go read HP, you're in for a right treat :)

Books generally are better but sometimes the films are cracking.   That said, I don't often read books for the films.  I've read the HP books and they are great but the films are equally good imo.  On the other hand Misery the book is awesome, the film is just meh, did it no justice whatsoever.

I thought Misery was good as a film, but then against havent read the book.

My favourite book/persons life to film is 'Wilde' which stars Stephen Fry and a very young duo of Orlando Bloom and Jude Law. Even if a tad biased it is a great film, with the perfect choice of actors to play the parts. The woman who played Constance looked so cute in the film too :)

I would never read a book after watching a film just i'm not willing to spend hours to read a book when i already know how it ends but i would watch a film after reading a good book since it's only 2 hours or so.

Twas strange watching the da vinci code i thought,after reading the book.it followed the book to the letter,at least they could have changed the ending,just for a surprise.

Jesus Christ Superstar was a pretty good film, the book was a tad boring.

I was going to mention Harry Potter in my first post, but left it out for some reason.  It's the only time I wasn't disappointed with the cinema version and yes...the books are well worth reading.

I don't go to the cinema to see how much they've changed something I loved reading.  I go to see how well they adapted it to the screen. 

Have to get 'Miserry' now too.  Sigh.  I'll be busy over the next week.   rotflmfao

I read books to destress and relax, so it's normally lighhearted, easy going stuff that I can read with half a brain.

I go to the cinema so I can fall asleep and embarass whoever I'm with ( hopefully the kids )

Worst book to film translations that I've seen are Catch 22 ( but that was always going to be impossible ) and The Spy who Loved Me ( Possibly the best - or at least 2nd best - Bond book ).

In general I prefer reading the book to watching the film of a particular story.  So much more detail, plus they always change something to make it more "viewer friendly" and often it's things that don't need to be changed, they just do it because they think it will fill the cinemas more.  Like The Da Vinci Code, they completely changed the ending of the film to-, well I don't quite know why they changed it, but I didn't like it.

Hang on.  There's a wind up here

bhoywonder said :

Twas strange watching the da vinci code i thought,after reading the book.it followed the book to the letter,at least they could have changed the ending,just for a surprise.

I know I'm having one of my non comprendo days, but ........

just to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it - he dies at the end.

Does he not come back just in time for come choccy though?

PAPILLON

Brilliant descriptive book.............great film

Book wins every time as a persons imagination is perfect whereas a directors interpretation could never match that perfection

Thank you!  Exactly what I was thinking but unable to articulate.   ;hattip;

Jaws - the film no contest, read the book a few years after and it was more like a soap with Hoopers affair and pretty lame ending...though obv we owe a lot to the book in the first place.

The ending was different.  Don't want to say how it was different in case I spoil it for anyone that hasn't read it, but basically they changed one bit to make it more dramatic.  Probably so we all go "ahhh" when we see it for the first time.

Much prefer books to the films, always far better story.
Some films are probably very good if you haven't read the book beforehand.

What about Ludlum's Bourne trilogy.  I read the books a few ( ? ) years ago, and enjoyed them, coz there was a certain tension going on as I recall.  But the films were just Bond on speed.

Hugely disapointing.

But they did have Matt Damon in them. So no major shock there.  Damon's only done one decent film, that suits his slightly degen collegeboy gone bad look.   IMHO of course )

( As an aside, when you say the name 'Matt Damon' Do you do it in the stylee of ''Team America - World Police'' ? )

The bourne Trilogy is awesome and Matt Damon is the mutts nuts(IMO of course)

One thing I would say is that a lot of Stephen King adaptations are really good.  There is no way you are going to get the kind of detail in a film as you would in a Stephen King novel, but for some reason I really like them.  The Stand and IT spring to mind.  Great books and great films.

The Da Vinci Code is one of the worst books I've ever tried to read. It sucked on so many levels.

If you've seen the film 21 and enjoyed that, I would still recommend reading the Ben Mezrich book, and any of his others for that matter.

like Trainspotting, i read the book on someone recommendation, then a few months later, along came the movie. thats fine. the movie was good, but seemed a lot lighter than the book.

But the problem is, then he bloomin well wrote the sequel, which I enjoyed immensely, but now had an image in my head of Ewan McGregor, Bobby Carlyle etc. Filmstars, not the real characters - real "leith gadgies". (im sure geo will be along in a minute to correct my geography of the port area.....) :)

Totally agree.

Certain films (the Lord of the Rings Trilogy for example) - impresss me purely because they even approach the books for the pictures in my head. Then you get a cheap film about your favorite book ever (the Power of One - Bryce Courtenay) and they massacre it :(.

BOOKS FTW!!!!

I couldn't disagree with this more! Yes, Stephen King books are IMO fantastic, I'm a huge fan (not his No.1 fan, I'm happy to say though...) I've nearly all his work apart from a couple of the Dark Tower series. Sadly, and I know I'm not alone in this opinion, his adaptations are some of the worst about. You cannot convey the imagery that exist in his work onto film, it simply can't be done.   

That's not to say that the films can be great in their own right (think Shawshank, Green Mile, Stand By Me... ), but I would never recommend anyone to watch a SK film because it was a great book, they don't and can't  scratch the surface, or they end up a rather embarrassing hash up (think IT, Christine, Dreamcatcher...)

SO imo... All great books, a few/some great films, unfortunately a large amount of rubbish.

I enjoyed the LotR movies, but they annihilated so many aspects of the works by J.R.R Tolkien. Some of the major battles they just completely made up, for instance. There were no Elves at Helm's Deep. The films haven't even scratched the surface of the books, and they were -good- movies. A book is always going to trump a film

I agree watched all 3 in 1 day was immense.

I'm a huge SK fan, but i agree after reading the books the films are ALWAYS a total let down, what really annoys me is when they change the ending! ( Cujo, dreamcatcher and 1408. I fell asleep during tommyknockers so couldn't say if the ending was the same) 

currently watching needful things (why do i keep doing this to myself) read the book about 8 years ago thought it would be fun to watch the movie - i was wrong!

I've not read the Green Mile, but the film was excellent imo.  I think one of the reasons Stand by Me and Shawshank translated so well to film was because they were shorter stories they didn't suffer from the usual problem with adaptations where loads of what was in the book had to be left out of the film.

Two others that spring to mind where books and films were both very good are Silence of the Lambs and Schindler's Ark/List

I think you have a good point there Claire. SK's short story adaptations I've always enjoyed more, they aren't always big budget but they seem not suffer so badly in the transition. The films that try to stay with human factor and stay away from the supernatural, it would seem also to fair better.

The Green Mile is missing so much feeling (as you would expect) that to me it was a huge disappointment to watch, once I got over that I eventually found it a good film in it's own right... as long as I don't think about it too much lol.

Two of his books that recently-ish came out (Lisey's Story & Duma Key) Both equally enthralling/unputdownable. I can already see both of these making the big screen... I won't be holding my breath to see if they don't screw them up again, I truly hope I'm wrong.

That's curious. I thought the Green Mile was an outstanding film. I ought to read the book.

Don't misunderstand me, I think the film is a fine film in it's own right, just not a patch on the book. It really is a must read if you like this sort of book.

Yeah, I realize what you meant by it. I am saying that if, in my opinion, the film was that good:  the book can only be better. I have never, for some unknown reason, ever read a S.K book.