Skip to main content
PBS logo
Want fewer ads?

Discussion Forums - August Hot Topics

Topic: Book or Movie?

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
lens avatar
Len S. (lens) - , - PaperBackSwap Team
Standard Member medalBox-O-Books medalBook Cover Image Approver medalBook Data Approver medalFriend of PBS-Gold medalPBS Cruise Attendee medal10th Anniversary PBS Cruise Attendee medalPBS Blog Contributor medal
Subject: Book or Movie?
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 4:45 PM ET
Member Since: 12/21/2006
Posts: 827
Back To Top

We've all heard couples discussing the movie they've just seen on the way to the parking lot. Invariably, someone says "I liked it, but the book was much better..."

Of course the book was better. It was a book!

But seriously, have you ever seen a movie that made you say just the opposite?

Criskat avatar
Friend of PBS-Silver medal
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 5:35 PM ET
Member Since: 2/24/2007
Posts: 6,447
Back To Top

 I have tried and tried and failed to read LOTR. But I loved the movies. So for me it's Lord of the Rings.

JenH avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 5:35 PM ET
Member Since: 2/28/2007
Posts: 162
Back To Top

I've never liked a movie better than the book, but  I will say the Harry Potter movies are the only ones I've seen that I felt were as good as the books.  Well, the first few were at least.

Last Edited on: 7/23/07 5:36 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
ChicagoCubs avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 5:48 PM ET
Member Since: 9/20/2005
Posts: 14,915
Back To Top

I think that the books are usually better than the movies.  The books tell you so much more than movies can show you.  Especially with the Harry Potter movies.  They are close to 3 hours each but still don't tell as much as the books.  I still love them though!

Criskat avatar
Friend of PBS-Silver medal
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 6:49 PM ET
Member Since: 2/24/2007
Posts: 6,447
Back To Top

I feel the same way. You just can't get the whole picture in a 2 hr movie as you get in 800 page book. That's why I usually don't watch movies that I have read the book first. I might watch a movie and then read the book.

I do love the HP books and movies. I think I like the movies so well because the actors that play the characters in the book are the exact picture I have in my mind of what they would look like. You know how you get a picture in your head about the characters in a book.

I also love the Alex Cross books but for me as much as I like Morgan Freeman he isn't  Alex Cross. I think the "Your in Good hands" guy would fit my ideal better.(Sorry, I can't think of his name) LOL

Generic Profile avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 6:59 PM ET
Member Since: 4/12/2007
Posts: 140
Back To Top

The one book based movie that I thought was great (although different from and not necessarily better than,  -- I loved the book too) was WONDER BOYS.  Extremely well done and well cast. 

I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies, too, but they leave out  a lot of the books.  However, I think they have been astonishingly well cast.  In particular, I thought that Umbridge and Luna Lovegood (in the latest installment) were spot on!

- Tracy

katatonicstate avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 7:12 PM ET
Member Since: 3/12/2007
Posts: 462
Back To Top

I thought the movie version of Bridget Jones' Diary was better than the book.

JujuGirl avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 8:23 PM ET
Member Since: 10/29/2005
Posts: 22
Back To Top

I actually preferred the movie of Michael Crichton's "Timeline" over the book. I thought the movie's ending was much tidier too.

sapphiredragon avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 9:09 PM ET
Member Since: 3/19/2007
Posts: 250
Back To Top

I thought the movie Practical Magic was a lot better than the book.

Caryn9802 avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 9:09 PM ET
Member Since: 7/13/2005
Posts: 8,410
Back To Top

I liked "The Pursuit of Happyness" over the memoir.  Also, "Jurassic Park."  It just looked so much cooler on screen.

bridget avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 9:11 PM ET
Member Since: 5/31/2006
Posts: 568
Back To Top

I couldn't get through "House of Sand and Fog" when I tried to read it (twice).  But I loved the movie.

Generic Profile avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 9:36 PM ET
Member Since: 7/20/2007
Posts: 5
Back To Top

I would say the "The Green Mile" was pretty darn good.  I knew the movie would be good though when I cried reading the book.  I think the movie did a great job of following the book.  I made sure to completely read the books first before watching the movie.

I can't think of any other books right now that I have read that have also been a movie.


Sherbook avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 9:40 PM ET
Member Since: 3/28/2006
Posts: 486
Back To Top

I always try to read the book first.  If I like it, then I want to see the movie.  If I've seen the movie I don't usually want to read the book afterwards.  Just me!

The only time ever I thought the movie was better than the book was "Jaws".

Generic Profile avatar
Date Posted: 7/23/2007 11:08 PM ET
Member Since: 4/9/2007
Posts: 28
Back To Top

I loved the Lord of the Rings movies better than the books.  I read all the books and it took forever. It was hard to get into them.  Usually the book is always better than the movie.  Harry Potter---love the books and love the movies.


Happy Reading,


deltatiger avatar
Standard Member medalMember of the Month medalPrintable Postage medal
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 12:37 AM ET
Member Since: 12/19/2005
Posts: 5,096
Back To Top

I thought the movie Fried Green Tomatoes was much better than the book Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe.

Bast avatar
Bast -
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 1:19 AM ET
Member Since: 6/4/2006
Posts: 547
Back To Top

For me, it's Sahara the movie - it was far better than Sahara (by Clive Cussler) (in my opinion).

Lin11879 avatar
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 1:41 AM ET
Member Since: 4/27/2007
Posts: 3,596
Back To Top

I rarely, if ever, think a movie is better.  I get too much enjoyment from reading.  However, I will concede that books with a lot of high action and special effects, like LOTR and HP as some examples already mentioned here, can be better than than the books in terms of visualization.  It is really cool to see those scenes actually happening, and not have to try and fit together all the complications of those scences inside your head.  I really enjoy seeing those kind of books made into movies and soaking up the special effects.

smittydoodle avatar
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 1:48 AM ET
Member Since: 7/6/2007
Posts: 32
Back To Top

I tried to read Bridget Jones and didn't really like it. The movie was fun, though.

achadamaia avatar
Member of the Month medalPBS Blog Contributor medal
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 2:05 AM ET
Member Since: 3/31/2006
Posts: 28,608
Back To Top

Alot depends on which I see first.  If I see the movie first then read the book, I almost always like the movie better.  But, if I read the book first, I almost never like the movie.

L avatar
L. G. (L)
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 2:09 AM ET
Member Since: 9/5/2005
Posts: 12,412
Back To Top

Misery.  Liked the book, loved the movie!  Kathy bates brought the character of Annie Wilkes to life.


Generic Profile avatar
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 9:42 AM ET
Member Since: 9/6/2005
Posts: 400
Back To Top

Julie, I just finished "Timeline".  I really liked it.  I had no idea there was a movie.  Do you know when it came out and who is in it?  Now I have to find it!!!

I have never found a movie that I liked better than the book.  I'll keep looking :-)

comet9443 avatar
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 9:58 AM ET
Member Since: 3/3/2006
Posts: 1,188
Back To Top

What bothers me about books turned in to movies are when they change things that don't need to be changed.  The one that springs to mind for me is in the book Where the Heart Is, NovaLee has a fear of the number 5.  In the movie, they changed it to 7 (or it may be vice versa, I haven't read or seen it in a while).  Why?  What was the point of that?  It wouldn't ost them any more to make the number the right one, it wouldn't take any longer to have it the right one?  It makes no sense and seems like they changed it just because they could.  It's irritating.

joann avatar
JOANNE (joann) - ,
Standard Member medalFriend of PBS-Silver medal
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 12:22 PM ET
Member Since: 9/2/2005
Posts: 1,907
Back To Top

I believe that we, as readers, are always going to find the book more interesting. There is a mind set about us being readers. Obviously, we love to handle the book and read every word. And while we also may like to see movies, I believe that we are a different breed. I think that we just thrive on the printed word. Usually so much more written in words and just the chance to imagine, by yourself, what the situation looks like. Sometimes movies fall short of what we expect when we read a really good book. Whether it be the actor, the setting or whatever. To me, the book is always better.

staceid avatar
Friend of PBS-Silver medal
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 1:53 PM ET
Member Since: 1/11/2006
Posts: 18,929
Back To Top

I have to agree with those who have mentioned The Lord of the Rings. I have tried and I just cannot get into those books, but I adore the movies.

In another genre, I couldn't stomach the book version of The Princess Diaries but I loved the movie.

kbockl avatar
Karen B. - ,
Standard Member medalFriend of PBS-Double Diamond medal
Date Posted: 7/24/2007 2:20 PM ET
Member Since: 3/31/2007
Posts: 32
Back To Top

Jurassic Park was much better as a movie, IMHO.  I can't think of a another instance where I liked the movie better than the book, but love the movie version of The Princess Bride just as much as I love the book. 

Want fewer ads?