Has there ever been a time when the movie was better than the book?

6,597
10
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
I very much doubt it... so why does it need to be said about every single movie?

We get it - it's a pretty well-known fact that books do a better job of telling a story since they can be so much more descriptive and in depth, not tomention lengthier... it's also probably true that you become somewhat biased against the movie if you've read the book first, since that's the wayyou want the movie to play out, too.

Well here's my stance.... either quit reading, or shut up already.

Discuss..
 
Originally Posted by Twig1026

Was/Is there a Matrix book...because if so then thats one example.

roll.gif
how can you say that's an example if you haven't read thebook ?(which i'm pretty sure doesnt exist)
 
the godfather
jurassic park
master and commander
the notebook
jarhead
lord of the rings


usually only really good books get made into movies....and even then the book is kinda like the screenplay for the movie.....you cant really compare thetwo....its like the lotr books were good but so were the movies....sometimes screenplays are better to read than movies
 
Jurassic Park movie was better than the book. But maybe it's because I saw movie before I read book?
 
Originally Posted by ImmaGetMine

^matrix - FX = boring.. imagine tryin to imagine all that stuff...lol

Not just that readin all that bull shhh the architect was sayin would not be interesting to read. I dunnot it was better hearing him say it.

1 movie I think was better was Time Machine, the book was really good but the movie was just a lil bit better.

If you dont read some type of books you do lag n get dumber.

smokin.gif
 
The Godfather. Reading about oversized vaginas and Sonny's horsecock isn't really my cup of tea. Also, Puzo was writing the novel with the intention ofgetting it turned into a movie.
Apocalypse Now (although that's only inspired by Heart of Darkness)
 
Back
Top Bottom