Books that AREN'T better than the movie.
 

More often than not, the book is often said to be better than the movie, but there are rare occasions where the book isn't as good as the film adaptation. So what books have you read that you'd rather watch the movie?

For me Alias Madame Doubtfire is no where near as good as the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. I might need to read it again to refresh myself, but there were things I remember not liking in the book or that I felt were done in the movie. Like the reveal...in the book he tells the kids he's Mrs Doubtfire. The youngest calls him that because it's just easier for her little mind to wrap around. Also the big "change back and forth bit" is him at the house as a nude art model...'nuff said.

I just started Forrest Gump, and so far I think I like the movie better.

I've read that and the sequel, and I don't think either particularly struck a chord with me. I love the movie, though.

I've also read ET and the sequel to that (which is weird), and the same pretty much applies.

I haven't read it, but I hear Jaws the movie is way better than the book.

Well, that makes me feel a bit better...I love the movie, but the book just seems less "whimsical"...

Wait, E.T. was based on a book? And there's a sequel? Do the E.T.s bring a full scale invasion?

I've heard similar things about Jaws.

Phantoms


Shocking, I know...

Lord of the Rings...

I know Tolkien is a great writer and the books are classics but reading them compared to watching the movies, hands down I'd rather watch the movies.

-ms

Yeah, the Jaws movie was much better than the book. I felt the Jurassic Park movie was better than the book it was based on too.

There's a sequel to ET (I agree, better than the movie even though I still love the movie)?

Still "reading" Forrest Gump. (Listening to the audio book read by the author) Part of me wonders if it's the fact that Forrest doesn't seems as "childlike" in the book is what makes me like the movie more. That Forrest just is more likeable. The book's Forrest also uses harsher language than his movie counterpart. I mean he's not shot in the "buttocks," he's shot in the "ass" and he likes to use the "s" word... a lot.

I found The Lost World;Jurassic Park to be a better film than the novel.

Wasn't that novel essentially an after thought? I mean they practically resurrected Ian Malcolm.

It pretty much was.

I've never read The Princess Bride, but I can't imagine it being better than the film.

Ironic... since the movie is setup as being read from the book of the same name.

Also, The Natural and First Blood probably two of the most famous examples of people preferring the movie to the book. The print edition of The Natural deserves credit for its subtle weaving of classic mythology with the modern mythology of America's fascinating with baseball in the early 20th century. Yet, in the end it all ends horribly for Roy Hobbs when he takes the Judge's bribe only to try to redeem himself at the last moment but has an epic collapse. The movie, however, is "pure mythical hokum," and just about everybody loves it.

First Blood the book ends with John Rambo blowing himself away in an "artistic" statement about the tragedy of training young men to be the government's cold, efficient killing machines. Yet Stallone figured it would be a terrible message to send to America's Vietnam vets, so Rambo doesn't die in the final cut of the film. That movie probably established the modern action movie formula and Stallone's bank account got pretty full to boot!

ET was not based off a book, I'm sure Roseangelo was just referring to the novelization.

I love both the Forrest Gump movie and the original book. I love them both because I find them so wildly different. The book is much more vulgar and obsurd, while the movie is more uplifting and more of a nostalgic look at American history over the last 50 years or so.

And I thaught that Muppet Treasure Island was better than the book. The book didn't have Dead Tom.

Or Tim Curry, for that matter!

I know it's not technically a book but I've always preferred the original The Crow over the comic (of the same name) it was based on. The movie was just more coherent, well structured, and really made you feel for Draven. In the comic it was a lot harder to associate with him, and the crow itself talked, which was kind of weird.

Fight Club was a much better movie than book, as is Jaws, and Scott Pilgrim vs The World.

I've been told that Blade Runner is far superior to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" but haven't read it myself.

As a fan of both, I have to say that it's not really fair to compare the two. Blade Runner is loyal to the spirit of its source material, but is very different otherwise. I'd recommend giving both a chance.

Agree!!! 100% :tcool:

Wow, I think any Jurassic Park fan would highly disagree with all of you. The film Jurassic Park impacted me as a 7 year old and because of my attachment to it I can't make a good unbiased decision, I just love the film and nothing will ever top it not even the book. However the book is simply amazing in every way and is just as good as the movie if not better.

Now The Lost World is very different from the movie and actually a great sequel to the original novel. The same can not be said for the film The Lost World, which I still love because it's Jurassic Park but it has plenty of flaws which the novel does not have.

I'll go ahead and agree with Lord of the Rings. Love the movies, but the books are boring as hell and a real endurance test.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

:twink: