Is the book ALWAYS better than the movie? Any instances when this wasn't the case?

Answer 1

I usually think the book is better, but I think it also depends on which you are exposed to first. If you've read the book before seeing the movie, you'll probably like the book better. Similarly if you've seen the movie then read the book, you'll probably like the movie more.

The only instance I can think of where the movie was definately better than the book in my opinion was Practical Magic. The whole focus of the story shifts with the movie, into Sally learning to accept her gift through her love with her sister. Whereas in the book it's more just about the plot.

There are lots where I think the movie has portrayed the book very well. Like, Bridges of Madison County, the Harry Potter films (the casting is always so well done in those), The Lord of the Rings triology to name a few.

Answer 2

Usually depends which comes first. The book or the film. If the film is an adaptation of a book, the book is usually better, e.g. The Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, if the book comes out because of a successful film, the result is usually bland and without any kind of depth; e.g. The Star Wars books.
The only films which have lived up to the books have been the Harry Potter series mainly because Rawling insisted the films be an exact replica of the books.

P.S. I can't comment on The Da Vinci Code because I think I am one of the five people in the country who hasn't read the book.

Answer 3

The book is always more detailed than the movie, but that doesn't necessariley mean that it's better.

Some books don't translate well into movies, but movie studios attempt to make money by making a hot-selling book into a movie. For instance, The DaVinci Code was a fast paced book, but the subject matter (cryptology) didn't make for a good movie foe the masses.


One final point:
I'm disgusted by the person who thought that Sum of All Fears was better as a movie....regardless of the 1000pages, the movie wasn't 1/2 as interesting, or well-explained as the book.

Answer 4

I preferred the movie "Gone With the Wind" because although it is a long movie, it is a very longgggggg book. And being a Stephen King fan, most of the movies from his books or stories are made the same as the written story. But like one other person answered - the book gets the reader into the characters' thoughts and feelings more than movies.

Answer 5

It's my opinion that the book is better than the movie as generally you have a better idea of what's going on in the head of the protagonist. However a good example of the oppposite is the TV series Inspector Morse, and all the Star Trek Novels ghost written by the actors.
The only film I can think of that was better than the novel was The Commitments.

Answer 6

Generally the books are better as they often change quite a lot of stuff so it tells better on screen, ie Rebecca, The Count of Monte Cristo. But have to agree that the Star Wars books were totally rubbish and the movies were all fab so go figure!

Answer 7

I read "Silence of the Lambs" before I saw the movie. The movie was ok but the book went way more into detail. I read "The Excorcist" after I saw the movie. The book wasnt necessarily better than the movie but,again, it went into more detail about what was going n in the priests mind.

Answer 8

The only time I ever came across one being as good as the other was "The day of the jackal" ,the original version starring Edward Fox and the book by Frederick Forsythe.I usually find that the book is better than the fil m

Answer 9

No not always the case

The Shawshank Redemption
The book was written as a novella by Stephen KIng - film is much better.

Answer 10

Lord of the Ring.
I found all of those movies boring. But the books are even more boring.
I actually did not finish reading "Two Towers", I just read the frist book from the triology.