We've all read books. We've all seen movies. We've all seen movies adapted from books. So which do you think was done the best and why?

 

Also which movie do you think was done better than the books?

Oh wow this is tough.

 

More than likely, I have to see the movie first before ever reading the book. This is the only way a movie can be better.

 

Ok... Band of Brothers... better than the Ambrose book by far.

 

The Godfather, you know, one of the best movies ever.

 

The Princess Bride.... yes the book is better, but the movie lives up to the book.

 

Jaws... Spielburg took this book and made it better.

 

Fight Club.... thought this movie was great and better than the book.

Well, I try not to both read the book and watch the movie, because I tend to be disappointed with one or the other...

 

But I will say, of the few stories that I have consumed in both mediums, that the Bourne Identity was the WORST translation. Not a terrible movie, but the book was so much more complex and interesting than the somewhat entertaining but not very interesting movie version. Patriot Games is right alongside Bourne, in that regard.

 

Fight Club was a fantastic movie, and having read one of Palanhiuk's (sp?) other books, I can absolutely imagine the movie surpassing the book by leaps and bounds.

.

But I will say' date=' of the few stories that I have consumed in both mediums, that the Bourne Identity was the WORST translation. Not a terrible movie, but the book was [i']so [/i]much more complex and interesting than the somewhat entertaining but not very interesting movie version. Patriot Games is right alongside Bourne, in that regard.

 

HAHA SO true. xD The movie doesn't follow the book's plotline even LOOSELY. Good movie, good book, but they can't really call the movie an adaptation.

The WORST I've seen is the 'power of one' by Bryce Courtney Book fantastic a must read really the movie the only association was the main characters name and they miss out on hugely important events and add events that didn't happen in.

the worst i can think of right now is easier than figuring out the best. though i'd put forward LotR as a very good movie interpretation.

 

as for the worst - eragon. i don't like the book either, but my brother loves it & all he talked about for an entire day was how terrible the movie was & how badly he wanted to hurt someone. he was kinda scary actually ;)

Well, Graphic Novel would be 300 by far.

 

Book, I think, would be The Dead Zone.

 

Yes, I posted, and the world will now end ;)

Only if I post after you.

I liked the movie adaptation of Bridget Jones' diary. it stayed true to the feel of the book, and reading the book does add more to the story, but I can like both.

 

 

I am getting more dissapointed with Harry Potter movies, they aren't fitting in enough of the information from the books, and if you haven't read the books it makes the movies harder to follow.

Actually, on the contrary, I think that the Harry Potter movies are doing a very good job at keeping the timeline clear, despite having so much content to fit into the movies.

 

True, they are leaving a lot of stuff out, but thats because they don't have the time to add in the extra content. The movie would simply be too long.

I think as films the Harry Potters are good. But in comparision to the books they are not too great (Though I did love Azkaban)

I agree with Caddy about Patriot Games. Having read all of Tom Clancys books though, the detail is that intricate that I think it would be very hard to fit into a standard format movie. Just like the Bourne movies, they are good movies in their own right, but the adaption doesnt give the book justice.