Movies I like more than the book:

The Nanny Diaries- much happier ending

Confessions of a Shopaholic- Becky wasn't anywhere near as stupid as she is in the books

Practical Magic- the book was awful

My sister's keeper - the ending wasn't the "problem solves itself" from the book, and ended the way I'd hoped the book would (but other than that I liked both).

Oh, and the basilisk/Tom Riddle scene in Harry Potter & the chamber of secrets. I liked parts of it better than in the book (but that's pretty much the only scene in all the 7 books I liked better than in the books, which says a lot of what I think about the rest - they almost destroyed the final action scenes in movie 5 and 8, plus the labyrinth in movie 4).

Other than that... not anything I can come up with. The books I've read are generally better than the movies based on them, or somewhat equally good.

I like My Sister's Keeper movie more that the book too. I tried to read the book, but just couldn't get into it, and didn't finish.


I think I agree about HPCoS, about 5 and 8 battle scenes too. Actually, I really don't like the end battle/war in 8 at all. Too much was changed. However, I did think they did Sirius's death scene well. In HP movie 7, I really loved that they showed Hermione modifying her parents' memories and walking away.

The harry potter movies are five times better than the books.
Also, the outsiders. The movie was better than the book, although, the book is epic and heartbreaking. I love both the movie and book. I wish they made a sequel, but SE Hinton dropped the project long ago.

Seriously, i read the outsiders at least 10 times in a row it was so good.

I can agree with you there. The battle scenes in 8 was a real mess, and they cut away some of the important things. The whole "flying around Hogwarts" thing was pointless. The whole point of the story was explained so well in the book (and could easily have been shortened down while keeping the heart of it for the movie), but had been reduced to a few pointless words and a lot of nonsense battle scenes in the movie.



Meh. The books are 100 times better than the movies. At least!
They changed too much, and made several scenes into a mess, cutting away too many things that should have stayed while dragging out some scenes that should have been much shorter. The movies are enjoyable, sure, but not better than the books.

Tuck Everlasting - I liked the book, but the movie actually seemed more fleshed out, probably because the book was so short.

A Walk To Remember - The book was rather boring and dull. It was also set in the 50's in a small town, so the love interest who was a "rebel" was rebellious by eating peanuts in a graveyard at night (I mean, I'm pretty sure even in small towns in the 50's people did more rebellious stuff than that). Also, the girl in the book was almost devoid of personality, except for being a "perfect Christian girl," which is unrealistic and boring. In the movie she had spunk.

The Great Gatsby - The book is pretty boring until the end, whereas the movie held my interest throughout.

As soon as I saw the title of this thread I thought of Practical Magic. It's not that I disliked the book, but I love the movie so much more.

The only movie I can think of that was better than the book is The Princess Bride. Being a huge fan of the movie, I thought the book would be awesome, but it ended up being one of the most dry, boring things I've ever read. Very odd.

One other movie I can think of that was as good as the book is Like Water for Chocolate. It struck me as the most faithful-to-the-book movie I had ever seen, and I was quite impressed, and gratified, because it's one of my favorite books. At least, that's how I felt the first time I saw it. Second time, I swear they must have added a cheesy music track and left some things out, though I wasn't sure what. It's a little disconcerting, because I honestly don't know if they actually changed something between the theatre and DVD, or if it was just my perceptions that changed.

In all other cases, I prefer the books. The Harry Potter movies, in particular, bug me so much that I've not seen the last, I think, four of them. The young actors are endearing (even though their acting wasn't really very good, in the early couple), but the directing was AWFUL. And I'm not one who usually notices such things. But in several scenes, where there should be a lot of stuff going on in the background, the background actors just stand there, like lumps. That, and all the gratuitous action scenes that weren't in the book, drove me nuts. Besides, the books are simply way too rich in detail for a movie to do them full justice, so even if the movies had been far better than they were, the books remain best of all.

I think I have to mention Lord of the Rings, too. Not that the books are worse than the movies, but in between the action they're a bit... dreary. Now, I'm the kind of person who can read a 10-15 book series (of 500-1200 pages apiece) 5-6 times without a blink, but LotR, despite being "one" book of less than 1500 pages (I've got the collection), I've only read it once, some ten years ago. It felt like ages getting through the thing (perhaps because I insisted on reading the extras, of which took me a week, and I gave up halfway because I just couldn't get the hang of it), but I'd much rather watch the movies again.
The movies, while a bit longer than strictly necessary, were better in a way... Still, it's a bit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gn5T5mJgkk

I can't believe I didn't think of LoTR! Much as it pains me, considering it's Tolkien we're talking about, I have to agree that the movies were more... accessible, perhaps? I find it difficult to say "better". At any rate, both books and movies were/are incredible in their own rights, so perhaps it's not that important.

I don't think the movies were too long at all, personally. I loved it when they released the director's cut that added even more.

"Better" is perhaps the wrong word, thoug I can agree on "accessible". I actually had to see the first movie to get the hype, and I read the book after. To give the movies some credit, they do follow the storyline quite well, so if you haven't read the book you'll not miss anything, and if you have read the books you'll most likely not think that anyhting very important was missing.

efolger997 - "eating peanuts in a graveyard at night". That sounds like one of the old "stupid laws" you can read about. If it was, then eating peanuts in a graveyard at night was indeed rebellious.

Man, I thought I'd be the only one who'd say Lord of the Rings. I'm sorry, but I can't stand Tolkein's painfully drawn-out writing style. I've never been able to get through a single book of his, not even The Hobbit, much less the LoTR trilogy. But I really like the movies. I even have the 4-hour extended versions of each of them on DVD. Of course, it could be because the movie have...mmmm....eye candy. And I ain't talkin' 'bout Orlando Bloom

The other one I can think of off the top of my head is Carrie, the Stephen King adaptation. It's one of King's books that I really don't like all that well, but Sissy Spacek in the movie was fab. Also, Misery, although that book was good as well. But the movie surpasses it, I think, because of Kathy Bates who was just...well, frightening in it.

I have never wanted to read LOTR, and have only seen the first movie.

I like Stephen King movies, but not his books.

The girl in the Carrie remake (one that came out a few years ago) can't touch Sissy Spacek as Carrie.

The Lovely Bones. The book wasn't bad, but I preferred the movie. I had trouble actually getting into the book.

Harry Potter, Prisoner of Azkaban. Don't know why, I just never cared for the book that much. It was always my least favourite, but I enjoyed the movie. I've still read it about 50 times though.

And like someone else said, Misery. I loved the book but the movie was just amazing with Kathy Bates in it. I love her in everything she's in.

Every Pooh story ever written. :lovestruc

The Hobbit (I never read the LotR books, so I have no place to make a comparison). Because, honestly, I don't really like Tolkien's writing style - it can't seem to focus on what events it wants to describe, often sidetracking from the main plot to describe about minor details and recall events (that are probably important to the universe as a whole, but does nothing to enrich the story I'm supposed to be reading about) that can only be understood if one reads his other Middle-earth books which not many have access to; the background and development of a lot of the characters is also mostly done in those aforementioned "other sources". This makes the pacing feel strange, as sometimes the narration goes really slowly to reference numerous historical events (which often feel like info-dumps), while sometimes breezing through the main plot's scenes, as though it's summarizing the events rather than actually retelling it.


Other than that, I generally prefer watching a superhero movie rather than the comics it was based on - because there's less inconsistencies, ret-con, and other ridiculous plot threads that are simply too confusing to follow (i.e. clones, time travels, alternate universe, negative continuities, alternate character intepretations which varies wildly depending on the writers...)

I greatly prefer movies over comics too!

I think Color Purple the Movie is way better than the Book.
I think To Kill A Mocking Bird the movie is way better than the Book.
I think A Raisin in the Sun the Movie is way better than the Play - The Made for TV Movie.
I think Tom Sawyer and Huckberry Finn the Movies are way better than the Books.

I loat the Twilight series, but to those that haven't read the books.. they are worse than the movies. It's like reading a 14 year old girl's diary when she is PMSing.

I LOVE Tolkien's work, so I will always find the books better than the movies as they got more backstory to them. Still I love Peter Jackson's directing style aswell. I'm a bit confused though, as someone said they prefer the Hobbit movies over the book? You are aware that the Hobbit is a much shorter story than LOTR, and that it is written for children also? The films are actually longer than it takes to read the book..

As for the Harry Potter books there are scenes I really love in the films, and I don't think I would have ever started read the books if I haven't watched the 3 first films. Besides film 4-6 I think the other 4 parts are quite into detail and includes most scenes. I remember reading the last book before watching the last 2 parts, thinking it was quite spot on, besides some missing characters.

Besides these books I don't read much (only Dan Brown), and I prefer watching a movie if I can chose between reading and watching..

Prince of Egypt.

I agree with the people who say LotR. I really don't like the book for various reasons, a couple of which are the pacing and the lack of tension, mainly due to uninhibited worldbuilding. The hobbits are running away from black riders who are stalking them in the night? They crash into a godling who says "The plot shall not commence without my say-so!" and proceeds to drain all tension while singing about how he kidnapped his wife and proving that the ring can't affect everyone, so that diminishes the threat of the ring itself. Gandalf is captured by Saruman? The entire story is told at the Council of Elrond, so we know he makes it out all right. The fellowship is running from orcs after Moria, where Gandalf just "died"? "Frodo, you have to see this special pool where you can see a crown in it!" Yeah, if the characters feel it's safe enough to stop and look at a pool, why do we need to be concerned for their lives? The movies do a great job ironing out those giant plot-stoppers. I understand that some people are in it for the worldbuilding, but what's the point of reading about another world if it can't carry a decent plot and not even the characters care about themselves?

Also, the reason the Princess Bride book was so boring is because the guy who wrote it was doing that on purpose. See, the book is a parody of a book that tried to combine an epic style with satire while adding in authors' tracts (like the notes about how S. Morgenstern went on and on about the trees). There is no S. Morgenstern; it was entirely written by William Goldman. I was able to appreciate it on that level on a second reading after I got the joke, but I do agree that the movie was excellent just played straight.

The problem with books made into movies is that most people have already read the book, and they have their own idea of the characters and the world. Not to mention favourite scenes. So a movie that has to leave lot of great scenes off, and has a big team working on the world and characters, usually ends up feeling like it's lacking something. At least that's how I see it.

Anyway, to answer shortly, High Fidelity and Fight Club. The books were great, but the movies really gave them the life they needed. High Fidelity really needed sounds, and Fight Club motion to make it a complete experience for me.

Twilight..I understood book much more than movie xD

The Great Gatsby, and Fight Club.

The Haunting (1963), based on the novel, The Haunting of Hill House, by Shirley Jackson. The book is OK, but the movie is superb, a haunted house classic.

In the same vein though, Richard Matheson's novel, Hell House, is better than the subsequent movie, The Legend of Hell House.

I only saw the (first and second, maybe some of the fourth?) movies to know what the hype was about. I kept multitasking all through them, and found them so boring I almost fell asleep several times. I can agree that the movies are better because of two reason: It's probably quicker to see them than reading the books, and it's possible to do other things while seeing them. As for the movie quality it's not much to brag about, either. Bella will to me always be the most useless main character in any film I've ever seen (and the actor playing her is even worse). I tried reading the books back when I got a leaflet with the first chapter, but I had to give in after the second page. It's as you say - it felt exactly like reading a 14 year old girl's diary when she is PMSing.

It may be because I've actually read other books with werewolves/shapeshifters and vampires in them, and found those books much more worth my time. Plus, I wasn't fourteen when Twilight became a thing.