Have you ever seen a movie that was better than the book? In my experience the book is always better.?

The book is almost always better because the reader can see the raw emotion behind the characters and nothing is cut out (as far as we know ;D). Movies take creative license with the works and are forced to cut out parts due to entertainment, time & money constraints.

The two movies that come to mind as being good book to movie productions are The Great Gatsby and more recently Inkheart.

I'm an avid fan of lots of books and scrutinize the movie versions to no end. The Great Gatsby was fairly close to the book and the way it was filmed catches my breath every time. It helps that it's a brilliant story line too but the film was well done and well put together.

Inkheart...well, a lot was cut out, rearranged and added. But, it got the message of the novel across, stayed close to the characters (although I had issues with Brendan Fraser as Moe) and more or less was close enough to the plot to make me happy. The extra lines were grin worthy, the acting good all around and I couldn't complain with the extra book references and a few changes in the order of events.

So, yeah, the books are better if you're a book person. I'm sure there are some people who prefer the movies because they'd rather be in the middle of it all and have more than one sense aggravated at a time.

The book is ALMOST always better. There are exceptions that make the rule. Two recent examples that come to mind are Fight Club and No Country For Old Men.

Fight Club because the author had great ideas but his prose style has fairly staggered (it was his first novel) The movie cleaned things up quite a bit while preserving the ideas.

I was surprised by No Country For Old Men. Being a tremendous Cormac McCarthy fan it seems impossible a movie could render his imaginative prose on screen. And really it can't if we're taking Blood Meridian, All the Pretty Horses, or Suttree. However, No Country For Old Men is one of McCarthy's lesser novels. The characters are more abstracts than fleshed out, real people. The superb cast of the film really brought them alive in a way they are not in the book.

I agree with one poster that Into the Wild, the film, was extraordinary compared to the book. The story was much more detailed and the movie was put together incredibly, while the book was more a narration of the author with his own stories added in. I still enjoyed the book because it's an amazing story, but I saw the movie first and that will always be my favorite.

Suprising to most people, I also think A Walk to Remember, the movie, was better than the book, and I read it first. After people raved about the story, I was let down by the short book with no action, but seriously impressed by the actors in the movie as well as all the storylines the writers added in to make it more captivating.

I have found that most books are better than the movies if you read them before the movie. I find when I watch the movie first I just read the book only thinking about the movie, and not imagine what I think the places, characters are like. You should probably stick to reading the book first.

Hope that helps.

i agree with that...but you have to look at it this way. since we already read the book, we know the story and are a little bias when it comes to comparing them. like we can sit there and say "no they left this part out" "how could they forget this, it was great for the plot" and so one, but just think if you hadnt read the book, would the movie be great?? like, Eragon. I loved that book to peices, hated the movie with a deep and still growing passion. but, if i just watched the movie, remembering that they cant fit EVERYTHING into a movie, youll realize that the movies we hate because they dont follow the book are still really good movies.

now of course no movie is ever going to top a book, but they are still good, no better of course, but still good.

hope this helps. :)

I watched Twilight before I read the book and I have to say the book is 100 times better than the movie. I really liked the movie too though.

Books are indeed better than movies. In movies, too much is left to others' imaginations. In books, everything is your own and you can imagine everything to your liking. Having said that, there are a few exceptions.

Gossip Girl is way better on TV rather than in pages. In books, the story just drags on and its a bore. On TV though, it has the right level of drama to engross you.

Also, Blood and Chocolate (book) was amazing and if you go by the book, the movie was terrible. But I have to say that they both are, on their own, really good and enjoyable.

Yes I have. I think that the LOTR trilogy and the HP movies are examples of this. Movies tend to focus more on important plot points, and books explain them all. If you want a condensed version, then a movie is it. Do not use movies for your assignments if you are supposed to read a book though. Gone With the Wind is better on screen than in the book, Queen of the Damned is better in the book than on screen. I think that you get my drift. It really depends on the book and how the screenwriter takes it from book to screen.

The book is always better, because the author gives more detail, and he leaves it up to you to imagine the characters/ what happens next at the end of the book.

Kelly Robertson has started a clean sequence referred to as The Summoning... Melissa Marr: wicked gorgeous, and Ink replace Stephanie Meyer: The Host Libba Bray: an excellent and unfavourable splendor Trilogy Jane Austine: All her classic novels Lord of the jewellery Trilogy Harry Potter sequence Eragon sequence