Muh Books

>the book is better than the film

What are clear examples where this is not the fucking case?

Other urls found in this thread:

harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_differences_between_the_Harry_Potter_books_and_films
ew.com/movies/2017/11/25/blade-runner-2049-women-critique-denis-villeneuve/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Harry potter.

Good lord those books are hard to read.

Silence of the Lambs, the book is good but the film is better, albeit they leave out a few bits and mix together parts of the story such as whose head is in the jar. The cell for Hannibal is far better than what was described in the book (a fucking net over a normal cage).

Godfather is THE example of this, the book has some odd side plots including one about vagina surgery

Came here to post this.

Lord of the Rings

Forrest Gump

>including one about vagina surgery
Did Larry David write this book?

I tried to put a book in a vhs and it didnt work. Plus theres nowhere to plug it in. By itself its just one long instruction manual that i dont care to read.
Movies are always better.

why don't you read some books and find out?

The Shining

this works for nearly every kubrick adaptation

*Stephen king adaptation

I've read 13 in the last 3 weeks

Fight Club definitely.

No Country for Old Men, debatably

Jurassic Park.

The Mist. Even King acknowledges that the book's ending was worse than the movie's

It. You know why.

Fight Club

...

Definitely Lord of the Rings.

>The average /tv-poster

Every stephen king

...

Is it really? I've read Lost World and that was better than the movie

No one even knows it's based on a book.

which was your favorite?

Fuck no.

Mindhunter or the spy who changed the world

Shining

esp. because of the nigger cook, now it's an old trick of course but then you have this character the audience thought would come to the rescue and with a tiny little scene he gets killed and all the hope is smashed

murrican psycho

This, 2001, and Princess Bride are examples of when the movie is an absolute classic but the book is just kinda middle of the road for the genre.

Did we really need all those chapters about mercerism? Was the turtle being a fake really such a shock? While the book gives you some insight into what the original was going for the movie is just so much more interesting and has far more influence on media.

I don’t why?

The gangbang, obvos.

Music's better in the books though

Elaborate.

The Gang Bang was the best part.

If you even mean the 1990 version fuck off, that movie was so bad. They push lf a rubber spider and then start punching it. No ritual of Chud.

Blade Runner is dumbed down Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for IQlets who need violence and almost everything spelled out for them. I have no respect for anyone who praises this movie.

ok

Apocalypse Now is much better than heart of darkness.

Every stephen king

First Blood.

You can't have Trautman kill Rambo and have Teasle die and honorable death, David Morrell you hack.

I unironically like American Psycho better as a film than a book, and I love them both.

Did you even watch the fucking movie?

Verhoeven's sci-fi flicks of the 80s and 90s

>Deleted
Why? Is this the post that is too contrarian for Sup Forums?

Jaws the movie is better than the book

Anyone who disagrees is a buttmad /lit/ard

Requiem for a Dream. Fucking book didn't have punctuation.

kys

what was it

May your knife ship and shatter you mongoloid.

Some /lit/ard complaining that the movie wasn't exactly like the book.

>huge vagina..HUUUUUGE!

rather vice versa faggot. Well at least if you read books first

How do you even write a book without naming the main character?

His name is Terry in the book.

Dune

oh

Fight Club
The Shining (and pretty much everything Kubrick related)
Prisoners of Azkaban

for sure you haven't read the books

The movie literally covers 40% of what's in the books, and there is so much deep character development in the books

Fincher makes anything better

>"No!"

2001, depending on what you liked or disliked about the movie. If you thought all the long silences and drawn-out shots of THE FUTURE and the imagery were boring and/or confusing, the book is a straight-told story that explains everything that's going on very clearly.

>The movie literally covers 40% of what's in the books,
Yeah, gets rid of pointless padding.

Yes.

Technically, 2001 the movie was released before the book and were written in conjunction with each other, so idk if it counts.

Trainspotting because subtitles.

Literally every adaptation ever made
Film will always be superior to literature.

Pretty much all fiction books are better off on-screen. Non fiction is the only thing worth reading. Only women and children read fiction.

>these double digit IQs

I can smell the pol on you, go back

The Layer Cake book + sequel never mentions the protagonist by name. Good books too

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS Sup Forums
Go back to your safespace.

This.

They left out all the right shit.

nice trips

but really wrong, there is so much detail in the books that the movie changes or leaves out and it adds a lot to the story
even subtle things like Luna's backstory and life, Grindelwald, Voldemort's death (his body is slumped on the ground like any other human instead of turning to dust like some godlike figure), S.P.E.W. and the elves of Hogwarts, and so much more

Even the whole back story of Voldemort and the Horcruxes are almost entirely ommited. R.A.B's significance is removed, how Kreacher was left to die by an arrogant Voldemort. This shows a lot of the flaws Voldemort had, that eventually lead up to the mistakes he made. In the movies they barely go into that, leaving a lot out

harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_differences_between_the_Harry_Potter_books_and_films

No country for old men is a script. There's literally no difference between it and the movie.

...

Not him, but every character in the book had much more depth than in the movie. The movie is just pretty visuals with bad acting all over the place saved by the few moments with Rutger Hauer.
Also 2049 > the original.

It is not an adaptation though, it was merely inspired in the book.

Denis will create another masterpiece, blowing Lynchtards outta here

>2049 > the original
Fuck off, feminazi

The Shining. inb4 Stephen King fags, I read the book, it was ok at best

...

it started out as a script but became a book, and there's a lot more content in the book that was left out of the film

>le world is hard on wimmin
2049 was fucking awful.

...

2049 was not about women in the slightest.
I feel you closet feminists are projecting your twisted views onto it.

This was also not an adaptation, the movie was loosely based on the novel.
In general, books are always better, but movies based on books are also leagues better than movies with "original" scripts.

>“What is cinema?” Villeneuve continued. “Cinema is a mirror on society. Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today. And I’m sorry, but the world is not kind on women.”

ew.com/movies/2017/11/25/blade-runner-2049-women-critique-denis-villeneuve/

Kys /lit/ard

Gomorrah

NO TRUE ADAPTATION

btfo

I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti

Is this the "Deckard was a replicant" of this generation?

Salem's Lot
He'll any of King's deck that was adapted

This
and this
Stephen King is a terrible author.

This

I hate Tolkien

incorrect

the only pêrson I ever met who hated Tolkien was someone who thought J.K. Rowling was the greatest writer ever and created a form of imaginary rivalry between HP and LotR and JK and JRR.