Films better than their book counter parts. I'll start

Films better than their book counter parts. I'll start.

and that's it

Rosemary's Baby
The Exorcist

...

The Hobbit

...

blade runner. Only good thing about original novel was that every character was implied to be mentally retarded from radiation exposure somehow, even the detective

>Films better than their book counter parts.
>The Shining

back to Sup Forums

Kubrick does a far greater job at making the Overlook feel like a character.

Pleb. They are so different. The book has its charm and its good points. You can't compare them realistically.

...

Undisputably thats Minority Report

>A movie better than a book

The better question is why are some of the best films novel adaptations? Why does this media rely so heavily on another media to support it?

Sorry Stephen it's true. Haven't you got some virtue signalling to do on Twitter?

Old Boy. Holy fuck, the manga ending is such shit. Don't even bother looking it up. I just regret wasting my time reading that shit.

Jurassic Park blows the book out of the water in literally every way.

Also this.

The whole "le book is always better" meme is only said by people who don't read in order to imply they do.

funny

true, true. The book had that desolate and barren earth atmosphere, while film was dealing with overpopulated megalopolis

Most movies that you think are original are based on short stories and novels that you haven't heard of. It's not "so heavily", it's "almost exclusively."

I think the movie's better too. I haven't read the book but books are for fags.

I agree, Kubrick took all of the shit things out of the story.

This. I couldn't even READ the Lost World because of how fucking boring it is.

I think the movie could have taken one or two minor things from the Jurassic Park book, but that's it.

Several of King's works.

/thread

No. I love the 2 movies, but the books are slightly better.

The only good answer is Dan Brown. His books are so shit that the movies look like fucking masterpieces in comparison. That guy can make a ticking timebomb plot about stopping an anti-matter bomb the most boring and non-exciting thing ever. He also makes stuff that should be interesting, like secret vatican archive and shit, into a snooze fest.

Angel&Demons is the only book, in all my life, that I never even finished. It was that bad.

I agree with JP. Most of the changes made for the movie were for the better. Hammond especially is a huge improvement. He was pretty one-note in the book.

inb4 some assblasted fedora tipper prefers the 1000+ page book

I disagree. The books/movies are thrillers with some interesting facts thrown in.
The movies are boring. The books are thriling, or at least, you have to keep reading
The movies DON'T include much facts, the books though.

Eh, I think we can agree they are both shit though.

You'd be amazed to hear almost everyone prefers the book because the movie totally tore the story apart.

You know it to be true

...

I didn't read it. Movie was pretty bad though. Tim Curry was the only light and maybe the beginning.

Gonna get reamed, but LOTR. Tolkein was amazing and everything he did with the genre and his world was beautiful and transcendent. But I think the movies, while simplified and streamlined, brought to light and life all that magic that most plebs, including myself, were never going to really appreciate from the novels. The music being especially important.

definitely not
the books are hard to get into (if you're not prepared those ramblings about the shire are super annoying) but once you've read 30-40 pages you're in for a good ride
the movies are good but can't compete

The first half of Fellowship is utter nothing. Still best book/movie.

Too many adhd faggots with no imagination.

I agree, however the book is fantastic as well.

Bible Extended Cut

The Mist

American Psycho

Books are shit. You can't use your phone and read at the same time like you can do with a movie.