I think that some of the movie producers that see a popular book & only see dollar sighns when they look at it should be shot. Most of the movies made from them just SUCK. Last night I watched Hannibal & was extreamly disapointed
anyone else who wants them to stop?

I don't want them to stop, there's still some decent adaptations being made. The main thing is that the person doing the adaptation has respect and love for the original source- Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings, or Frank Darabont with his Stephen King adaptations.

Some movies are still excellent even if they aren't close to the original book- Planet of the Apes '68 made many changes to the novel, but is still a great film. And there are cases where crappy adaptations still make for fun movies as is the case with Starship Troopers and The Beastmaster.

I am a big Nicholas Sparks fan and I have found the movies made from his books are right on the mark! The emotions that the book makes the reader feel are brought out in his movies. I think he must have a great deal of say in how the movies are made.

There are a lot of books that have good adaptations. I can't necessarily think of any that I would say are better than their literary counterparts, but it's a different medium.

Chuck Palahniuk said that he thought the movie "Fight Club" was an improvement upon his book.

Stephen King several times has said that De Palma's film adaptation of Carrie made many improvements to his book.

I actually enjoy both. Not always, but in most cases, I do. I always feel that the books are better, but that is due to the fact that you can go into so much detail in them. For instance. Jurrasic Park, the book, is more darker and much more scientificly detailed than the movie was. But then again, the movie was made for the summer season (1993) and it was made for the money. A good film that did try to dwell on the scientific aspect. But we all know that the dinosaurs and the FX were the main attraction, so hey....let's have the T-Rex and Raptors do there thing by eating people.

movie--reading leads to ones inturpritaion of the meaning of a word--swy u feel let down-----once the movie is done u know where they were coming from-------altho i do believe your own mind tends to syk u out morso,which leads to your own meanings.which leads to your own let down--enjoy.

I don't care if they do or if they don't.

I can tell you this much though...I have learned my lesson.
Never going to see another movie based on a book I love.
It's disappointing when it doesn't measure up to what you were expecting.

I'll watch a movie based on Jane Austen's books though.
However...that's mainly because I think they're...well...
a few steps above twilight.

and Twilight is basically a cow pie in a glittery cover.

Closest I'll come to reading or watching Jane Austen is when I read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

I still haven't read that.



was it good?

would movie adaptations of comic books count..? if so i could go off on a whole tangent about how hollywood is totally screwing up comic books. case and point... WOLVERINE! but i don't want to post in the wrong place... some sites frown upon that...

I actually prefer his other book Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter(which I just finished reading)...Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was fun, but it didn't flow sometimes because he was basically inserting his text into something already written. If that makes any sense.

But again, not all comic book/graphic novel adaptations are bad. Some are brilliant movies- Ghost World, American Splendor, Sin City, Kick A$$, V For Vendetta, Akira, When The Wind Blows, 300, The Dark Knight, Superman 1 and 2, A History Of Violence, From Hell, Road To Perdition, The Crow, Iron Man....

The reason books are better is if it is lousy.....you can still use the book to level the dinette table.

yes that is true there are A LOT of adaptations that have actually done the series justice. i will agree with you on V For Vendetta, Akira, 300, Dark Knight, From Hell, Superman, and of course my personal favorite The Crow (the FIRST one) have all been fantastic.

Though when Origins: Wolverine came out I was so thrilled because Wolverine is one of my favorite series... and i am still trying to wrap my head around the whole concept of the movie.

But if the goons in Hollywood see a book series or comic book series making $$$$ then they decide to chop up something brilliant and turn it into utter crap. No wonder people say "The book is SOOOO much better"

Yeah. I think with some of the comic book adaptations you get screen writers who've probably never read a comic book before and just don't care(as with the studios)...and with books, you even get TV shows like Legend Of The Seeker which makes you wonder if they've even read more than the synopsis on the back of the book.

This is where I am....I love both usually but am sometimes disappointed by the movie versions because they leave out some very good details. I also have a very vivid imagination so a lot of times I do better viewing things in my head while I am reading the book than they do making it into a movie. I'm all about the details!

I also agree with Hannah somewhat. Case in point...just saw "Where the Wild Things Are" and I was so disappointed. This was 100% better as a book...never should have made a movie with it. IMO

One thing that does annoy me about film adaptations are the people that automatically assume a movie is exactly like the book- so if the movie sucks, they think the book must be the same way.
I've heard people complaining about things in a particular movie and say "I'm glad I don't read any of that author's books."- yet the things they are complaining about are only in the movie and not the book.

I thought Where The Wild Things Are was a brilliant movie.

Maybe I had just hyped myself up too much based on my wonderful feelings of reading the book as a child and loving it so much. I enjoyed the movie...not saying it was a bad movie...just felt let down after watching it for some reason?