3 ms·

>Hollywood turned the book into a terrible movie that ruins the story; I would avoid the movie if you have any interest in reading the book. I saw the movie wh

>Hollywood turned the book into a terrible movie that ruins the story; I would avoid the movie if you have any interest in reading the book. I saw the movie when it first came out but never read the book. I thought the movie was good and couldn't understand why it got so many bad reviews. What made the book so much better?

macintux 8y ago
I can't speak to either the movie or the book, but I've found it interesting that whenever I see a movie before reading the source, I'm pretty happy with the movie, but rarely am I satisfied with the movie when I've read the book first. The subtle nuances and key moments that I love are rarely translated to the screen. It's perfectly understandable, because they're two very different forms of fiction and the movie rarely has time to be much more than the Cliff's Notes version, but it's still disappointing. When I've seen the movie first, I can appreciate it for its own sake.
- krylon 8y ago
  I had the experience. When I see the movie first, it is alright, but when I have read the novel first, the movie is usually disappointing. (So far, I have had one exception: No Country For Old Men - I think the movie captures the book just perfectly.)
  - wj 8y ago
    My one exception is Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.
    - krylon 8y ago
      Thanks, I will put that on my to-read/to-watch list!
- baud147258 8y ago
  One I remember rather well was the last Harry Potter movie. I had read the book a few years earlier when it was released. I was it a first time in a cinema and was rather disappointed, compared to the experience of reading this part of the book. But then I saw it again one month later and, expecting the movie instead of the book, had a much better time.
- ghaff 8y ago
  The book was brilliantly written and really captured a time and place. The movie was just meh. Maybe, absent a book, the movie was just mostly forgettable. There were better films involving 80s financial types like Wall Street. But we’d probably remember Bonfire as a minor film that largely wasted star power through miscasting etc. rather than a bomb.

macintux 8y ago

I can't speak to either the movie or the book, but I've found it interesting that whenever I see a movie before reading the source, I'm pretty happy with the movie, but rarely am I satisfied with the movie when I've read the book first. The subtle nuances and key moments that I love are rarely translated to the screen. It's perfectly understandable, because they're two very different forms of fiction and the movie rarely has time to be much more than the Cliff's Notes version, but it's still disappointing. When I've seen the movie first, I can appreciate it for its own sake.

krylon 8y ago
I had the experience. When I see the movie first, it is alright, but when I have read the novel first, the movie is usually disappointing. (So far, I have had one exception: No Country For Old Men - I think the movie captures the book just perfectly.)
- wj 8y ago
  My one exception is Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.
  - krylon 8y ago
    Thanks, I will put that on my to-read/to-watch list!
baud147258 8y ago
One I remember rather well was the last Harry Potter movie. I had read the book a few years earlier when it was released. I was it a first time in a cinema and was rather disappointed, compared to the experience of reading this part of the book. But then I saw it again one month later and, expecting the movie instead of the book, had a much better time.
ghaff 8y ago
The book was brilliantly written and really captured a time and place. The movie was just meh. Maybe, absent a book, the movie was just mostly forgettable. There were better films involving 80s financial types like Wall Street. But we’d probably remember Bonfire as a minor film that largely wasted star power through miscasting etc. rather than a bomb.