Sometimes. I read(listened actually) "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and am glad I read it first. There's just no way they can do complete justice to the story in a movie.
I watched the first three Harry Potter movies before reading a single book. But without seeing and liking the movies, I prolly would have never read the books.
If I were to try and compare "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie with the book, I'd think to myself "WHAT THE HELL HAVE YOU DONE WITH DOUGLAS ADAMS!" But look at them separately, and I can appreciate the movie for what it is.
I won't see the Hunger Games movies until I've read them.
I loved Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The movie was good too but I felt it was a little too fast paced. It had the scariest vampires I've ever seen in any vampire movie.
It's always really hard for me to form a more detailed opinion on a movie in which I've read the book because I know what's going to happen.
It's long since been proven that movie versions of books blow considerably in comparison. It is simply impossible to tell as much of a story in 2 hours (ish) of video as can be done in a few hundred pages or whatever on paper. So the movie experience invariably falls short. Just ask Stephen King...
This not to say that, in certain cases, the movies aren't still good in their own right. Harry Potter is a great example.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is one recent disappointment that comes to mind. I spent more time telling DJ the story as we were watching than the movie did. The actual main character (the girl, derp) upon whom the entire trilogy is focused (the girl, derp) and that actually makes the books particularly interesting (the derp) is treated almost as an afterthought or aside. Why am I having to explain the significance of the TITLE CHARACTER?
And don't get me started on The Hitchhiker's Guide: one of the greatest stories ever told, and one of the best books ever written, and it has been subjected to more embarassingly horrid video bastardizations than one can count on both hands. Fail after fail after fail.
I have yet to see The Hunger Games, but after what I've heard thus far, I am not all that hopeful.
And though I was never really under vampires, I am certainly way over them. Can I perhaps get an ETA on when this fad will end?
Autumn and I LOVE Carrie and quote it all the time but I've never read the book. Do you know they're currently filming a remake? Yeah pfffttt. With that girl from Kick Ass.
That Chloe Moretz sure is creepy and sinister (said noone ever).
I LOVED the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movie, could not get through the book. Even the bf enjoyed the movie. Compared to last night we saw Vampire Hunter (which I didn't even know was a book) and he wanted to walk out in the first 5 minutes. I made him stay, but he checked his phone like 5 times. The movie was OK, nothing great, which may be why after only being out for 3 weeks, it closed at almost every theatre in the area here today.
Surely we are all smart enough here to take the existence of exception for granted. My assertion, however, was not that King's movies suck on their own, but rather that they fall short of their written forebears. I maintain that such is the case across the board.
Yes, there are a number of King movies that are quite good, but the books are far, far better.
Here's hoping nobody ever tries to movicize The Dark Tower.
I read Push, by Sapphire, then saw the movie (Precious). Both of them were fantastic (although to me the book was better - I got all annoyed at Mariah Carey's character in the film because they added the whole "what ethnicity are you" thing just to indulge her old saw of "I'm every ethnicity" that she's been hauling out at practically every interview since 1989).
Anyway now I'm reading the sequel, "The Kid", and it is traumatizing me.
I always thought that The Silence of the Lambs is a shining example of an exception to the rule that the books are always superior to the movies. That movie rocked. The book was a generic piece of shit.
A television series is an entirely different story. They have plenty of time (unless, of course, it gets cancelled) in which to more comprehensively tell a story. Consider the likely result of trying to condense Dexter or True Blood into 100 minutes, though.