Books Better.

I Believe The Book Is always Better.

cry7 cry7
22-25, M
3 Responses Feb 27, 2009

Ohhh VendettA..really..To Kill A Mockingbird? I think that is one of the ones I really don't like! I do although agree that the performances themselves by the actors..were temendous!! I just personally think that little parts of stories that are taken out or skipped over...can make or break a story. For example Hannibal ,the book, has a different fate for Mason Verger..and a character who is a HUGE part of the story is OMITTED in the movie..and this person's role in the to show the truely vile character Mason Verger WAS when Hannibal made his rip off his own face. :D I also feel Red Dragon..was a well acted movie..but certain details about abuse, bullying, complete INSANITY really were NOT shown or discussed. And those..are what turned this..seemingly mild mannered man into a killer who struggles with his urges and hate. So to me..that should have been something that was shown, as the parts of the book describing the abuse..made you feel so sorry for him..made you kind of able to grasp that he never stood a chance..he was mistreated from birth and withstood some serious pain over the years. Both by the way are EXCELLENT books:D

That's a good rule of thumb, but there are several exceptions in my eyes. For me, the following are two cases where the book was great but I felt that the movie was able to surpass it because of tremendous performances: <br />
<br />
Shawshank Redemption<br />
To Kill a Mockingbird

I agree completely..have yet to see a book turned into a movie that was as good as the book. EXCEPT maybe..The Mist by Stephen King. Thank god he began taking creative controls when it came to his stories. They have benefited greatly because of it as movies!