I thought the movie adaptation of Joy Luck Club was more heart-rendering than the book.

For most cases, books are better than movies. Because it's hard to fit everything in a book into a 2 hour movie. But sometimes movie version can be better than book.

Jaws is one of the few examples I can think of in which the movie is better than the book.

The Godfather. Classic movie and far better than the book.

I tend to like books better. The worst book to film adaptation that comes to mind is "Less Than Zero". It was completely sanitized for the film version :mad:.

I heard that the book version of American Psycho was much, much better than the film. In fact, those who have read the book pan the film.

I just picked up the book and will begin reading it with high expectations. I didn't care for the film, myself.

Bonfire of the Vanities is still #1 on my list as the worst adaptation of a novel ever, just for the huge discrepancy between how great the book is and how awful the movie version is.

I like movies more. I am really not a reader, except for comics.

I would have to add Blood Work to that too. Loved the book, I thought the movie was boring and I did not like the changes.

I'm normally a book over movie person, but you do have to go case by case.
I love The Stand...both the book and the movie even though they change a lot and left things out. The Langoliers...loved the book, HATED the movie. Lord of the Rings...love the movies, can't read the books. I have tried several times to read them, but I can't get into them. Same with Interview with the Vampire...loved the movie, can't read the books, which sucks (hee hee) because I like vampire books, and I like Anne Rices other books, but I just can't read this one. I own it, I have tried over and over to read it, I just get bored with it less than half way through.

Definitely a case by case basis, but there are bounds. I believe Stephen King said something like, what's behind the door in your mind is more frightening than what a movie can depict. That's why horror movies rely on shock. The challange in LOTR was to show Tolkien's world acceptable to most peoples imaginations, a very tough job.

I'd give that prize to The Keep.

Books and movies are simply two different mediums and I don't think one is inherently better than the other. Some stories work better in prose, some are better off in the visual realm of film. Some work equally well in both.

blade runner as a movie and book are equally good, because the movie really did not follow the book, and i think you cannot have a movie that follows the book be better than the book because the character development and the details can never be achieved in 2 to 3 hours

99% of the time the book trumps the movie. Jurassic Park is one of those that each medium are different enough to warrant equal praise.

the Shawshank Redemption is better than the story it is based on, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.

I agree. They took a short story and expanded it to make the movie, and I think they did a great job.