Skibz888 wrote:
YippySkippy wrote:
All of them. Books are better than movies. Movies have no means to convey internal dialogue, and time restraints force directors to compress and simplify plotlines.
Disagree. Sometimes conciseness can be an improvement. Stephen King's work comes to mind a lot: he comes up with great ideas but he executes them poorly. Most film adaptations of his I've seen are better than his books because they excise a lot of unnecessary filler and sub-plots, and in some cases, a lot of stupidity. 'The Shining' is infinitely better without the sentient topiary monsters, while 'The Langoliers' is infinitely worse for including the flying meatball monsters.
I agree that movies can be better than the books. I’ve just finished King’s “Cycle of the werewolf” and I liked the movie “Silver bullet” way better, and so much that I wanted it on DVD after watching it online.
Cujo the movie was better than the book, but neither was good IMO.
I like The Shining movie and the miniseries that follows the book closely equally good. I think they’re both really great.
The Green Mile, Langoliers and Dream catcher were equally good as movies and books, Langoliers being really great, and one of my favorite stories. Maybe because it’s slightly reminiscent of my favorite Twilight Zone episode (Odyssey of flight 33). The Fire starter was also equal as book and movie.
Pet Sematary was great both as book and movie, but I prefer the book. Maybe King's very best.