/lit/ - Literature

Fight Club.

Battlefield Earth
Lord of the Rings
Fight Club

Lord of the Rings

Fight Club.

/derp

All of them. Reading is a very inefficient way to receive a story.

>>761336

This. Although I love to read, it's a waste of time when compared to a movie.

>>761336
You sound straight from Fahrenheit 451, kind sir.

Jurrasic Park

The Hogfather by Pratchett, awful movie, funny book.

all kubrick adaptations

>>761330

i read that Battlefield Earth, the movie, was a epic fail

>>761340

Pssst, reread what the OP was asking.

>>761319
Oh, and Harry Potter.

Roadside Picnic

A Clockwork Orange

Also, what about books that were made as an adaptation of the movie?

>>761345

The movie is one of the worst ever made. The book was even worse.

American Psycho was ok, maybe a bit better than the book because you don't have to wade through pages of music reviews and analyzing others' clothing

???

>ctrl + f "jaws"
>no jaws

jaws was a movie that was better than the book

>>761396
you had to control f for....13 posts?

>>761342

>>761342
>>761413
EXCEPT Lolita

Les Miserables was pure shit (the film)

>>761339
I thought the books were better even though Chriton was pushed into writing the second.

fight club.

All three Bourne movies. Way better than the books.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

>>761537
They are both awful

2001 movie was better than the book.

American Psycho, only because Bale is hot as hell, and it was short.

happens all the time
some things just work better with visuals and sounds

>>761342
Not Lolita.

>>761501
Since the movies were spliced together from parts of different books, you can't really compare them.

But I agree with what you're saying, I thought that watching Jurassic Park was more enjoyable than reading Jurassic Park

Blade Runner

>>761580
BOOKS HAVE VISUALS AND SOUNDS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE IMAGINATION[/spoiler

The Shining

>>761613

You just went full retard.

The only known instance of this is "Fight Club".

>>761613

Stir of Echoes.

>>761617
You mean he just went full Correct.

>>761336
>>761337

I think you aspie types missed a turn on the way to /r9k/

>>761319

Starship Troopers, American Psycho, The Shining, Blade Runners... everybody said most of those already but I definitely agree with them

>>761644
starship troopers and blade runner are so unlike their book basis i dont feel they are appropriate for this thread

Il Gattopardo - Lampedusa

>>761649
The director supposedly stopped reading the Starship Troopers book half way through. Both are completely different and good on their own merits. I prefer the book, I just like the aspects of power armor of the body armor they wear in the movies.

>>761630

No, I meant full retard.

The Shining is one of the worst movies ever made, book aside.

True fact: Shelley Duvall sucked over a hundred penises to secure her role in The Shining.

>>761605
Yes, but he's saying that some things work better with the images/sound fed to you rather than trying to make you come up with your own.

James Bond movies

>>761668

THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS

>>761666
Only if you're without any kind of imagination. Or you just can't really read.

The Princess Bride

Stardust

The Godfather

Fight club.. movie was equally good

>>761687
Actually, Chuck Palahniuk feels the movie was BETTER.

>>761692
His books are done to make films. Graphics. Not much narration.

Any Frankenstein movies.

Hamlet
All of them

>>761715
No.

Stardust, and the shining depending upon your opinion of Kubrick.

>>761729

I thought Stardust was going to be kinda gay, but I watched it and it was actually very enjoyable.

Pride and Prejudice.

Lord of the Rings.

Seriously.

I prefer the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest movie to the book.

A Clockwork Orange

The other boleyn girl, Movie was much better than the book

>>761329

>those harry potter movies are retarded
>my face

Apocalypse Now.

I'm sure someone will force me to explain this but until then I'm not.

I agree with the people who say Stardust

While The Great Gatsby was a wonderful book and complex... The movie.. And Robert Redford... Nmmm...

>>762003
Aguirre was better if less directly an adaptation of Heart of Darkness.

Amadeus directed by Milos Forman

Wtf are people saying Stardust for?!
The book >>>>>> the movie

>>761676
Sometimes literary adaptations can be visualized in such a fashion that they really transcend the images that come to your mind when reading the books.

>>762024

Neither one was good.

The book was typical Gaiman garbage and the movie felt like cheap Syfy shit.

>>762027

What's your problem with Gaiman?

>>762024
IMO the book was good, but the ending was terrible: the ultimate KTHANXBAI.

A clockwork orange

The movie is a masterpiece

>>762035
the movie doesn't approach the themes as well as i thought the book did.

to each his own.

>>762029
Well, he's gay, man.

So are the people that keep saying Lord of the Rings in these threads repeating some kind of /lit/ troll-meme...

...or are they all born after 1990?

>>762059
Please. Just leave /lit/.

>The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

That movie only had a superficial resemblance to the book.

>>762062
The latter.

>>762062
Neither the books or the movies are that good, who cares?

>>762066
its not even a book.

>>762062
heeeey
I was born post 1990 and I prefer the books over the film

>>762053

I agree with this. The book tackled the themes: coming of age, suppression of will etc etc a lot better than the film did, although the imagery in the film was IMO a lot more striking.

>>762065
You shouldn't tell someone else to do what you should be doing yourSELF

Fight Club
Bladerunner
The Shining
Lord of the Rings
Princess Bride

The Chronicles of Narnia
His Dark Materials
Harry Potter

>>762027
It wasn't. More bittersweet than any shitty scifi tv stuff.

>>762097
His Dark Material ? HOW DARE YOU ? The movies are absolute shit !

>>762097
>His Dark Materials

>>762107

There was only one that I ever heard of.

>>762123
There will be more..
Just wait.

Battle Royale.

>>762131
OH GOD NOES.

Forrest Gump, hands down.

The movie makes me cry and always manages to 'get me'. The book was okay, but just not as engaging or beautiful.

>>762107
movies? There was more than one?

>>762152
Apparently not. I assumed so, but for god sake it appared not.

>>761907
That.

>>762152
>>762168
There is only one.
So far.

All the movies based on books I really like a lot I haven't read the book of, but from what I have heard Altered States the movie>>>Altered States of Consciousness the book. Altered States is one of my favorite movies despite being cheesy and hammy, like a ham and cheese sandvich.

/thread.

Dune

>>762190
lol never heard of it.

>>762204
It's your loss.

>>762336
Seriously. That's such a good movie.

>>761319
This is true for any book that has a movie made from it. The movie is always better.
Reading is pointless and archaic. It's pointless in the time we live in. We have television now so there is no need to read.
The last book I read was To Kill a Mockingbird in seventh grade. After that I swore I was never reading another book and I made it all through high school without being forced to read anymore bullshit.
I don't know how much longer you people think books can survive. They should be phased out already by now with radio, movies and television etc. Fags like you keep books and awkward librarians in business; barely scraping by with their out of date fancies.
I can't wait for the day, which I am sure is coming soon, when books are finally recognized as nothing more than the antiquated relics they are.
tldr: FUCK READING AND FUCK YOU TOO

>>762193

>>762616
Get off my /lit/, you troll.

forest gump

>>762621
Why should anyone waste their time reading a book when they can watch the movie in an hour or two?

>>762621
Why should anyone waste their time reading a book when they can watch the movie in an hour or two and get even more entertainment value from it?

>>762616
>>762641

>Decries reading on a mostly text literature image board.

Good one.

>>762641
>implying books aren't generally more fun and engaging to read than movies are to watch
I know you're a troll but damn, u mad?

>>762653
Of course I have to read something to get by in the world. DERP DERP DERP
I read textbooks when I had to, signs, instructions etc.
I stopped reading novels in seventh grade after To Kill a Mockingbird and I don't see why anyone in the world would read a book for entertainment.

>>762653
Of course I have to read somethings to get by in the world. DERP DERP DERP
I read textbooks when I had to, and I still read signs, instructions, the internet etc.
I stopped reading NOVELS in seventh grade after To Kill a Mockingbird and I don't see why anyone in the world would read a book for entertainment.
If it was pre-radio I would read. But in today's world there is no reason to.

Fight Club
Battle Royale

Only things from this thread I agree with

If plays count then A Streetcar Named Desire

>>762675

>Of course I have to read somethings to get by in the world. DERP DERP DERP

>Of course I have to read somethings

>somethings

Seriously.

Fucking seriously, now.

Shut up you illiterate.

>>762697
I take it you can't come up with a logical counter-argument.

>>762097
The Amber Spyglass is an absolutely awful movie

>>762073
>I was born post 1990

GTFO

>>762722
It's better than wasting your time reading the book.

>>762675
>DURRR I HAVE NO IMAGINATION AND NEED AUDIO AND VIDEO SPOONFED TO ME

What about the Shawshank Redemption?

>>762725
I use my imagination all the time watching tv and movies. I just see no reason to waste time reading a book when you can watch the movie.

>>762737
Great movie!

Let the Right One in.

If plays DO count, The Lion in Winter. One of my favorite movies

THE THIN RED LINE

>>762740
>I use my imagination all the time watching tv and movies

How? Most of the experience is already made out for you. Try making EVERYTHING in a novel (characters setting action), with the given descriptions, using your imagination. It's rewarding.

Fight Club

>>762740

>I am mentally inferior, which makes me unable to read at anything more than a snails pace. This makes me feel bad so rather than confront my inadequacies I will simply insult reading and anyone who partakes.

>>762760
Rewarding how?

>>762790
Its an exercise of your imagination and creativity. Plus, its your personal and ideal experience of that story.

>>762803
So you like reading because it is harder? Do you churn your own butter and clean your clothes on a washboard? That would be harder too, but nobody does that if they have access to a store and a washing machine.
And tv and movies are subject to interpretation so you get a personal experience with them also.

>>762762
even the author said it

>>762866
Its not THAT much harder to read a damn novel. It takes years to make the movie, in which time, you could have read the novel dozens of times over. Also, its YOUR ideal vision. No matter how open to interpretation a movie can be, its already the vision of the director in charge.

Reanimator. No knock on lovecraft, but I found the movie better than the book.

I have never seen a stage production of Shakespeare that I enjoyed more than reading the play itself.

Everyone keeps saying Bladerunner, but the book has nothing to do with the movie at all. The book was about a crippled man who smuggles medical supplies, they just bought the rights to the name for the movie.

>>762900
And how is the author much different from the director?

Catch-22

>>763336

You mean Isinor? He's not exactly the protagonist.

A Scanner Darkly.

Naked Lunch

>>763639
>A Scanner Darkly
No. No. No. The book has a coherent story and doesn't have Keanu Reeves.

Any movie based on a Stephen King novel that wasn't absolute and utter shit was better than the book.

inb4 >implying Stephen King writes absolute and utter shit
He fucking does! Or did -- when he actually WROTE his own work!

Fucking hack.

>>763893
Maybe The Shining, The Green Mile, and the Shawshank Redemption... but It?

>>763903
Shitty movie, shitty book.

>>761686

/thread

Absolutely true of the Lord of the Rings, which is an abysmal, dull, drudge that only the lamest of hardcore nerds could find interesting, much less take pride in finding interesting.

Plus Tom Bombadil. Jesus. What a mess.

>>761332
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Everyone will probably shit on me for this, but i liked bladerunner better than do androids dream of electic sheep.

>>763942
Yeah, LOTR was a real work of art. Here, let me simulate the entire series for you:

"They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They fought. They walked. They walked. They walked. OH MY GOD THEY SANG! OH FUCK ME JESUS, THEY SANG! ARE YOU SEEING THIS SINGING? THIS IS THE SHIT RIGHT HERE! OOOOOOOOOH GOD THEY SANG! They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked. They walked."

>>763948
thats fine

How to train your dragon

How has no one said To Kill A Mockingbird yet? The book was dry, rambling, and that shit's not groundbreaking anymore. The film is cohesive, keeps all the points of interest and maintains the themes without making you wade through some retarded bullshit tangent about making costumes for the school pageant or riding your fucking bicycle or whatever. And Gregory Peck makes Atticus even MORE amazing.

>>761369
Absolutely not.

>>763336
Being different isn't necessarily a bad thing. Novels and film are different media, and different things work well in them. An intense psychological novel that focuses heavily on the thoughts of the protagonist-narrator probably won't translate to film well without heavy adaptations, for example. Blade Runner was fantastic for its medium, as was Do Androids of Electric Sheep? (I wasn't the person who said the movie was better. I think they're about even, myself.)

>>763983
This.

And Fight Club. Fuck, Palahniuk can't write for shit.

>>764000
That's ironic considering most of the writing in that film is from the book...

Mysterious Skin, the film, is apparently better than the book.

ITT
Circle jerk Kubrick, Fincher, & Ridley Scott.
Seriously guys this is pathetic.

OP, I'd say the Twilight films are far better than their written counterparts.

>>764006
The direction was awesome and they filled in a bunch of plotholes. Also, a lot of the dialogue was written for the film, and the plot was altered some.

the prestige

I'm sorry, but no, people saying Starship Troopers was better in film form are straight up wrong; the same goes for people talking that way about Battle Royale. Both films were entertaining in their own right but the novels were personal affairs based on intense glimpses into the characters. The films had NONE of this.

The Grapes of Wrath was a great adaption. Anything by Ford is guarenteed to be great.

The Grapes of Wrath was a great adaption. Anything by Ford is guaranteed to be great.

>>764020
Thats only because the director is good. The plot is horrible still.

i, Robot

2001: A Space Odyssey. The book wasn't bad, but the story was far less interesting and left you thinking less than the movie did.

Atonement

>>764112

Also, much of it relied of visuals and Arthur C Clarke just is not that good at imagery.

In the book, the journey in the stargate essentially boiled down to "there were a lot of ships and lights and stuff", whereas the movie had a stunning scene that was engraved into my mind since the first time I watched the movie and is probably more recognizable than anything else from the movie.

Planet of the Apes.

Lord of The Rings

I'm not sure if this counts since it was a short story, but "Lord of Illusions" was much more enjoyable (and made more sense) than the Clive Barker short story that it was based on, "The Last Illusion."

The Godfather

Forrest Gump

In both books: something awesome happens, he fucks everything up, runs into an old friend (usually Lieutenant Dan), meets a new person...and it continues.

At least he smoked a lot of pot and fucked Jenny a bunch of times in the book though.