Book Geeks and Bookniks discussion

It's usually the rule that the book is much better than the movie that is based upon it. But is that always the case? I can think of three exceptions:
1. JAWS - movie cut out the unnecessary affair between Brody's wife and the oceanographer
2. RAGTIME- Harry Houdini and Emma Goldman subplots are excised to focus on the Coalhouse Walker story - the real heart of the novel
3. THE PRESTIGE - ditto, unnecessary characters cut to focus more on the rival magicians

Sometimes the screenwriter does the job a good book editor should have done and presents a cleaner and sharper finished product.

Do you agree? Can you think of any movies you thought were better than the book? What are some of the worst book/movie adaptations you've ever seen?
Was it the script or the casting that made them bad?
And finally, are there any books you hope NEVER get made into movies?

The French Leiutenants Wife - while I was struggling through it, I thought "this could make a beautiful movie" & it did. Just much too wordy a book for me.

YES - absolutely! I read the book after I saw the movie, but definitely prefered the film.

I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but could never get into the books. I think Notes on a Scandal equalled the book but with Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench how could it not!?

I hated Interview with a Vampire (casting), and now I can't think of others off the top of my head but know there are loads!

I hope that they never make A Fine Balance into a movie, but would love to see it as a mini-series funnily enough. I just think they would cut out so much of the details to squish it down into a movie.

Casting can certainly make or break the movie. Stephen King's "Misery" is a fine example. I thought the movie adaptation was as good as the book, but had trouble buying super-macho James Caan as the author.
And, although he loved the book "Cold Mountain," my neighbor refuses to see the movie because a British actor, Jude Law, and an Australian actress, Nicole Kidman play the leads in this uniquely American tale.

Cold Mountain is actually one of the few movies I've enjoyed as much as the book. The portrayal of the story and the scenery mattered much more to me than the ethnicity of the actors. In fact, I never gave it a thought until now, and it still doesn't matter! ;-)

I've never read Cold Mountain, and I refuse to watch the movie for a similar reason as Melki's neighbor: the American Civil War movie was filmed in Europe. I just can't abide that.

For other movie/book compares: The Notebook was hard for me to read. I really enjoyed the movie more, and that may very well be because I love the movie. I just didn't think the two followed each other very well.

Also, the 4th Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire. The book was rediculously long and full of filler. And, while the movie was 3 hours (!), they did a good job of condensing/eliminating all the excess.

I feel the same way as Mary about the casting and filming location of Cold Mountain. It's all make believe anyway! (Scarlett O'Hara was played by a British actress.) I much preferred the movie Cold Mountain to the book. And I think the movie version of Gone With the Wind did justice to the novel.

I enjoyed the adaptation of the Shawshank Redemption as it actually built on King's story while keeping the general feel and atmosphere of it. On the whole though I tend to prefer the book to the movie as it allows me to adapt a little in my own mind rather than it being someone else's version of the story.

I never read Cold Mountain, but I loved the movie, found it very moving and sad.

There is only ONE time that I've watched a movie version and found it better than the book, and that is the Narnia movies. I know I'm in the minority in saying this, but I really hate those books. They are just so simplistic, and I don't like Lewis's writing style. The movies, though, are cool, if not always true to the books. Fwiw, I only read the first two Narnia books because I couldn't fathom continuing that series.