Which films were better than the books?

fatbabyjake

Tom Dean wrote:

Harry Potter

Surely not! I enjoy the films to a certain extent but I can't think of anything in the films that was an improvement to what was in the book.

pdstsp

Jaws

Tom Dean

fatbabyjake wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Harry Potter

Surely not! I enjoy the films to a certain extent but I can't think of anything in the films that was an improvement to what was in the book.

I haven't read them to be fair

capt_slog

fatbabyjake wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Harry Potter

Surely not! I enjoy the films to a certain extent but I can't think of anything in the films that was an improvement to what was in the book.

The lengths?

The first book was ok, the rest just seemed to get bigger and longer for no real purpose.

fatbabyjake

Capt Slog wrote:

fatbabyjake wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Harry Potter

Surely not! I enjoy the films to a certain extent but I can't think of anything in the films that was an improvement to what was in the book.

The lengths?

The first book was ok, the rest just seemed to get bigger and longer for no real purpose.

Tbh, i've never really noticed them being overly long when i've read them. This might be an advantage (or disadvantage depending on your viewpoint) of reading them on a Kindle since you wouldn't be aware of the physical size of the book.

They changed too much in the films (which i realise has to happen) for me to enjoy them as much as i enjoy the books.

Anyway my own nomination, I prefer the film High Fidelity to the book. I saw the film first and then read the book but for some reason didn't like the main character at all and couldn't finish it.