It's time again for the Wednesday Weekly Blogging Challenge hosted by Long and Short Reviews.…
It’s time again for the Wednesday Weekly Blogging Challenge hosted by Long and Short Reviews.
Today’s topic is: Movies that were better than the books
Okay, I have to admit, this topic took a LOT of thinking. Obviously, usually the book is better than the movie… richer, more detailed. There are also some movies I’ve seen based on books I never read (for example, “The Giver”).
Then there are the movies that I think stand strong on their own, but where the books offer additional insight. I know I’m going to get some haters on this, but I truly believe the Harry Potter movies were incredibly well made. Also, the Hunger Games movies. Did they leave out details and change some things? Absolutely–or they’d have needed to be a 20 season TV show, not movies. I also think the Lord of the Rings movies were well made (not so much The Hobbit–while it was a good story, they REALLY changed the book’s story for the movie). IMHO, the Harry Potter, Hunger Games and LOTR movies kept the meat of the story while still managing to reduce it to fit the time they had. However, I do NOT believe the movies were better than the books.
And this post is supposed to be about that. So, in recent years, I can only think of one movie (trilogy) that in my opinion was better than the books:
The Maze Runner trilogy.
Y’all, I read the books and they were BORING. It was all I could do to get through them. Decent story, but S.O. V.E.R.Y. D.U.L.L.
The movies took a lot of liberties with the story, and changed a few pretty big things (including the ending) but I think the movies were awesome and the changes did not hurt my feelings at all (likely because I feel as if the books were just abysmal). I loved the movies. I own them, and in this age of streaming virtually anything and everything, I don’t buy many movies anymore.
So there you have it… the only answer I could think of that fit the question.
I’m looking forward to seeing other answers this week!