I read the book 'Carrie' by Stephen King, in my early adult years, many years before I saw the film. When I did finally sit down to see the film.. It was not what was in my 'head' entirely from the book. Sure the storyline was about rightish but how it was portrayed wasn't. So to me, the book got ruined. I promised myself then that if I ever read a book and the film of the said book came out I would not watch the film! 

The film adaption of the book "The perks of being a wallflower" is superior in my opinion. A lot of the plot in the book is driven forward through diary entries, but the film found a way to make it progress a bit smoother. Also, the author is also the director of the film, so it makes sense that it stays true to the book.

Dean Koontz' Odd Thomas series was really enjoyable, in book form. The 2013 film, not so much. After struggling through that hour and a half, I wish I hadn't bothered. It came off both low budget, and low effort. 

I think it is almost always the case, except like LOTR. Like books are still waaaay better, but it is like one masterpiece above another. I mean, it kinda makes sense, books can be 500 pages long and movie can't last like 18 hours, you need scenes and stuff... I dont think there is a movie better than a book, perhaps only in a case where they use a book as a main idea and write something new around it.

Harry Potter series, the books were amazing. The movies were okay..

The Giver.. Book was amazing, the movie lacked a lot.

For TV Series.. GoT books were 100% better.

I'm about to watch 1984 starring John Hurt. I'm going into it with the preconception that it is not possible for a movie to be better than the book.

Practical Magic (by Alice Hoffman) was made into a movie many years ago starring Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock. My girlfriends and I had all read it, were so excited to go see it... and every one of us walked out of the theater wishing we hadn't. 

More recently, I picked up an old, battered copy of The Lovely Bones, then made the mistake of renting the movie. 

Maybe one day I'll learn. :(

Squishy... I had no idea Shawshank was  a Stephen King adaption?! I knew it had been from a book, but had somehow never known it was a Stephen King novel.

Everyday is a school day, I guess!

Mostly was going to mention the Harry Potter books - thankfully others have done so already. I know we're talking movies, but the Game of Thrones books are a 1000% better than the Show.

I agree with Berzerk's opinion, often times the movies that try to stay close enough to the source material are just watered down version of it. The amount of time a movie would take would be crazy. For me one movie that beat the book was the mongol movie however. The vast scenery, the music just put the mood and the tone of the movie in a way it would require a looooot of rather boring and descriptive text.

Doesnt matter what film that youll see, everytime its betetr to read the book since you get more good info and its always a bigger pleasure to read instead of looking, movies lost so much that the writer has written.

Stephen King for ever, read all his books and mostly hate all the movies sadly enough. They never have all good things that he writes about.

Game of Thrones. It started off real strong the first few seasons keeping mostly true to the books but on the later seasons, especially the last three they started cutting things out and the important things they had to leave in they rushed through. An absolute shame that D&D are the ones who got their hands on it, they really did GoT dirty.

Have to say I one hundred percent agree there, Asher. There is just far more detail in the books than you get in the movies. I mean the movies are still going, they get the point across, but there are loads of little bits left out that give you a much better view of who each character really is.

Still annoyed how much of the Quidditch stuff was left out of the movies also.

Stephen King stuff, great example of the extremes.

Lawnmower Man? Never should have made it out of the shed. 

The Outsider is just as, if not better than, the book. They handed it to Jason Bateman and, just like when he was a kid in Stand By Me, he ran with it. Def recommend. 

any of stephen kings movies i think stink. like 90 percent. all his books though are great. you can picture what he writes in great detail. honestly the only time i ever read is when i am in prison. and thankfully i havent been in 5 years. spent all my luxurious 20s there tho

Not so much a movie, but the book about pablo escobar, that his brother, Roberto wrote about him., was far better than the series narcos. 

The series was based in this book, and was so much better.