This post is for people on here to post movie based on books they've read and how they compare. Are the story lines exact with both versions, or did the movie leave out important little details?

For me, I say that the Divergent movie was pretty much exactly like the book, with some scenes cut out for it being too violent for the movie's rating.

Post a movie/book and write how you think it compares to its original book.

To Kill a Mockingbird. My grandmother, until the day she died, believed it to be the most faithful adaptation of any book ever. I have to agree with her there. I don't remember much, if anything, being removed from book to movie.

Oops. Disregard.

Lawrence of Arabia. I read the book and I watched the movie. And I must say, the movie doesn't leave out much if anything at all. And maybe that's why the movie's over 3 hours long. But they really did a great job there catching the book's atmosphere :D

And as I'm an avid reader of Clive Cussler, I've seen both movies that were based on his books. The first (based of the novel "Raise the Titanic") was simply a nightmare... even Clive Cussler stated that himself. That's why Clive Cussler insisted to consult the team who turned a second book of his ("Sahara") into a movie. That movie slightly deviates from the novel (I guess it was because of the violence in the novel that was cut out and the movie's overall lenght), but it's still a pretty good adaption ^.^

I can't think of any that I've seen that didn't cut or change the storyline a lot. Ella Enchanted was one of my favorite books as a kid and the movie was a huge disappointment. I'm still bitter about that.

I prefer the Disney versions of The Chronicles of Narnia to the books because the movies have more tension. And if I'm not in doubt during a movie...yeah...I'm not apt to like it.

Shutter Island and the original black and white version of Lord of the Flies are among my two picks for best movie adaptations.

I adore the LOTR movies but...would need to re-read the books again to decide about how they hold up as an adaptation.

The Maze Runner was really good about sticking to the book. Obviously they had to take artistic liberties because the book was so in depth but overall it was pleasing to the eye and faithful to the book.

Divergent was pretty close, except for the ending. While they still ended up in the same place, the road was just a little different.

Gone With the Wind and Fault in Our Stars are the only other ones that I've seen that hardly deviate. GWTW was SO hard to read though. I really didn't need 4 pages on how green the grass was, thanks.

I'm just floored by this idea. Communicating visually takes so much time, that the average screenplay is a short story, not a book. A movie would have to be very very long to even come close.

I found the first two Harry Potter films to be very close to their books. The ones that weren't were more fun. The last book got turned into two movies, but probably shouldn't have.

lol i sure am double posting a lot lately. silly subeta.

the lord of the flies movie from the 60s (NOT the 90s version good LORD no) is pretty close to the book. it cut out some major scenes involving the pig head which is very unacceptable to me (I'm a huge fan of the book) but other than that it's very spot on. the 90s "adaptation" makes me want to puke. 😳

Most movies I've seen based on books that I've read were pretty spot on, but they left little details out. like The Hunger Games, they didn't add in the Mayor of District 12 or his daughter.

Interview with the Vampire is VERY close to the book. The only major difference I remember is the ending. It's probably one of the the best book to movie adaptions I've ever seen. The fact that the author of the book also wrote the screenplay probably helped a lot ;) Queen of the Damned, on the other hand, is probably one the worst adaptions I've ever seen (second only to maybe Simon Birch/A Prayer for Owen Meaney). They not only butchered much of the story, they butchered many on the characters. UGH it's so bad if you liked the books. So one really great Anne Rice adaption and one really horrible one.

The only one I can think of that didn't deviate so much that it hurt the plot a bit is The Fault in Our Stars.

That movie pissed me off so much!

The Fault in our Stars seriously killed my heart. I watched the movie first, then read the book. Not sure why I did it that way though, because it totally wasn't as fun as imagining the characters.

The only example I can think of right now is the Hunger Games. They stay pretty faithful to the books, even if they do make a few changes, especially in the third movie, but I don't mind. They seem to cut down on time, but some parts of the book that took a while were quite boring, and even though some characters are left out, well, they can't cast EVERY small part, can they? The injuries can also be less serious, but as well as cutting down on time, that's also making it appropriate for 12 year olds (PG 13 = 12A in my country). The books also take place from Katniss' first person point of view, so I don't mind the additional scenes without her in them because most of them still happened in the book, just off-page. The screen allows us to see what went on.

I thought the books and movies for the Secret Life of Bees and Winter's Bone were very similar.

I kind of dislike that though, at least when I see the movie first and can't finish the book because they're so alike. I agree with you, I liked that some of the HP films didn't completely follow the books. It made both watching and reading them rewarding.

I only read the first book in LOTR. Specifically, I recall the whole bit with Tom Bombadil (sp?) being cut out.

I agree with The Interview with a Vampire, although, for me, I never envisioned the characters as Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. lol. I heard the second movie was terrible too. I really like John Irving and would like to read Owen Meany; I just haven't been able to get past that movie.

Yes it was. But I think Tolkein didn't really have an explanation for Bombadil so cutting him out wasn't much.

Though I was sort of ticked that in the books Merry and Pippin knew about the ring but in the movies they didn't. But that's sort of a nitpick as both had good character development in the movie trilogy.

That's true. I never thought much of Bombadil in the books, so I didn't find that disappointing. That's right about Merry and Pippin! But I guess none of those are a big deal.

Did you read the Hobbit? It's been a while for me. I'm not sure who that woodland guy is--Radagast, unless he was only barely mentioned in the Hobbit. I thought he was a bit like Bombadil, at least in eccentricity.

I read the book when I was a teen (now 28) so I can't remember much. I need to re-read it. I remember Smaug, thoughXD

After I finish the Warrior Cats book I'm re-reading I'll either read the next in that series or start re-reading The Foundation series by Isaac Asimov.

I do want to re-read The Hobbit in the future but there are so many booksXD