Movies Vs. Books

Image Courtesy of Pixabay

Day 333

We do not watch movies nearly as much as we once did. It seems like our priorities are such that dedicating 2 hours to a movie challenges how frugal we are with our time. We tend to watch a movie or two when the grandkids are here.

Saturday evening we found a movie we both wanted to see — The Bookshop. The movie was a bit slow to start, but there was something about it that held our attention. As we often do, when the movie ended, we wondered if the movie was based on a book.

So, a little Google search revealed the 2017 movie was based on the book by British author Penelope Fitzgerald. We were both interested in reading the book so we thought about trying to find a hardback copy.

Penelope Fitzgerald wrote the book in 1978 and was shortlisted for the Booker Prize for Fiction, a literary award for best original novel written in the English language and published in the United Kingdom. This is a prestigious award and might be one of the reasons this book is priced beyond our reach.

I am not a fan of paperback books, but since this one starts around $40 for used and $100+ for hardcover, we might just opt for getting this one on Kindle.

There are very few movies that are ever able to do the book justice. Might be an interesting post for someone who is well-versed on such things. That would not be me.

What title pops up in your mind when you think about the quality of a book Vs. the movie of the same name?

20 thoughts on “Movies Vs. Books”

  1. I consider books and movies to be different mediums so I just go with what’s in front of me. That being said I did like how Chocolat the book [by Joanne Harris] was turned into Chocolat the movie [starring Juliette Binoche]. The movie remained true, in essence, to the fablesque quality of the book– and I liked that.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Ally, that was a great movie, but I never read the book. One more to put on the list. Your point about the differing mediums is a good one. Thank you for sharing.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. When it’s convenient, I prefer to watch the movie first, then read the book. That way, I’m less likely to be disappointed. The books have always been better.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I read the book “Forrest Gump” about ten years before it was made into a movie, and thought it was hilarious. When it came out as a movie, we saw it and I couldn’t believe it was based on the book. Likewise, Mary had read “The Osterman Weekend” and thought it was excellent, but the movie really disappointed her. On the other hand, I read both “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” and “The Devil Wears Prada,” and the movies were better: they told the story better and didn’t go running down all kinds of rabbit trails. So, basically, it’s kind of a crapshoot: sometimes one is better than the other, other times they’re about equal, and you really have to judge both on their merits.

    Nevertheless, I doubt I’ll be reading “The Accidental Tourist.” That movie was hilarious, and I don’t want to spoil it…


    1. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” was a tough watch. I never read his books. Some things are too tough for me visually.


  4. Maggie, as almost everyone says, “The book was better.” (And usually they’re right.)

    However, I liked the ending of the MOVIE “The Horse Whisperer” (Robert Redford and Kristin Scott-Thomas) better than the ending of the NOVEL by Nicholas Evans.

    Great question!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So nice to see you here. I loved the film “Practical Magic” and loved the book as well. Sometimes actors make it for me.


  5. I read all the Harry Potter books last spring at the urging of my granddaughter. I was hooked the whole time. Only watched one of the movies. My imagination was much richer.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.