MovieChat Forums > Blood and Chocolate (2007) Discussion > I thought the movie was way better

I thought the movie was way better


Am I the only one that thought the movie was 10 times better? The book was pretty boring and it kind of made you hate all of the characters.

reply

Nope! I was so disappointed with the book. I saw the movie first and was excited to read the book (books are generally better than the movies made from them!), but can't believe people think the book is better. I too hated all of the characters and think the book had a bit too much of a high school feel (immature characters and situations). I haven't read any of them, but I imagine the Twilight series is of similar caliber to the book "Blood and Chocolate".

reply

I agree too. I saw the movie first and loved it! Then I sought out the book which is something I generally do after watching a movie I like...and added to that was the amount of people on here raving about it. I have to admit I barely made it through the first reading of it and have no intentions of ever reading it again whereas I've seen the movie several times. I felt no attachment whatsover for the characters in the novel whereas in the movie I actually liked Vivian and Aiden. In the book her and the other characters just seemed so shallow.

-----
"They have to stay. Or else we haven't learned a thing." - Abraham Bernstein

reply

Blood & Chocolate is my favorite book! The way it's written is so beautiful and engrossing, as are the characters. Vivian, and especially Gabriel is so much better in the book. The only good thing about the movie is the actors who played the characters which were all on point- but that doesn't really matter when the movie butchered the plot of the book. I was incredibly excited when I found out they were making this movie, and then even more incredibly disappointed when I saw it.
Moving the setting from Maryland to Romania was jarring enough, but then to not have the characters be in high school weakens the plot. It could have and should have been more hip & teen/young-adult oriented. Vivian struggling with her werewolf identity served as metaphor for adolescence! Taking it out of high school just made it more generic.
Vivian ending up with Gabriel in the book was perfect and showed her to follow her most basic instincts- as opposed to the movie where she just went with Aiden to rebel.
Plus, her working in a chocolate shop was just stupid and catered to people who can't grasp the true concept of 'Blood' and 'Chocolate' as representations of Vivian's wolf and human desires.
The movie isn't horrible, but it was a shame because the book is flawless.

reply

You said everything I was going to and then some! :)

If anyone thinks this movie is better than the book, that's their opinion but I think the fact that they dumbed the plot down and made it more "hip" really speaks to what kind of audience they were trying to aim for.

You would think killing people would make them like you but it doesn't. It just makes them dead.

reply

[deleted]

I read the book after seeing the movie and loving it. I think I would have enjoyed the book more had I been younger. I personally did not care for Vivian in the book, but liked Gabriel, while it was vice versa with the movie. I was expecting the book to be better than the movie, as they usually are, but I didn't find it to be true in this case.

reply

The movie was definitely better. As was the message. The book's message was basically to accept and be happy with who you are, don't try to be something you're not. A great message, but not as good as the one in the movie. The movie's message was to not let others decide who you are or how to live your life, and to go after what you want and not let yourself be limited by what life has given you or what others say.
That and I also hated Gabriel in the book. He was also a pedophile if you think about it. 24 years old and trying to get into a 16 year old's pants. The perv.

reply

Watcher101, I had forgotten all about his age in the books. Definitely agree with you on that point. I was just thinking she was his mate or something, its been years since I've read the book though to really remember.

You can only make so many mistakes before it becomes a lifestyle.

reply

He was also a pedophile if you think about it. 24 years old and trying to get into a 16 year old's pants. The perv.


Wrong, you're thinking of ephebophilia, which means sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents whereas pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children (roughly under 12-13 years-old).

Also, eight years difference isn't that big a deal; for instance, when she's 30 he'd be 38. Also, keep in mind that in Shakespearean times females were allowed to marry in their early teens, not to mention men are naturally attracted to females at the height of child-bearing age. That said, I wouldn't want my 16 year-old daughter dating a 24 year-old dude because it's just not fitting in our modern culture. But I wouldn't regard the guy as a "perv" just because he's interested in an attractive 16 year-old young woman.

Personally, I've always favored older women who are intelligent and spiritual.

reply