When Movie is better than Book

Frank Black

Most of the time a film adaption of a novel is a disappointment for fans of the original - but what would you consider to be films which are far better than the source material they are based on.
I’ll go with Jaws – I re-read the original novel by Peter Benchley about a year ago and I was struck having seen the film recently how much Spielberg had improved on the source material.
The book had a big sub-plot about Chief Brody’s wife having an affair with Hooper – really boring and wisely cut from the film version.
Also they returned to the land each evening when they were hunting the shark so you lost the whole tension of them being out in the boat at night – which in my opinion are some of the best scenes in the movie.
Although you can argue Spielberg went a bit OTT at the end, I still think it works better from a dramatic point of view than the novel.

Mickeroo

American Psycho for me. I found certain passages to be extremely boring such as where he was

going on about whitney houston or phil collins or his hair or whatever

, though I achknowledge it was all part of the satire and signified how self obsessed he was. In the movie they still got the same message across and even used the

phil collins

bit, but it never slowed down the narrative, the film played out like it was all the good bits of the book more or less.

folan

2 films would be
Jurassic Park - nicer, easier story line.
Shawshank Redemption - better, more involving if only a slightly more unbelievable story.

Galvasean

The Mist. They completely changed the ending, but even Stephen King (the author) preferred the film's ending.

VW 1

Maybe not a universal opinion (or a popular opinion at all in fact!) but I must say I thought that the film version of Lord of the Rings was far better than the book. For me the book was long, drawn out, in parts quite boring. But the films I felt were fantastic and enthralling from start to finish.

Wrighty82

I really liked the old black and white movie of the Lord of the Flies. Dunno if it was definitively better than the book, but it was almost exactly faithful which is a plus.

Revolution9

Galvasean wrote: »

The Mist. They completely changed the ending, but even Stephen King (the author) preferred the film's ending.

The Mist was a great watch!

Stephen King also said that the film Stand By Me, based on his short story The Body, was an improvement on the source material. Loved the film, but can't comment on the short story as I've yet to read it.

Funkfield

Forrest Gump (the film) is a sweeter and more concisely told story. The book is a little out-there in parts.

krudler

The Godfather and Jaws both spring to mind

foxyboxer

The Lord of the Rings.

Preferred the movies to be honest.
Reading 3 pages dedicated to describing the weather is not my cup of tea.

Sl!mCharles

Fight Club. Book is great too, but the movie trumps it with the way it engages with the audience imo; whereas I found the book to be a bit of a chore at times, just personal preference though.

Sunnyisland

Carlito's way,The film was much better than the book.

eco2live

The commitments

keane2097

VW 1 wrote: »

Maybe not a universal opinion (or a popular opinion at all in fact!) but I must say I thought that the film version of Lord of the Rings was far better than the book. For me the book was long, drawn out, in parts quite boring. But the films I felt were fantastic and enthralling from start to finish.

foxyboxer wrote: »

The Lord of the Rings.

Preferred the movies to be honest.
Reading 3 pages dedicated to describing the weather is not my cup of tea.

krudler

foxyboxer wrote: »

The Lord of the Rings.

Preferred the movies to be honest.
Reading 3 pages dedicated to describing the weather is not my cup of tea.

I've read LOTR a few times, this is usually how it goes:

begin chapter, red everything
poem, skip to end of poem
read more plot development
another poem, skip past it
into the good stuff, oh bloody hell another poem, skip that.
15 page description of what a tree trunk looks like in the morning mist on the mountains something or other.

Its a great book but by Sauron its a slog in places.

TheIrishGrover

Now, people may have a problem with this but I thought Bladerunner was better than Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? The Batty character was MUCH more interesting and sympathetic in the film. His death was far better also

AFAICR Batty just gets plain old shot in the book

. Plus, Philip K Dick had a huge problem with women and all his female characters come across as total bitches.

As far a Lord Of The Rings, while I prefer the books I do think the films were pretty awesome and the changes made were necessary for film. I know there are purists out there who bemoan the changes but do we really need a whole 20 minute scene with Tom Bombadil and his feckin' yellow wellies?

mikhail

Christopher Priest's The Prestige isn't a tap on the Nolan film. The most notable difference is that it has a completely redundant extra framing device of a modern day descendant of one of the antagonists finding an old diary which adds nothing at all, but there are numerous minor differences I felt Nolan made the right call on too.

Orizio

'The Shining', 'The Mist', 'Misery'...

Jimdagym

Mystic river.
I'm a big lehane fan but I just can't finish this. Read the first half twice.
Eastwood, who I'm not a fan of at all as a director, nailed it. The pace is bang on and the casting is fantastic. Robbins as the tortured soul, bacon as the cop going places and Penn as the tough guy. I could watch the film on repeat!
Gone baby gone, and shutter island were much better books than films. I really hope the given day gets made, although there has been no talk for a while.

Revolution9

krudler wrote: »

The Godfather

Both book and film are utterly fantastic. I couldn't pick a clear victor between them.

Frank Black

Orizio wrote: »

'The Shining', 'The Mist', 'Misery'...

To be honest I'd have put The Shining and Misery as two of my favorite SK novels - movies were good too but wouldn't rate them as necessarily better than the books.

Haven't read/seen The Mist though.

cosmicfart

Cleopatra (1963) 'sort of' based on books and historical writings which i firmly enjoy but this film is a classic, brings to life the era of Caesar and his fling with the last queen of Egypt, quite a fan of these classic films which really are in keeping with historical writings

johnny_ultimate

Let the Right One In - I'm firmly of the belief that to make a really great movie adaptation the director has to be fairly cut-throat. Thomas Alfredson was. The book is good, but very pulpy, full of random subplots and characters. It's pretty unwieldy, although for the most part enjoyable. However, Alfredson decides to focus on the one major plot strand between Eli and Oskar, with only small amounts of time spent on others. The result is sharper, more engaging and more focused. There's nothing "wrong" with the book, but the best parts are bogged down by the less fulfilling parts of the story, and little is left to the imagination. The film in comparison is a subtle, quietly beautiful story - and one whose tone and atmosphere is a vast improvement over the novel.

Otis Driftwood

Mickeroo wrote: »

American Psycho for me. I found certain passages to be extremely boring such as where he was

going on about whitney houston or phil collins or his hair or whatever

, though I achknowledge it was all part of the satire and signified how self obsessed he was. In the movie they still got the same message across and even used the

phil collins

bit, but it never slowed down the narrative, the film played out like it was all the good bits of the book more or less.

Oh God no.

Aside from the novel being borderline genius,AP the movie is horribly over rated in my humble opinion and many scenes from the novel are excised completely.

One that hasnt been mentioned but I think is better than its source material is LA Confidential.I love the book but its slow in places however the movie builds nicely and is wonderfully acted for the most part.

Mickeroo

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Oh God no.

Aside from the novel being borderline genius,AP the movie is horribly over rated in my humble opinion and many scenes from the novel are excised completely.

For it to work as a film they had to cut out stuff, this is true of any successful film to book adaptation.

nyarlothothep

Fight Club, I remember reading the book, and there was this really lame almost american rom com moment when he says to whatshername that he kinda likes her with all the support group members present going awww. That and a few other things, its been 7 years since I read it. It was an ok but not outstanding book.

Sad Professor

I'd agree with krudler about The Godfather. The book is a great read, make no mistake, but as far as literature goes, nothing special. The film, however, is one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever made and is probably the main reason the book is remembered so well. I think some stories are just better suited to cinema. The Godfather and The Exorcist are good examples of this imo. With each of those films it was almost like the book was the first draft of the screenplay.

I also agree with Otis about American Psycho. The book is superior to the film every way imo. Which is not to say the film is bad. I think Harron did the best she could with difficult material that wasn't really suited to film. Bale is fantastic though and elevates the film substantially.

Fight Club, on the other hand, is a remarkable adaptation of a book that I would have considered unfilmable. It is incredible true to the source material despite that source material reading like a stream of consciousness. Along with A Clockwork Orange, it's a example of a what a truly great filmmaker can do with a seemly impossible adaptation. I'd find it very hard to compare the book to the film. I would never say the film is better though. Fincher is channeling Palahniuk for the most part.

As for the LOTR, I love Jackson's trilogy, but it is not a great piece of cinema in the way that the book is a great piece of literature. It's a tribute to Jackson that the films work as well as they do, but I think they will always be in the shadow of the book.

Yahew

A lot of horror, or science fiction would fit into this, as they are generally badly written. On the other hand the well written stuff - the Updikes, and Roths - are non-translatable.

Science fiction, however, in particular. The short story AI is based on is horribly bad.

Yahew

Sad Professor wrote: »

As for the LOTR, I love Jackson's trilogy, but it is not a great piece of cinema in the way that the book is a great piece of literature. It's a tribute to Jackson that the films work as well as they do, but I think they will always be in the shadow of the book.

But nobody outside a nerd community sees LOTR, the book, as literature.

Sad Professor

Yahew wrote: »

But nobody outside a nerd community sees LOTR, the book, as literature.

Yeah, but only out of some elite snobbishness.

Yahew

no, its badly written.

nyarlothothep

I'd say the writing is non extraordinary but I wouldn't use that as the sole yardstick to judge it as a piece of literature or not. Dracula which is regarded as literature has in my opinion a fairly hokey cliched plot. Which reminds me, Coppola's Dracula is better than the book.

Ridley

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, but only out of some elite snobbishness.

Ah! The reason for one of my prefered Terry Pratchett quotes (Once More With Footnotes). On the LotR critics:

"Look, we've been trying to tell you for years which books are good! And you just don't listen! You're not listening now! You're just going out there and buying this damn book! And the worst part is we can't stop you! We can tell you it's rubbish, it's not relevant, it's the worst kind of escapism, it was written by an author who never came to our parties and didn't care what we thought, but unfortunately the law allows you to go on not listening! You are stupid, stupid, stupid!"

Funglegunk

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Now, people may have a problem with this but I thought Bladerunner was better than Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? The Batty character was MUCH more interesting and sympathetic in the film. His death was far better also

AFAICR Batty just gets plain old shot in the book

. Plus, Philip K Dick had a huge problem with women and all his female characters come across as total bitches.

Defo, the film takes a fairly forgettable book and makes a classic movie from it, cutting away a lot of the excess fluff (like the religion bits) and, as you say, making the replicants sympathetic. As far I remember,

whenever Deckard had a replicant cornered in the book, they just gave up, unlike the movie where they'll do anything for more life.

Also, they made the huge improvement of calling them 'replicants' as opposed to 'andies' (*shudder*).

norrie rugger

VW 1 wrote: »

Maybe not a universal opinion (or a popular opinion at all in fact!) but I must say I thought that the film version of Lord of the Rings was far better than the book. For me the book was long, drawn out, in parts quite boring. But the films I felt were fantastic and enthralling from start to finish.

Boooooo!
Ruined Gimli and his relationship with Legolas.

Funglegunk

norrie rugger wrote: »

Boooooo!
Ruined Gimli and his relationship with Legolas.

Also, Elrond is a bit of a dick in the movies but a ledge in the book. IIRC in the book

he is a lot more sympathetic to Isildur when he is seduced by the ring, much more mindful of the ring's power. In the films he's basically, "Men, pfft. Bunch of pansies."

humanji

I think the writer's Philip K. Dick and Stephen King both generally have had better movies made from their books/short stories. As mentioend above, Bladerunner totally outclasses the book. I'd also say taht Minority Report is a more interesting film (though I much prefer the ending of the story where

the program isn't shut down as they realise the only time someone can be framed is when it's the chief of police

. That made more sense to me.

A lot of Dick's (*snigger*) work is a bit "out there" and was made better when it was reigned in a little and given a wider context. Total Recal is another example. It's a silly movie, but it's great fun, has great action and great imagination put into it; as opposed the short story which is more of a long form joke.

With King, I'm trying to think of any of his books which I prefered. His books generally start off brilliant, reach a plateau in the middle and then rush downhill as fast as they can for the end. But he does have some amazing scenes in his books which, since they're all about what people are thinking, don't get put into films.

For example, there's a fantastic moment in the Stand where two characters are in a storm chelter while a tornado goes overhead. But they know something else is in there, and there's this long scene of the two guys huddled together, terrified and desperate for the tornado to leave. His books have loads of scenes like that, which just don't translate well on to film.

I wouldn't count Lord Of The Rings as a better movie though. Personally, I don't think Jackson is that great a director and that the films were too teen friendly. Also, the books have a more epic feel. In the film you're immediately told about the ring and then the time from when Bilbo leaves to when Frod leaves seems like a couple of days.

But in the book you don't find out about what the ring is until Gandalf finds out, so there's that bit of surprise. And the time from when Bilbo leaves to when Frodo leaves is months, if not years (it's been a while since I read it, but I know it was quite a while). The journey they make just sounds like more of a struggle and more dangerous. And the world is given more life and there's danger lurking everywhere.

Sadly though, as has been said, the descriptions are far too long winded.

norrie rugger wrote:

Boooooo!
Ruined Gimli and his relationship with Legolas.

Inter-species homo-eroticism is nothing to be ashamed of!

Yahew

Ridley wrote: »

Ah! The reason for one of my prefered Terry Prachett quotes (Once More With Footnotes). On the LotR critics:

"Look, we've been trying to tell you for years which books are good! And you just don't listen! You're not listening now! You're just going out there and buying this damn book! And the worst part is we can't stop you! We can tell you it's rubbish, it's not relevant, it's the worst kind of escapism, it was written by an author who never came to our parties and didn't care what we thought, but unfortunately the law allows you to go on not listening! You are stupid, stupid, stupid!"

So why do we consider that we can tell good movies from bad movies? What makes a movie good or bad isn't subject matter, but how it goes about it - the direction, the dialogue, the camera work, etc. What makes a book good is not what it is about - Lolita is about child sex - but how it goes about it. The writing.

LOTR isn't about anything very important - a fantasy with Orcs and Goblins, and a race of small men on a quest to destroy a ring, and if it is allegorical ( i.e. about the Nazis which he denied) then its a twee allegory - and it isn't written very well. In fact, badly. This is why the literate world doesn't think it literature. Because it isn't. It is a well imagined world. But that's it.

However, a movie can be fashioned from a bad book because the text, except for the dialogue, can be ( and generally is) excised and replaced by cinematic art. Which is why The Godfather is art in the cinema, but not on the page.

Tipsy McSwagger

Yahew wrote: »

So why do we consider that we can tell good movies from bad movies? What makes a movie good or bad isn't subject matter, but how it goes about it - the direction, the dialogue, the camera work, etc. What makes a book good is not what it is about - Lolita is about child sex - but how it goes about it. The writing.

LOTR isn't about anything very important - a fantasy with Orcs and Goblins, and a race of small men on a quest to destroy a ring, and if it is allegorical ( i.e. about the Nazis which he denied) then its a twee allegory - and it isn't written very well. In fact, badly. This is why the literate world doesn't think it literature. Because it isn't. It is a well imagined world. But that's it.

However, a movie can be fashioned from a bad book because the text, except for the dialogue, can be ( and generally is) excised and replaced by cinematic art. Which is why The Godfather is art in the cinema, but not on the page.

You are really talking out of your arse. LOTR is constantly voted the greatest book of all time and it really gets on the 'literate worlds' tits. It's a beautiful written book that I must have read about 7 times. Tolkien created a whole new language, a vast world, a massive history, great characters and the greatest story of all time which has been copied countless times ( star wars for example - farm boy takes on the evil empire ). As for the films I think they are brilliant but not a patch on the book, especially what they did to the noble Faramir.

Mickeroo

Yahew wrote: »

But nobody outside a nerd community sees LOTR, the book, as literature.

Well thats just not true. People studied passages from it in school for christ sakes.

common sense brigade

Gone with the Wind: This one hit wonder book by Margaret Mitchell not only worked out brilliantly for her publishers, it also became the highest-grossing film in the history of Hollywood, and received a record-breaking number of Academy Awards

Jaws: Jaws was a bestselling book for Peter Benchley, but it took the force of a movie to frighten generations away from the beaches

The Shining / The Shawshank Redemption / Stand by me / Carrie: Stephen King famously trashed this Stanley Kubrick adaptation, but he shouldn’t have. Kubrick took a perfectly spooky ghost story and created a horror movie legend

The Maltese Falc: Sam Spade is one of crime fiction’s greatest gumshoes: a tough-talking private dick with a moral code, stuck in an amoral world. A great read, but when a legend like Humphrey Bogart shows up in the movie all bets are off

The Silence of the lambs:This is, undoubtedly, one of the greatest psychological thrillers ever put to screen. The success of this film contributed largely to the success of Harris as a writer.

Frank Black

humanji wrote: »

With King, I'm trying to think of any of his books which I prefered. His books generally start off brilliant, reach a plateau in the middle and then rush downhill as fast as they can for the end. But he does have some amazing scenes in his books which, since they're all about what people are thinking, don't get put into films.

For example, there's a fantastic moment in the Stand where two characters are in a storm chelter while a tornado goes overhead. But they know something else is in there, and there's this long scene of the two guys huddled together, terrified and desperate for the tornado to leave. His books have loads of scenes like that, which just don't translate well on to film.

I suspect we could have a separate thread about Stephen King books.
But for me his adaption’s fall into 3 categories –
There’s been some that are great books/great movies
The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, Carrie, Misery, The Body, The Dead Zone.
Then there’s the terrible book/terrible movie
Dreamcatcher, Secret Window,
And finally the Great book/terrible movie
The Stand, The Running Man, It

But has there really been a movie adaption much better than the source?

Haven’t read The Green Mile, Dolores Claiborne or The Mist.

Yahew

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You are really talking out of your arse. LOTR is constantly voted the greatest book of all time and it really gets on the 'literate worlds' tits.

I think the literate world is bemused. Although its better than people voting for Dan Brown, I suppose.

Which, back on topic, would be another example. Any Dan Brown interpretation would be better that his books. 2001 is better than the short story - although that is an alright story.

folan

im a little surprised at finding out that i might be in a minority when i say the Shining film was tripe and the book was great!

LittleBook

humanji wrote: »

With King, I'm trying to think of any of his books which I prefered. His books generally start off brilliant, reach a plateau in the middle and then rush downhill as fast as they can for the end.

I love Stephen King but I've long believed that he has some kind of writer's block when it comes to endings. It's usually either a complete catastrophe (

The Shining, It, Carrie, The Stand

) or a damp squib (

Dark Tower, The Mist, Cell, Under the Dome

).

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Dracula which is regarded as literature has in my opinion a fairly hokey cliched plot. Which reminds me, Coppola's Dracula is better than the book.

It could have been better than the book. Coppola was definitely on the right track and the soundtrack and visuals were fantastic. Unfortunately, for me, the performances ruined it.

I found the film High Fidelity much more enjoyable than the book.

And Children of Men just edges out the book.

I've just started reading Patriot Games and I'm finding it tough going. The film's opening and plot seemed more realistic than Ryan saving the Prince and Princess of Wales AND their baby who were travelling through London without security ... delivering lectures left right and centre, staying in Buckingham Palace and being knighted! Please Tom, reign it in a bit.

LittleBook

folan wrote: »

im a little surprised at finding out that i might be in a minority when i say the Shining film was tripe and the book was great!

You might be in the minority in thinking that the film was "tripe". But I think the majority of people would agree with you that the book was great.

It's just one of those adaptations where you can get something equally good out of either.

Sad Professor

black francis wrote: »

I suspect we could have a separate thread about Stephen King books.

There already is:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056244619

Malari

I thought No Country for Old Men was a fantastic film, and I just didn't get the same atmospheric tension from the book. Which is strange, because there is so little dialogue in the film, and obviously a lot of inner dialogue in the book.

Dubhthamlacht

Most books I've read that have since been turned into films which I've sunbequently seen, have been awful conversions.

But the exceptions have been:

Gormorrah - very good book and I was surprised how they converted it into such a good film.

Donnie Brasco - The film really did justice to the book.

Skinfull

Dang all the ones I came on to point out have already been pointed out.. but yeah still... Movies and books! YAY!

abouttobebanned

any James Elroy adaption