Movies that are better than the books

Hector Savage · 22-08-2019 04:17PM

BrenMar wrote: »

Jaws. In the book Hooper and Ellen Brody had a fling, Spielberg wisely decided to keep that out of the film.

Book was totally different, more about the town and the effect the shark had on it, film is much better

Hector Savage · 22-08-2019 04:18PM

dickangel wrote: »

Jurassic Park

ah heyor!
Maybe cos I read the book 1st as a 14 year old back in 1992!
But I did find the book far far better ..

Conall Cernach · 22-08-2019 04:33PM

Donnielighto wrote: »

The Two Towers

I can't believe anyone really thinks this. The Two Towers is by far the weakest of Jackson's Lord of the Rings films and doesn't even make sense at times. Elves at Helm's Deep! How did they get there so fast?

loyatemu · 22-08-2019 04:38PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

of Kubrick's films, Full Metal Jacket is better than "The Short Timers"; and whilst I haven't read "The Luck of Barry Lyndon" most accounts say it's a fairly minor work by Thackeray whereas the film is a masterpiece.

2001 is also better than the book but the Arthur C. Clarke book was written based on the script (which was itself based on an earlier Clarke short story).

The only ones that I could think of off the top of my head would be The Shining, Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange.

The Shining is debatable IMO - I'm not a King fan, but it's probably one of his more readable books. The film is great but took a lot of liberties with the book. "Clockwork Orange" is also a great book but Kubrick completely changed the ending to fit in with his more pessimistic world view..

Jim Bob Scratcher · 22-08-2019 04:54PM

The Shining
American psycho

keano_afc · 22-08-2019 04:55PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

LA Confidential.

This is the correct answer. The book is tripe.

storker · 22-08-2019 05:05PM

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

The Shining

Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

Greyfox · 22-08-2019 05:06PM

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I can't believe anyone really thinks this. The Two Towers is by far the weakest of Jackson's Lord of the Rings films and doesn't even make sense at times. Elves at Helm's Deep! How did they get there so fast?

Two towers is the best of the 3 films, Helms deep is the highlight of the 3 films. All 3 films are definitely better then the book

Zaph · 22-08-2019 05:10PM

uch wrote: »

Debbie does Dallas

The braille version of the book is pretty decent.

Dial Hard · 22-08-2019 05:10PM

loyatemu wrote: »

The Shining is debatable IMO - I'm not a King fan, but it's probably one of his more readable books. The film is great but took a lot of liberties with the book. "Clockwork Orange" is also a great book but Kubrick completely changed the ending to fit in with his more pessimistic world view..

King famously hates Kubrick's version. I've read the book several times but have yet to actually sit down and watch the film.

Gregor Samsa · 22-08-2019 05:10PM

Naked Lunch

The movie, while surreal, is pretty good. The book is pretty much unreadable. To the point that I can’t quite understand how anyone read it and decided to make a move out of it in the first place.

Ipso · 22-08-2019 05:11PM

keano_afc wrote: »

This is the correct answer. The book is tripe.

Bite you tongue, hep cat. It's a great book, but you'd need to read The Big Nowhere first.

SuperSean11 · 22-08-2019 05:13PM

The hunger games

Centurion1001 · 22-08-2019 05:17PM

Vic_08 wrote: »

The Jack Reacher series, the films are bog standard hollywood lone hero fare but the books are written in such a bizzare style I couldn't even finish a paragraph. They read like a picture book for a 5 year old, millions of short factual sentences strung together.

A randomly selected passage:

How the fuq are these books bestsellers?

One thing that makes me laugh is how pissy the author got about Tom Cruise being cast. As if the books are these diagrams of perfection to be followed by the letter.

Gregor Samsa · 22-08-2019 05:25PM

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

American psycho

I was wondering about American Psycho. The book and the movie are two very different experiences - both excellent in my opinion. The book on one hand contains entire chapters dedicated to reviewing the music of Phil Collins and Whitney Houston, but also scenes of extreme violence that could never have made it into the movie. That extreme contrast is one the things is that I really like about the book, but I can see people thinking it’s pretentious. The movie is much more even.

I do think the ending is better in the movie. More ambiguous, which I think suits the story better.

The Princess Bride · 22-08-2019 05:41PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Forrest Gump.

The scriptwriter worked really hard to take an average book and end up with the success that was Forrest Gump.

In a similar vein, Slumdog Millionaire was a good film, but the book on which it is based, Q&A, annoyed me for some reason.

runnerholic · 22-08-2019 05:48PM

To Kill a Mockingbird. Book was awesome but film edges it for me.

gmisk · 22-08-2019 06:08PM

Ready player one
Crappy book
Slightly less crappy film

Zaph · 22-08-2019 06:10PM

gmisk wrote: »

Ready player one
Crappy book
Slightly less crappy film

I actually enjoyed the book a lot more than the film. I thought the film was a bit of a mess tbh.

Bonniedog · 22-08-2019 06:23PM

Vic_08 wrote: »

The Jack Reacher series, the films are bog standard hollywood lone hero fare but the books are written in such a bizzare style I couldn't even finish a paragraph. They read like a picture book for a 5 year old, millions of short factual sentences strung together.

A randomly selected passage:

How the fuq are these books bestsellers?

Morse and Rebus series are far better than the books.

Some of Dexter's Morse books are almost infantile in construction and bad prose. We may thank John Thaw and the director for making them iconic.

Likewise, Rankin's Rebus books. One or two of them are okay. Rest are pretty awful.

Bonniedog · 22-08-2019 06:27PM

phutyle wrote: »

Naked Lunch

The movie, while surreal, is pretty good. The book is pretty much unreadable. To the point that I can’t quite understand how anyone read it and decided to make a move out of it in the first place.

One of few books I have not only stopped reading in disgust, but left in a charity shop!

Put me off Burroughs for years. Junkie is good. Rest seems to be of same repulsive nature as Naked Lunch. Would not even try to watch the film.

Turtyturd · 22-08-2019 08:31PM

Watchmen.

Surprised to see American Psycho on here. Enjoy both the book and the film but the film is not a patch on the book imo.

Insect Overlord · 22-08-2019 08:35PM

I once spent a month reading A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, American Psycho, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, and Trainspotting (as well as The Bell Jar and The Catcher In The Rye) and comparing the books to their movie adaptations. I've been emotionally fucked ever since. :pac:

Collie D · 22-08-2019 08:42PM

phutyle wrote: »

I was wondering about American Psycho. The book and the movie are two very different experiences - both excellent in my opinion. The book on one hand contains entire chapters dedicated to reviewing the music of Phil Collins and Whitney Houston, but also scenes of extreme violence that could never have made it into the movie. That extreme contrast is one the things is that I really like about the book, but I can see people thinking it’s pretentious. The movie is much more even.

I do think the ending is better in the movie. More ambiguous, which I think suits the story better.

I’d go with the film but only because I hated it less than the book. I have a thing where if I start a book I’ll finish it no matter how much I dislike it or however long it takes.

I ****ing hated that book’s vileness. Saw the movie first and didn’t get the controversy - I’d definitely seen more violent films - but some of the stuff in the book is warped.

knockers84 · 22-08-2019 08:44PM

Black dicks white chicks

Collie D · 22-08-2019 08:44PM

Oh and to answer the OP - The Commitments. Probably my favourite Irish movie and I saw it years before I read it. Finished the book and wondered how they ever decided to make a film from it but glad they took the punt.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 22-08-2019 08:49PM

The Bourne Identity. Great movie, mediocre book.

On the shining, I understand King’s criticism of the movie. The characters he wrote were quite different in temperament, at least to begin with.

However that doesn’t mean the movie, judged on its own merits, isn’t great.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 22-08-2019 08:51PM

Collie D wrote: »

I’d go with the film but only because I hated it less than the book. I have a thing where if I start a book I’ll finish it no matter how much I dislike it or however long it takes.

I ****ing hated that book’s vileness. Saw the movie first and didn’t get the controversy - I’d definitely seen more violent films - but some of the stuff in the book is warped.

The book has really aged badly. It’s not very wise to over indulge in descriptions of popular culture of the day. And yes it’s gross.

Bannasidhe · 22-08-2019 08:54PM

Gangs of New York.

Book reads like a particularly dull PhD thesis.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-08-2019 08:54PM

Dante7 wrote: »

It's a well known adage that the book is generally better than the movie, but there are exceptions.

Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile (great books too)
Godfather's
Blade Runner (or anything by Philip K Dick)

technically speaking...
The Bladerunner (also published as The Blade Runner) is a 1974 science fiction novel by Alan E. Nourse, about underground medical services and smuggling.

They bought the rights to the book and only used the name.
Bits of the book were used in Impostor and Minority Report,

Movies that are better than the books

Comments