Movies better than the book

[lcjjdnh]

All this talk about movies prompted me to think about this question as someone said they made the mistake of reading Seabiscuit before watching the movie. There are plenty of movies that are much worse than the books they are based on but what movies are actually better than the books they are based on?

I can only think of select few that are even equal to the book. One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest is both a great book and movie but they are really radically different because Chief narrates the book. To Kill a Mockingbird the movie is almost as good as the book but I don't think it tops it in anyway.

Are there any other movies to add to this list?

[Aylmar]

The Rings trilogy. Great movies (as a whole), but awesome books.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I can think of three off-hand that at least enhanced the book or novella they came from:

The Green Mile
The Shawshank Redemption
Band of Brothers (ok a mini-series)

[Huckleberry]

The problem, in my opinion, has a lot to do with time and attention span. People are not going to sit there through a 6-hour movie. But good books require that long to be turned into an equal movie. Despite the fact that a movie can set the visual scene instantaneously, character development still takes just as long in a movie as in a book. In some cases it may even take longer, depending, of course, on your reading speed.

Think about lots of the great movies. They were simply long, good movies. They took the time to develop the characters and story and did those things well. That's why big budget films are a risk. If it's a long movie that is well-done, it's going to be great. If it's a long movie that isn't well-done, it's going to be a tremendous bore that goes down in history as one of the greatest flops of all time.

[astralhaze]

The Shining. Great book, but the book wasn't directed by Stanley Kubrick.

[Groundhog]

I tried reading Lord of the Rings, but I just hated the style of writing. I got half way through the first book and had to put it down.

I haven't read it, but from what I understand Fight Club is a better movie than it is book.

[Huckleberry]

The Shining is as close as it comes, in my opinion, but even that one falls short.

I guess I'll explain my Seabiscuit opinion seeing as how I'm the one that made the comment that prompted this thread. The biggest complaint, if I had to name one, I have about the movie is character development. As if you couldn't guess. And the problem was with one character in particular. A minor player in the story, I guess. Went by the name Seabiscuit.

I guess I expected the movie to focus on the humans. But to ignore the relationship between Pollard and 'Biscuit as well as between Smith and 'Biscuit was almost criminal to me. Those relationships were only alluded to offhand throughout the film, at least when compared to the book.

[pskov]

I just cannot understand how J.R.R. Tolkien didn't make himself fall asleep writing those books. The movies however are very good, though for me, RotK was a bit of a dissapointment (still good though).

[astralhaze]

I tried reading Lord of the Rings, but I just hated the style of writing. I got half way through the first book and had to put it down.

Ditto. From what I understand, it picks up the pace later, but there was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much extraneous writing in there. We don't need to hear about everything the characters do. I was halfway expecting to read "At that point, the party was forced to make a stop as Frodo felt the need to relieve his bowels."

[BillyPilgrim]

I think Minority Report the movie was better than the short story, and the movie version of A Clockwork Orange was almost as good as the book, but for the most part, movie versions rarely come close to being as good as the book. Fight Club included, IMO

[Raiders Army]

John Carpenter's Vampires was "loosely" based on Vampire$, a book by John Steakley. Both were pretty good IMHO, but the movie was better. On a side note, John Steakley's other book, Armor, has the same main characters in it as Vampire$, at least in name...sorta like the Stephen King/Richard Bachman books, The Regulators and [can't remember what the other one was called off the top of my head].

[TLK]

High Fieldity is a better movie, but also a very good read.....

[Glengoyne]

The Firm. This is one of those that splits people down the middle. The people I know that read the book first, like the movie ending better. The people I know that saw the movie first, liked the book better.

I read the book first, and although it was a page burner the end sputtered badly for me. When I saw the movie I loved the "twist".

[corbes]

I could argue either side of Clockwork Orange.

[astralhaze]

I could argue either side of Clockwork Orange.
Likewise. Great book, equally great movie.

[ahbrady]

I was the opposite of this on The Firm. I saw the movie first then read the book. I liked the book very well, but the ending of the movie was much better to me. I liked the ending of the book okay too, but I think it would have been a little boring to watch.

[mattwakeman]

Planet of the Apes, the book contains only the germ of the idea which the film then expands brilliantly. Point Blank is a terse kind of book and then becomes this amazing John Boorman film with Lee Marvin becoming simply terrifying.

[Draft Dodger]

I thought the movie version of The Firm SUCKED, so there! :)

Besides LOTR, off the top of my head Silence of the Lambs may be as good as I can come up with. It wasn't better than the book but it was almost as good (and also very faithful). Most movie versions of books fall far, far shorter than that.

What about The Godfather - I've never read that book; is it as good as the movie?

[Greyroofoo]

M*A*S*H

[Qwikshot]

Stunned that no one, no one said Jaws yet...Benchley is not a good writer...but the movie was awesome.

[Bad-example]

Hunt for Red October

[sabotai]

I didn't know Jaws was a book before it was a movie...

[Fonzie]

I'll suggest Contact. Carl Sagan had some great ideas, but as a novelist he was a bit stilted.

[Leonidas]

What about The Godfather - I've never read that book; is it as good as the movie?

The Godfather is the best example of a movie being better than the book. Puzo was really just a pop writer who liked to write mob books. Godfather really wasn't even that popular of a book until the movie came out, then it was a huge bestseller. And the movie is far and away better than the book.

[SegRat]

First Blood, the movie was by far better than the book.

[gstelmack]

I thought the Jurassic Park movie complemented the book very nicely. It focused on the bits a movie could do well while maintaining the same theme. Reading the book doesn't ruin the movie, and watching the movie doesn't ruin the book.

Congo, on the other hand... <shudder>

[SackAttack]

I thought the Jurassic Park movie complemented the book very nicely. It focused on the bits a movie could do well while maintaining the same theme. Reading the book doesn't ruin the movie, and watching the movie doesn't ruin the book.

Two words: Jeff. Goldblum.

[Bearcat729]

I've only heard of one movie that was supposed to be better than the book, and that was The Princess Bride, but I've never read the book to say for sure.

The Godfather to me is what all adaptations are compared to. I think that Puzo was able to adapt his book perfectly for the screen, and make it into 2 of the best films ever made.

[Draft Dodger]

Congo, on the other hand... <shudder>

not to mention Sphere or Timeline.

Congo, Sphere and Timeline are probably my 3 favorite Crichton books. The movies, however...

[tucker342]

Very rarely are movies better than the books.

I thought the LOTR movies were incredible, but I still think the books were way better

[klayman]

Blade Runner, which was based off of Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Of course, I was quite young when I read it, so maybe I should read it again to make sure.

[Barkeep49]

I've only heard of one movie that was supposed to be better than the book, and that was The Princess Bride, but I've never read the book to say for sure.


It pains me to hear that you said that. The book as a satire works so incredibly well. The introduction alone had me nearly in tears from laughing.

As for movies that were better than the books:
I think Nick Hornsby and Phillip Dick both are better on the screen then on the page (though some of Dick's work has been really bad).

I also was very unimpressed with Talented Mr. Ripley (which was merely an above average movie) when I read it.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Field of Dreams was better than Shoeless Joe by WP Kinsella even if they had Shoeless Joe batting right handed in the movie.

[Buddy Grant]

Hitchcocks The Birds was IMO better than the Du Maurier short story. I liked the From Hell movie a lot more than the comic, but then again I'm not a comic geek. I personally like most Bond films more than their Ian Flemming book counterparts, but many would probably disagree there.

[Godzilla Blitz]

I can only think of a few.

A Midnight Clear
I thought the movie captured the fear, terror, and tragedy of war much better than the book did.

The World According to Garp
I think the book is better than the book, but for some reason I enjoyed the movie much more than I did the book.

The Lord of the Rings movies
I realize that the books are supposed to be classics, and I've tried three or four times to read the first one, but I'll be damned if I don't simply lose interest somewhere in that damn forest that they're going through forever. I don't think I've ever made it out of the thing. It's not like I actually "stop" reading the book; it's more like I just "forget" that I was reading it and start something else. Loved the movies though.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Hunt for Red October
I disagree, I didn't like how they changed the climax, particularly since I thought that part of the book was already exciting enough.


I don't think the LOTR movies are better than the books, even though they are admirable adaptations. There are some things that are conveyed wonderfully in prose that don't come across onscreen.


I'm afraid that there aren't any instances of adaptations where I've liked the movie better than the book or story, but there are a number of movies that I like that are adaptations where I've never read the original work.


I've read that Dick said of Blade Runner that they had made a PKD story, just not the one he sold them. :p

[Tasan]

Hunt for Red October

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

Thats funny. The movie is very loosly based on the book, and the only thing saving that movie was Connery, and even then its not one of his best roles.

[Peregrine]

I guess I'll explain my Seabiscuit opinion seeing as how I'm the one that made the comment that prompted this thread. The biggest complaint, if I had to name one, I have about the movie is character development. As if you couldn't guess. And the problem was with one character in particular. A minor player in the story, I guess. Went by the name Seabiscuit.

I guess I expected the movie to focus on the humans. But to ignore the relationship between Pollard and 'Biscuit as well as between Smith and 'Biscuit was almost criminal to me. Those relationships were only alluded to offhand throughout the film, at least when compared to the book.


I just finished reading Seabiscuit, and was really wowed. I liked the movie, but the book was excellent, it just took the story to such new levels of depth.

Pretty sad to me that people think the LOTR movies are better than the books. Great movies, but those books are incredible, I read them yearly and see new things every time. Pretty much my "stuck on a desert island" books.

As good a movie as the Princess Bride is, I do think the book is better. It has a lot more detail that they didn't cover in the movie, and the satire is just much more pointed and hilarious. Both are very good though.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Cujo.

As for the previous comment on "First Blood" The book far excedes the movie. It gets into Rambo's psyche, which is pretty fucked up. (It has been about 20 years since reading it though...)

[Groundhog]

The Lord of the Rings movies
I realize that the books are supposed to be classics, and I've tried three or four times to read the first one, but I'll be damned if I don't simply lose interest somewhere in that damn forest that they're going through forever. I don't think I've ever made it out of the thing. It's not like I actually "stop" reading the book; it's more like I just "forget" that I was reading it and start something else. Loved the movies though.

You know, that's the EXACT spot I gave up in. It was beyond tedious up to that point.

[Bad-example]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

Thats funny. The movie is very loosly based on the book, and the only thing saving that movie was Connery, and even then its not one of his best roles.

Your opinion...wrong though it is...is duly noted ;)

[corbes]

Throw out some names for consideration:

The English Patient
Remains of the Day
Howard's End

I don't think any of them are better than the book, but they're open to debate. Probably Remains of the Day comes closest...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Pretty sad to me that people think the LOTR movies are better than the books. Great movies, but those books are incredible, I read them yearly and see new things every time. Pretty much my "stuck on a desert island" books.



I don't know. I'm a life long geek and have been playing D&D since I was 6 years old. I love this stuff, but I still think the LOTR movies are superior to the books. By some margin. THe characters are more developed and cooler. The dialogue is better. There is action. All the lame parts of the books (i.e, Bombadill) were cut. The books are amazing for what they are: the foundation of "modern" fantasy. That can never be ignored or taken away from them. They are epic in scope, but the movies brought a level of granularity to the events and people that the books wholly lacked. Very few of the characters in the book are all that well fleshed out.

[cthomer5000]

I could argue either side of Clockwork Orange.

As one of my all time favorite books, I have to admit I pretty much detest the movie.

[Aylmar]

Very few of the characters in the book are all that well fleshed out.

Are you sure you read the right books? Seriously, I can't believe you're saying this...but to each his own, I guess.

[Honolulu Blue]

This is Honolulu Blue #2, and I'll chime in with a couple:

* "The Running Man" - I always enjoyed the movie for its cheesiness and campiness, and the book was neither. Not much of a Stephen King fan, I suppose.

* "Wall Street" - This was a quickie paperback that was based on the movie, so it may not count here. But I loved the movie and didn't love the book.

[dolfin]

I may be opening myself up to jabs, but...

Great Expectations The one with Gwyneth Paltrow and Ethan Hawke.

I know the book is a classic (and a good one a that), and this modernization is loosely based on the book, but I like the movie much more than the book. In fact, its one of my favorite movies. I guess the main reason for liking it more is that I can better relate to the modern day version. The movie just invokes such strong feelings that I didn't get when reading the book.

[Samdari]

[QUOTE=Groundhog]I tried reading Lord of the Rings, but I just hated the style of writing. I got half way through the first book and had to put it down.[QUOTE]

I did this twice before finishing the series. They are now my favorite books of all time. Try getting through the whole Fellowship, then see if you still hate them. If you do, there is no hope.

[corbes]

As one of my all time favorite books, I have to admit I pretty much detest the movie.

That's fair. Why?

[lcjjdnh]

In response to the Clockword Orange issue, although I never saw the movie, I know that they left out the last chapter which Kubrick wrote, that was in the UK version of the book but not the U.S. version. I personally thought the last chapter was key to the book so by leaving it out the movie, they may have offended many people.

Also to add some more considerations. I have never read or seen Tom Wolfe's "the Right Stuff" but I'm pretty sure both are highly regarded. I know some people who really liked Simon Birch which is pretty much based on the first chapter of John Irving's "A Prayer for Owen Meany" with the rest of the book loosely tied in. Personally Owen Meany is probably one of my top 3 books if not my favorite all-time and the movie didn't really do justice if you ask me but I know some people liked the movie so I'll throw it out there.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Are you sure you read the right books? Seriously, I can't believe you're saying this...but to each his own, I guess.

I find the characters, outside of Sam, to be quite plain and cardboard. I have found this to be the case and have read the entire series at least twice. The characters are, for the most part, quite generic with very little depth of complexity. Want to see multi-faceted characters read the "Song of Fire and Ice" series. As I understand the LOTR it is more about the epic quest and events than the individual characters. It's always how I've read the books. I am huge character guy. If I find a character in a book (even a minor character) I like, I will read the book voraciously. None of the characters in LOTR were all that well-developed enough to like. Cool in their own way, yes, just not too complex. The movies brought some of the more complex character stuff out much, much better.

[Peregrine]

I think it's fair to say that the movies are really a different interpretation of the Lord of the Rings, separate from the books. There is more detail about the characters, but that's because that's stuff that Jackson and the other screenwriters pretty much made up. Not that that's a problem, but I don't think it's a case of them "bringing out" more character depth, but pretty much writing it in as needed to suit their own vision of the book, which was definitely different than Tolkien's.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think it's fair to say that the movies are really a different interpretation of the Lord of the Rings, separate from the books. There is more detail about the characters, but that's because that's stuff that Jackson and the other screenwriters pretty much made up. Not that that's a problem, but I don't think it's a case of them "bringing out" more character depth, but pretty much writing it in as needed to suit their own vision of the book, which was definitely different than Tolkien's.

I hear that. I do. I guess what it comes down to is that I prefer Jackson's vision to Tolkien's. I felt that the changes he made, for the most part, were an improvement on the books. I liked what he did with the characters and the world he was given.

I challenge anyone to read the chapter in Two Towers concerning Helms Deep and then watch the movie and honestly say that what is described in the book is better than what ended up on screen.

[Aylmar]

I challenge anyone to read the chapter in Two Towers concerning Helms Deep and then watch the movie and honestly say that what is described in the book is better than what ended up on screen.

I believe that the book is better. I really do. In fact, I was disappointed by the scene at Helms Deep in the film. I enjoyed the literary version much more.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I believe that the book is better. I really do. In fact, I was disappointed by the scene at Helms Deep in the film. I enjoyed the literary version much more.

Really? The literary version is all of what? 20 pages or so? Very little detail and has Aragorn running around yelling "Andruil! Andruil!" Little sense of drama. Little sense of dread. Little sense of the sheer hopelessness of the situation. Also, the scene with Gandalf leading the cavalry charge down the mountain side ranks as one of the best scenes on film. ever. The book does not do justice to its beauty and majesty. Then again, maybe I am just a visual person.

[Ryche]

I think Interview with the Vampire was much better as a movie. Not that it was that great a movie, but I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing. It was a painful read for me.

Forrest Gump may be another one that falls under this category. Admittedly I've never read Forrest Gump, but I did read the sequel and that may have been the stupidest thing I've ever read. Plot: Gump stumbles into one historical situation after another, none of them being the least bit humorous or thought provoking or anything with redeeming value. Was Forrest Gump decent as a book?

[Aylmar]

Really? The literary version is all of what? 20 pages or so? Very little detail and has Aragorn running around yelling "Andruil! Andruil!" Little sense of drama. Little sense of dread. Little sense of the sheer hopelessness of the situation. Also, the scene with Gandalf leading the cavalry charge down the mountain side ranks as one of the best scenes on film. ever. The book does not do justice to its beauty and majesty. Then again, maybe I am just a visual person.

You mean other than the fact that he leads a cavalry charge right into a wall of pikemen and crashes through it with very little effort? I understand, it's a movie...and a fantasy at that, but you have to give a nod to the fact that the pike/spear wall is very effective against cavalry. In can be broken by horse, but it's coming at a terrible price. Seemed like a breeze for Gandalf and his super soldiers.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You mean other than the fact that he leads a cavalry charge right into a wall of pikemen and crashes through it with very little effort? I understand, it's a movie...and a fantasy at that, but you have to give a nod to the fact that the pike/spear wall is very effective against cavalry. In can be broken by horse, but it's coming at a terrible price. Seemed like a breeze for Gandalf and his super soldiers.

Gandalf cast a spell right before the calvary charge hit the pike/spear wall, basically blinding every orc or uruk-hai in the front ranks. This forced them to lower/move their spears making the wall almost useless. Watch the movie again, not only is the sun in their eyes (and orcs hate the sunlight and uruk-hai too, to a less extent) but there was that bright flash from Gandalf's staff. Call it a blind spell, a confusion spell, what have you. That was what made the charge so effective against the pike/spear wall.

He's Gandalf. A pike/spear wall is nothing to him.

[Aylmar]

Can you tell me from just watching the movies why Denethor is crazy? There isn't any mention of the reasoning...and yet his madness is allowed to carry two or three full scenes in the film. I went to see the movie with my Dad (who has never read the books) and the first thing he asked me was "So what was wrong with that guy who wanted to burn himself and Faramir alive?".

After thinking about it some more, I guess you could rationalize it by saying that his grief over Boromir drove him insane, but that's a hollow reason when put alongside the one given in the books.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think Interview with the Vampire was much better as a movie. Not that it was that great a movie, but I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing. It was a painful read for me.

Forrest Gump may be another one that falls under this category. Admittedly I've never read Forrest Gump, but I did read the sequel and that may have been the stupidest thing I've ever read. Plot: Gump stumbles into one historical situation after another, none of them being the least bit humorous or thought provoking or anything with redeeming value. Was Forrest Gump decent as a book?

I agree whole heartedly with the Anne Rice thing. Interview with A Vampire was one of the few books I actually started reading and never finished. I got to around page 54 and got so sick of it, I stopped. This was even back in the day when I was really into vampires and all that jazz. Hell, I even wrote my own 200 page book about them.

[Aylmar]

Gandalf cast a spell right before the calvary charge hit the pike/spear wall, basically blinding every orc or uruk-hai in the front ranks. This forced them to lower/move their spears making the wall almost useless. Watch the movie again, not only is the sun in their eyes (and orcs hate the sunlight and uruk-hai too, to a less extent) but there was that bright flash from Gandalf's staff. Call it a blind spell, a confusion spell, what have you. That was what made the charge so effective against the pike/spear wall.

He's Gandalf. A pike/spear wall is nothing to him.

Sounds like he should have done some more spell slinging at Gondor then...especially early in the battle, when the men were getting their asses handed to them. I mean, if he can disrupt entire defensive formations with a flash of his staff, what's so hard about a little hocus pocus when the city is under siege? ;)

I understand that Gandalf is powerful. One of the most powerful beings in Middle-Earth. I still don't like the charge. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can't flurry that away with 'Well, he must have cast a spell'. If he did something, make it more obvious to me. Let me hear the incantation and see the orcs cower in fear before the charge. Don't just show me a bristling pikewall with angry soldiers followed by a couple of flashes of light and then light cavalry shredding through it like it's not even there.

[jaeenox]

Hunt for Red October

I agree. THfRO is by far the best book from Clancy, but the movie is one that I can watch over and over and still enjoy.

[Qwikshot]

I think Interview with the Vampire was much better as a movie. Not that it was that great a movie, but I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing. It was a painful read for me.

Forrest Gump may be another one that falls under this category. Admittedly I've never read Forrest Gump, but I did read the sequel and that may have been the stupidest thing I've ever read. Plot: Gump stumbles into one historical situation after another, none of them being the least bit humorous or thought provoking or anything with redeeming value. Was Forrest Gump decent as a book?

No Forrest Gump was not decent as a book, Gump is different in the book, but then again I read it after I saw Forrest Gump, and Gump is played out to be a gentle soul, in the book he's a little bit sharper, not as wholesome.

[Godzilla Blitz]

I agree whole heartedly with the Anne Rice thing. Interview with A Vampire was one of the few books I actually started reading and never finished. I got to around page 54 and got so sick of it, I stopped. This was even back in the day when I was really into vampires and all that jazz. Hell, I even wrote my own 200 page book about them.

I think the second and third books in that series were her peak. The first was too flowery, and she just wasn't a good enough writer to carry it off. The second and third books she seemed to hit her stride. By the fourth book, her writing got too watered down.

I thought The Vampire Lestat (the third book I believe) was an excellent read.