When is the movie better than the book?

[Oddjob0226]

Most people will see a movie and say the book is better. They are usually right, but in your experiences, when was the movie better than the book?

I think seeing outer space presented in the way Star Wars did on screen blows the book away. I'm all for letting your imagination run where the words take you, but man, space and lasers and Martians or whatever looked SO cool when they were realized the way they were inthis movie!


Clockwork Orange - while I liked the book, it was also dang hard to get through. The film streamlined it and made it more accessible, even though the movie was taken from the American book, which has the end missing, so a BIG point is missing.......


Romeo & Juliet. The play is my fave Shakespeare work, but seeing how it was made so real and accessable in the Zefferelli version - but with all the period flowery-ness and sword fights - was great. It was wonderful to watch and listen to. The Baz Lurman version was...... okay......

So what about you?

 

[Moses25]

Shawshank Redemption and Children of the Corn (both by Stephen King) were both better in celluloid form, considering they were taken from short stories...

As well, I found 1984 (George Orwell) and Great Expectations (Charles Dickens) both to better in movie format as I found parts of the novels to be incredibly boring.

A Clockwork Orange, btw, does not fall into this category...the book was real horrorshow. 😉

Cheers.😀

 

[ticklebutton]

I can't think of any...

movies that were better than the book, but I can think of some that captured the feeling of the book so beautifully that the movie was almost as good, in its own way.

To Kill a Mockingbird
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
In Cold Blood
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Howard's End
A Room With A View
Silence of the Lambs
The Haunting of Hill House
Ship of Fools
The Postman Always Rings Twice
Wuthering Heights
Of Human Bondage (Bette Davis version)
Hud
Dracula (the Gary Oldman version, the Christopher Lee version, and Nosferatu)
Of Mice & Men
Get Shorty
Forrest Gump

*Gasp* ...and I'm spent! 😛

 

[Oddjob0226]

The book was a virulent, maloderous shingle of putrid rotting pigshit, concerning adultery and mafia conspiracies and it was one of the most painful experiences of my entire reading life.

Now i'm going to have to read the book just becuase it sounds so bizzare, I mean, based on the film I can't really imagine.....

 

[ticklebutton]

Ha, Amne...that's a good one!

I think we need a bigger boat.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Well, Button, you've made me want to go out and read a lot more.....! But I'm trying to plow through Dracula right now and finding it quite dry. Maybe I will get into it a little more soon. As I read I'm swinging between thinking "It really establishes a great tone..." and "*Yawn*.. Hurry up! Who cares about what the villager's pants look like..... get to the flyin' and bitin'!"

 

[Dave2112]

It's funny you brought Star Wars up, Oddjob. Unlike most books that are turned into movies, Star Wars (if you're talking about the books based on the actual films) was a novelization. The films came first, then were produced as novels. So the books were actually based on the films. Truth be told, I quite enjoyed the novelizations of the prequel movies, especially Phantom Menace. There were a lot of things going on that you don't catch in the films unless you really understand the characters, like Obi-Wan's seriously close brush with the Dark Side when dueling Darth Maul, Qui-Gon's affection for Shmi Skywalker and some of the deep-seeded politics that allowed the Trade Federation to take over Naboo unopposed.

If you're talking about the Expanded Universe novels, that's another thing. I guess you have to have the films firmly in your head to start appreciating them, but I feel they delve much deeper into the nasty politics of the Galaxy, the mechanics of space combat and tactics and the true mysticism of the Jedi and the nature of the Force.

I don't think there are too many films that are flat out better than the books they were based on, but I agree with what some others here have said. With some classics, the films are more accessible to modern audiences, and might bring people to actually read the books afterwords. I'd put "Lord of the Rings" in that catagory. I've read LOTR many times before the films came out, but I know a ton of people who are only now being exposed to Tolkien's marvelous world of Middle-Earth.

I also agree with "A Clockwork Orange". Personally, I preferred the novel, but I can see where it would be a hard read for a lot of people, the film being much easier to follow without really watering down the plot.

 

[BigJim]

I have to agree with Moses that 1984 and Great Expectations were chronically boring books, but half-decent movies.

My personal favourite is Contact. The novel by Carl Sagan is quite hard to get through, dressed up as it is, with vague descriptions, boring monologue and complicated character relationships. The film with Jodie Foster was a significant improvement.

War Of The Worlds was not even based on the book at all, other than Martians invaded the Earth and they got wiped out by common bacteria! The film was a complete load of shite and a glorious example of American thought hi-jacking a British classic. (Sorry y'all, but it's true.)

Sounds interesting with the prequel novels Dave. I own the original trilogy's novelisations, the Thrawn Trilogy and the Jedi Academy Trilogy so far. I guess I might go for the prequels next.

I also have to agree with Dave that Peter Jackson has somehow done the impossible with his LOTR trilogy. I've been a reader of Tolkein since I was 11 and was always totally hooked. Things like leaving out Tom Bombadil made the story sronger in my opinion. I found the old wanker irritating in the extreme when I first read the books and wished he would stick his "Hey dum, derry doll" up his muscular, Maiar backside. I breathed one big sigh of relief when I finally progressed to the rest of he story. Anyone who's never read Tolkein is in the minority now, thanks to the fabulous job done on the films. Bring on Return Of The King I say!!! 😀

Finally, I never expected a decent conversion of The stand by Stephen King to make a decent transition to the screen. I was very pleasantly surprised to see the mini-series did such an excellent job of it. Being one of the biggest novels ever written by Stephen King (And as you can imagine, that's up against some pretty stiff competition!) it would never have made a single film. The series idea had much more mileage in it. The Tommyknockers was absoloute crap though! Mind you, the book wasn't one of the best either.

 

[Limeoutsider]

Certainly not in the case of "Along Came a Spider" 🙄 Sleepy Hollow was better than the book

 

[Oddjob0226]

I didn't realize the Star Wars movie came 1st. I thought the bookw as 1st. Oh, well, between the 2, the liked the movie better.

The film was a complete load of shite and a glorious example of American thought hi-jacking a British classic.

Don't see U-571 !

 

[Dave2112]

I thought the Mini-series version of The Stand was quite good, actually. I remember when I first heard that they were contemplating a film version of it and thinking 'God, I hope they don't try to shove this into a hour-and-a-half movie like Bakshi did with the animated LOTR'.

I think that the mini-series (or telefilm) is a much better medium for longer works. Sci-Fi Channel has been picking up on this, having done a simply outstanding job on recreating 'Dune' and 'Children of Dune', not to mention the anticipated remake and update of 'Battlestar Galactica'. I hate it when a long and involved novel is edited down to two hours or less for marketing purposes.

I also agree with Jim on the 'Tommyknockers' fiasco. The book sucked to begin with (it was the only King novel I ever picked up and didn't finish), and the mini-series was crap.

I would, however, be interested in a future project that would put 'The Dark Tower' on the screen. King has recently announced the titles of the three upcoming installments in this wonderful but long-delayed series. I was afraid he wasn't going to finish it, but it seems that Roland has a bit more living to do. That would be cool to see as a mini-series or two.

 

[TickledToDeath]

In my opinion, the only time the movie is better than the book is when details are not altered in the movie, different from those in the book. Using the Stephen King reference. His books are so graphically detailed, if all were made into movies, the movies would be 5 hours long. Alot is left out in translation. "The Green Mile" for instance was probably the best adaptation from book to movie of all the SK book to movies every made. Remember, the movie is 3 hours and 15 minutes long.
Alot if others, there were major changes and differences between the book version and the movie version of most of his stories that went from paper to the screen. Especially in the movie verison of the "Shining". There were even two versions of the movie and the second release was closer to the book than the original. "The Stand" had to be a mini series as did the "Tommyknockers" for the book was sooo long and detailed, to reduce it to a mere 2 hour movie would have left out half of the story per the book.

TTD

 

[JoBelle]

....When you can make out in the dark and still follow along. 😛

Seriously though,

Anything by Tom Clancy that was made into a movie. The visuals of the on-screen explosions and music in the background reallllly help. Clancy is just so...well, him.

One that came very close for me is The Grapes of Wrath. It's not that the movie was actually better than the book. It's more like....it gave a validity to the way I imagined the backdrop of the story. I love it when someone interprets the book the same way I do and gives me a visual to go along with my thought.

Breakfast at Tiffany's. There's just no need to explain the reason.

Oh, The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood was a good one as well. I particularly like the fact that they provided the viewer with actresses that not only conveyed the story very well....but also seemed to tug at the "sister" in the viewer. It's not easy to pull people in when they are busy focusing on the part of the character that somehow doesn't fit them perfectly when so many other parts do. Gotta love that. As a rule, it doesn't even bother me when some of the movie and book don't jive when it's presented so well.

There are some books that I really like though that I'd like to see a better movie made when based on them. All Quiet on the Western Front would be a good one. There is so much potential for a good movie. Let's forget John Boy, shall we? Farenheit 451 could have been better. Maybe just a newer version would be cool.

Good topic Odd-one. Care to take in an unlicensed boxing match with me? 😛 You're infinitely cool, y'know it?
Joby

 

[BigJim]

I didn't realize the Star Wars movie came 1st. I thought the bookw as 1st. Oh, well, between the 2, the liked the movie better.

The film was a complete load of shite and a glorious example of American thought hi-jacking a British classic.

Don't see U-571 !

Too late. 😡

 

[BigJim]

...I never expected a decent conversion of The stand by Stephen King to make a decent transition to the screen. I was very pleasantly surprised to see the mini-series did such an excellent job of it. Being one of the biggest novels ever written by Stephen King (And as you can imagine, that's up against some pretty stiff competition!) it would never have made a single film
- Originally posted by BigJim

On that note Jim, I'd say that with Stephen King, you're risking a bit. King's NOT that great a novelist, but his good books ARE interesting and hard to put down, and The Stand was one of his few good works. Part of the problem was the telefilm was based on the original 1978 version and not the 1990 re-release.

Besides, after Jamie Sheridan's take on Randall Flagg, I have no idea who could replace him. Maybe Sam Rockwell, but that's a stretch.

I've only read the 1990 bumper edition, so I can't comment. I know it had a lot more of Trashcan Man's journey to Las Vegas in it than the original, but that's about it.

The only works I've read of Kings have been The Stand un-cut from 1990, The Tommyknockers and The Dark Tower series. ( When the hell will he get around to writing part 5? 😡 ) I tried Needful Things, but it bored the arse off me after 2 hours. Oh I read the Running Man and found it frighteningly evocative of the society we're rapidly heading towards. 😱

 

[BigJim]

I also agree with Jim on the 'Tommyknockers' fiasco. The book sucked to begin with (it was the only King novel I ever picked up and didn't finish), and the mini-series was crap.

I would, however, be interested in a future project that would put 'The Dark Tower' on the screen. King has recently announced the titles of the three upcoming installments in this wonderful but long-delayed series. I was afraid he wasn't going to finish it, but it seems that Roland has a bit more living to do. That would be cool to see as a mini-series or two.

What are the thre remaining books? Are they as full of continuity errors as the first three? 😀 (Such as Rolands father's name chaing from Roland senior to Steven.)

The Tommyknockers was a mini-series? The version I saw was a two hour film. 😕 It ended up with Gardner flying the ship into the sky and it exploding just before the re-animated aliens could reach him in the command panel.

 

[BigJim]

Anything by Tom Clancy that was made into a movie. The visuals of the on-screen explosions and music in the background reallllly help. Clancy is just so...well, him.

One that came very close for me is The Grapes of Wrath. It's not that the movie was actually better than the book. It's more like....it gave a validity to the way I imagined the backdrop of the story.

Did you know that Hal compared my writing of plots and scheming to one of Clancy's novels Jo? 😀

The Grapes of Wrath was a film I couldn't bring myself to watch, because the book made me want to drive over a cliff. I've never read anything so miserable and depressing since Brother In The Land, which was about the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. Reading those two was one of the few occasions when listening to Country & Western music has actually cheered me up!!!

 

[CurtWild]

Interview with the Vampire was a pretty good movie.it kind of jumps around though...should`ve made the movie about 6 hours longer..

Queen of the Damned however was not a very good movie.part of the movie is from The Vampire Lestat.lots of stuff was also either left out or completely changed which kinda pissed me off.

 

[sceej56]

The Natural

Bernard Malamud's novel ends in cynicism and despair - the wondrorous Roy Hobbs strikes out in the big game. The message is you cannot make up for past mistakes and it is strongly suggested that Hobbs threw the game for money. In the Robert Redford movie (with that stirring Randy Newman score), Roy Hobbs, who seemed to have thrown all his talent and promse away on a youthful indescretion, hits a mammoth home run that shatters the stadium lights and then circles the bases, his solemn demeanor a contrast to his wildly celebrating team and fans ... and then walks away from the game of baseball to amke a life with the son he never knew and the girl he left behind. Corny? Some have certainly said so but I found it heartwarming. He's satisfied to be a farmer with a family that loves him; rather than "to walk down the street and ave peopel poin and say 'That's Roy Hobbs, the best to ever play the game'!".

 

[WraithTickler]

I'd say Exorcist, Clockwork Orange, and maybe 2001: A Space Oddesy.

Ironically, I think cutting the ending to Clockword Orange was a good decision for the movie. It had a greater impact and I felt was more true to Alex's character. The violence and stunts he's pulled are the dominant factor in his life and not easily put aside or his vicious nature changed. I find it more likely to believe he'd keep up in that form till it either killed him or until, much, much, later in life before he finally settles down, probably after ending up in jail again.

 

[phatteus]

(Romeo and Juliet was not a book, it was a play, never meant to be read, always meant to be SEEN, thereforem not a good candidate for this list)


Okay,

"Field of Dreams" which was based on "Shoeles Joe" by WP Kinsella. The book was decent, but the movie was... breathtaking.

"Deliverance" by James Dickey was a book that just kicked ass, and the film, while lacking in some areas, gave us that classic line "Squeal like a pig, boy!"

"Lord of the Flies" I don't remember who wrote it. But a great film.

"Apocalypse Now" was based on Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". Enough said there.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" I hate to say it, but the movie was better. Gregory Peck's portrayal of Atticus Finch was pitch perfect.
On a personal note, I heard a Mockingbird's call for the first time on a recent trip to Texas. What an amazing animal it is.

One flew East
One flew West
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"
By Ken Kesey. Jack pulled the Randall Patrick McMurphy out of his soul! Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched was pure brilliance
The Simpsons did a great parody of this film in the episode in which Homer meets Michael Jackson in the Springfield Asylum.

Sometimes I go to the city
Sometimes I go to the town
"Sometimes a Great Notion" hits me
To jump in the river and drown.
Also by Ken Kesey. I dunno if anyone made a movie out of it, but they ought to. It'd be tough to match the book.

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was based on a crummy novel called "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" by an author who's name escapes me.

Someone said "Interview with the Vampire" was better as a movie. It was drivel in print, and it was drivel on screen. I hated both.

Only two Stephen King films that I have seen were better than the book: "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile." Period. The Stand was a better book than the miniseries (which I'll admit was good, but which all but totally drove over the most integral character, The Trash Can Man.

Oddjob, you weren't serious about Star Wars, were you? Come on!

And finally, let me beg you all, with some notable exceptions, lets not go bashing great works of literature just because we hated our high school English teachers. Certain books have survived the ages for one reason, and one reason alone. They are good books. "Frankenstein", which hasn't been made into a decent film yet, "The Scarlet Letter", which hasn't been made into a decent film yet, and "The Time Machine" which hasn't been made into a decent film yet, come to mind immediately. Let's respect literature and let it live on!

(Phatteus gets off of his soapbox.)

 

[Ticklemmmeeeeee]

Any movie is better than the book when there are yummy feet or tickling scenes🙂

 

[Oddjob0226]

(Romeo and Juliet was not a book, it was a play, never meant to be read, always meant to be SEEN, therefore not a good candidate for this list)

It's a fine candidate because it is an awesome read; the poetry of the language bouncing around in your own skull to savor in your own way. The movie was just a little extra cool becuase you got to see all this great stuff played out "live" on film. I think it is meant to be read in this day and age by the sheer number of editions of the play prublished since the 1500s: all those books didn't end up being fodder for high school Shakespeare productions after all. If the play was only ever meant to be SEEN performed in English, that would make all foreign language translations null and void, and forget any Braille editions.....

Oddjob, you weren't serious about Star Wars, were you? Come on!

You think the book is better? The writing is so overdone and strained. Unless you mean the before-the-movie/after-the-movie question I had. I thought it was a novelization written by Lucas after the film was made but realized before the film, but I was wrong.

 

[BigJim]

When is a decent movie of "War Of The Worlds" going to be made? The 1953 film was tasteless pap and had bugger all to do with the book, other than that the martians invaded. (And a cylinder fell on a house the hero was hiding in, but that's it!) A glorious American hi-jacking/complete making a bollocks of, of an english classic.
I think Jeremy Irons would play the lead character very well. Nigel Hawthorn and Sir Alec Guiness would've been excellent too. (Both now sadly passed on.) Interestingly, in the PC game of Jeff Wayne's musical version, Nigel Hawthorn was the voice-artist for one of the British generals, commanding the human forces.

I did hear that they were planning to make a new film, but it got shelved in the wake of 9/11, because it would have involved lots of buildings being knocked down. (Another triumph for political correctness.)
Anyone else agree with me? A new WOTW movie that's actually based on the book?

 

[Oddjob0226]

Anyone else agree with me? A new WOTW movie that's actually based on the book?

As we somtimes say in the South - I heard that! That would be nice. Did you ever see th U.S. tv series? I'd also like to see the James Bond books remade (with period clothing, vehicles, music, tc.) closer to the actual Ian Flemming material.