Movies that were better than the original book (all Sci-Fi / Fantasy. I don't know why):

Bladerunner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?)
Is the movie better? I'm going to say tentatively that Yes, it is. Yes, the book is remarkable, but the movie? It remains the pinnacle of the Sci-Fi movie genre ∴ it is better. Sue me :)

The Prestige : by Christopher Priest.
The book is very good, but the movie is better formed. It ties up all loose-ends elegantly while still leaving some sneaky paradoxes.
Christopher Nolan did the rewrite. I read he is going to redo / continue Bladerunner :droolm: Nolan's work on Batman is awesome. He uses different elements from different strips to create new stories. Much like my next choice...

The Thief of Baghdad / The Arabian Nights:
I can never get into the book ;) Great movie.

Logan's Run: A clear example of the script-writer taking what is good from a book and chucking the rest.

The 13th Warrior:
The movie was great fun and the book left me cold (I couldn't get into it).

The Abyss:
This is actually the reverse. The book adaption of the film is by Orson Scott Card and he does some really good characterization. A really good writer ( or used to be. Sorry Orson!).

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

I'm going to go out on a limb here with a couple movies that HAVE to be better than the books:

Hunger Games....terrible book...book 2 was great..book 1 was awful, it's a rip off of Battle Royale

And then The Woman in Black....I just finished this, and it was the longest 136 pages I've ever read...not scary in ANY way...and since Daniel Radcliff is the actor playing the main character, I kept having the voice of Harry Potter in my head LOL.

Logan's Run

The book just doesn't make any sense, IMHO.

Bladerunner :)

Twilight series. I like the movies but the books were horrible!

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

That is a can of worms. The movies are good, BUT they are hard to understand without prior knowledge of the book. Sure if all you want is the action, then the movies are better suited for you. I'll leave it at that - sorry to hear you did not like the book.

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

I'm going to agree with you. I remember people walking out of the theatre going "What about Tom Bombadil?" I was thinking that Tom and his wife were the two most boring characters there. Everything they did was too predictably boring and perfect and Tra La La..... (Not to mention, they really did not take up THAT much of the book....)

Jaws

The Godfather

The Exorcist

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

You must be joking. :eek:

The Exorcist


Just read this not too long ago...I completely agree...the book was dull.

Forrest Gump

I won't even comment on LotR, because anyone who thinks the movies are better has either (a) very low IQ or (b) some serious psychological disorder :p

Anyway, from the top of my head I cannot think of any movie better than the source, although I agree with the OP that Blade Runner has greatly surpassed the original in terms of impact and influence. Regarding the other examples posted, I haven't read the originals, so I'm unable to comment.

BTW, if the Twilight movies are better than the books, I shudder to even think of the books. I only watched the first movie with my wife, and it was a seizure-inducing experience.

Outside movies, I do regard one adaptation as better than the original: the Dexter TV series (at least the first few seasons). The TV show gets rid of all the supernatural content of the books, and has better stories in general (Dexter by Design was absolutely awful, for instance).

I won't even comment on LotR, because anyone who thinks the movies are better has either (a) very low IQ or (b) some serious psychological disorder :p

Anyway, from the top of my head I cannot think of any movie better than the source, although I agree with the OP that Blade Runner has greatly surpassed the original in terms of impact and influence. Regarding the other examples posted, I haven't read the originals, so I'm unable to comment.

BTW, if the Twilight movies are better than the books, I shudder to even think of the books. I only watched the first movie with my wife, and it was a seizure-inducing experience.

Outside movies, I do regard one adaptation as better than the original: the Dexter TV series (at least the first few seasons). The TV show gets rid of all the supernatural content of the books, and has a better stories in general (Dexter by Design was absolutely awful, for instance).

We're on the same wavelength about LoTR books. Great deal though about Twilight. :thumbsup:

Stardust, the book was nice but the movie improved on it.
Practical Magic, the book was just awful.

The Shining.

I dunno...
I've found comparing works in two different mediums can be tricky.

Movies are short-form narratives (at best comparable to short stories) mostly visual in focus. Novels are entirely different narratives built out of an entirely different toolkit, often aiming at more specialized and specific audiences than movies, which usually aim to be mass-market entertainment.

To me, movie adaptations of novels are akin to the CLASSICS ILLUSTRATED comics; enjoyable in their own right but not really representative of the quality of the work that inspired it. And its not quite fair to compare the visions of two different people working in different media even if one work is a derivative of another.

Bladerunner is an excellent movie but it is Ridley's Scott vision on the screen, not Philip K. Dick's. Dick inspired Scott, but what makes it great as a movie is what Scott brought to the work; his designs, the moods he evokes, the performances he coaxed out of the actors. Movies, let's not forget, are *collaborative* efforts. The actors, the designers, the soundtrack setting the mood and guiding the emotions are all tools the writer doesn't have to work with. Conversely, the writer has a collaborator in the person of the reader who directly translates the written work in purely personal terms. As a result, the impact of an evocative bit of quality wordsmithing can't always be translated to the screen.

Contrast the very first page of PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, whimsically and concisely presenting Harry's Dickensian upbringing, to the extended introductory scene that draws the viewer into the coming clash of worlds. One works out from Harry's room under the stairs, into the coming world of magic; the other works its way *in* from the viewer's world: *our* world.

What makes movies good, bad, or indifferent--as movies--is not to be found in the book that inspired them just as what makes a novel great often fails to translate from one medium to the other. For every successful, pleasing adaptation of a book there are easily a dozen failues and a hundred that barely get past the option stage. We're really talking about rarities here.

One movie I am eagerly awaiting is the upcoming adaptation of A PRINCESS OF MARS.
The adaptation comes from a team with an impressive pedigree and abundant resources and the trailer--when deconstructed and analyzed--offers hope of a pleasing experience. Yet it also warns not to expect a slavish translation: there are no moss-covered dead seas, but rather dust-covered desserts. John Carter speaks with a generic movie western accent, not the appropriate civil war era Virginia accent. The Tharns of the latter novels will be making an early appearance (obviously to set up the sequels). And the heroine, properly cast as a mature woman, is clearly going to be more active and adventurous than the haughty Princess of the novel.
Anybody going in expecting direct translation of the novel may be disappointed to find an *adaptation* to a different medium, a different audience, and a different era. Anybody enjoying the movie may find the novel to be somewhat...odd... ;)

One trend that I am finding heartening is that with the recent evolution of *television* series, we're starting to see more novels and novel series adapted to TV. And the resulting product, typically 10-15 hours long, does come closer to translating (rather than adapting) the novels to video. There are still accomodations made (some amusing, others less so) but the longer-form medium does offer up the narrative "space" to bring in more of the tools and complexities of the better novels.

That is a trend I hope continues.

i'm a nerd yet i think the icons of "nerd culture" are mind-numbingly overrated. that includes star wars, star trek and yes, LotR (especially the book).

my reaction was much the same as hugo dyson's- "oh god, not another f-ing elf!" :p tom bombadil almost got the book thrown across the room.

like i said, the movies cut to the chase and got rid of the nonsense. oooh, another poem. how interest....zzzzzzzzz. :)


on the converse cutting to the chase can go too far and insult the source material i.e. Dune.

I must admit, I always skip the poems while reading LoTR.

The Princess Bride.
There was a lot of depressing stuff in the book.

I dunno...
I've found comparing works in two different mediums can be tricky...

I quite agree, and I'll offer another good example of the dichotomy between the two arts:

2001: A Space Odyssey was based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story. When Stanley Kubrick decided to make it a movie, he and Clarke collaborated on the expanded story. The result, I feel, are two different versions of the same story, a full novel by Clarke, and a film by Kubrick. Both are strong in their medium, but the differences between them are largely the differences between print and film media, and not really subject to a straight comparison.

Then there's Jurassic Park, by Michael Crichton: As well-executed as the original book was, better overall than the film, at the same time there is nothing in the book that presents the awe and beauty of many of the scenes in the film. I loved the book, but I cried when I saw the first long shot of dinos grazing by the lake. There really is no direct comparison, IMO.

I am going to go with the Godfather. The book was ok, but there were just some scenes in the book that fully utilized the power of the visual medium. The baptism scene and the contrasts it presents is one that will stick in my head forever.

--
Bill

I think The Godfather and Jaws are the gold standard examples of so-so books turned into stellar movies.

Many of the other examples in this thread could be credibly argued one way or the other, but I don't think we'll see anyone posting that they though either of those books was better than the movie.

I agree with the assessments of Jaws and Princess Bride being better in the movie versions--especially Jaws--but disagree on The Godfather, which was a terrific book that became a terrific movie.

Three Days of the Condor was a wonderful Robert Redford film, better than the James Grady novel Six Days of the Condor. I also enjoyed another Redford vehicle, The Hot Rock, much more than the Westlake book.

Even though I love Cornell Woolrich, Hitchcock's Rear Window is much better than the Woolrich story it was based on. And Hitchcock's Psycho is a vast improvement on the Robert Bloch novel.

The Princess Bride.
There was a lot of depressing stuff in the book.

My favorite movie of all time! It could be because I met my husband due to that movie. :D I agree the book just wasn't that great then they came out with the goods part version. I still take the movie any day.

Good points about Jurassic Park and the 13th Warrior. I wouldn't say the movies were definitively "better" for me but both brought something more/different to the plate as noted by both posters.

It does seem rare to have any movie stand up to a film adaptation. Part of it is pure length. A long movie is something over two hours. Very roughly, a standard book reads in something over six hours. A film doesn't have time for the various character-building nuances and scenes of a good book.

I quite agree, and I'll offer another good example of the dichotomy between the two arts:

2001: A Space Odyssey was based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story. When Stanley Kubrick decided to make it a movie, he and Clarke collaborated on the expanded story. The result, I feel, are two different versions of the same story, a full novel by Clarke, and a film by Kubrick. Both are strong in their medium, but the differences between them are largely the differences between print and film media, and not really subject to a straight comparison.

Then there's Jurassic Park, by Michael Crichton: As well-executed as the original book was, better overall than the film, at the same time there is nothing in the book that presents the awe and beauty of many of the scenes in the film. I loved the book, but I cried when I saw the first long shot of dinos grazing by the lake. There really is no direct comparison, IMO.

YES YES amd YES!!!! About Jurassic Park. My favorite scene in any movie ever. You pull back and it just all seemed so "real". Likr holy $&%# dinosaurs are real!! And coupled with the score, I still tear up.

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

The theatrical releases have really bad pacing, the extended versions confirm as much since they're vastly superior. I mean it's not even close.

I'd say Fight Club was clearly better as a movie although I loved the book. Coraline for me worked better as a movie, again no slight to the book.

The Thirty Nine Steps, all bar one film version are different yet better than the books. This is because (and like the football score announcer if this classic is on your list of still to read - look away now). . .

In the book, the 39 steps turn out to be. . . 39 steps! It is a sort of an extra assurance that the baddies will find their comrades on the jetty.

Ok, nowt wrong with them just being steps, but when you watch the films first and see the writers come up with all sorts of fantastic variations, then to then read about a mossy old stinky set of stone steps on a jetty is an anti-climax.

I wonder if it matters whether one sees the film before reading the book?

I saw the Swedish film Let The Right One In before reading an English translation of the book. The book was merely ok, but the film was my film of that year.

Is it sacrilege to venture that, much as I love the book, the Bogart "A Maltese Falcon" is better? (Saw the film on TV as a kid long before I got my hands on the book)

Even though I love Cornell Woolrich, Hitchcock's Rear Window is much better than the Woolrich story it was based on. And Hitchcock's Psycho is a vast improvement on the Robert Bloch novel.

I think that Hitchcock's Psycho is on par with Bloch's novel. I could even accept the argument that it's better in some aspects, but to call it a "vast improvement"? Here we have to part ways.

BTW, the fact that the LotR movies "cut to the chase" is probably a boon to people with the attention-span of toddlers :rolleyes:

EDIT: Regarding Psycho, there's nothing in the book that matches the pathos of the shower scene. Here I gladly conceded the superiority of the movie.

I'm going to agree with THE GODFATHER. The book had quite a lot of material in it that was cut from the movie, and rightly so (IMHO).

I generally find if the book is good they will make a dull film and vice versa (generally, don't kill me, a non-English-speaking-born, with limited access to what you have read/seen)

Two goats are eating an old film tape, one goat at each end. When they finally meet in the middle one of them says "but the book was better"

I wonder if it matters whether one sees the film before reading the book?

I think it does. I am a Pride and Prejudice snob, and I hate the film adaptations that totally rewrite the character of Eliza Bennet...

I read the book About a Boy before I saw the movie and didn't like the movie as much as the book.

However I saw High Fidelity first and I am more critical of the book... So yeah, I think whichever I was exposed to first makes me critical of the other.

A recent one... "Water for Elephants". The book was confusing at times, trying to keep track of what was going on between the owner and the ringleader. (I forget their names). Also, the old man was hard to like in the book.

The movie combined the two characters into one, making a much tighter storyline and a stronger villain, and made the old man a much more likable character, it was easier to connect to him and feel his story.

I am going to disagree about the Princess Bride. I am not going to say the book was better... I just think there is a lot of humor in the book that just can't translate to screen (and to the the credit of producers and director, they didn't try). The movie is great, but the bit about Westley and Buttercup's reunion kiss not being included in the book (because it is an "abridgment") is making me smile just thinking about it.

--
Bill

Three Days of the Condor was a wonderful Robert Redford film, better than the James Grady novel Six Days of the Condor. I also enjoyed another Redford vehicle, The Hot Rock, much more than the Westlake book.


If we're talking Westlake: BANK SHOT was a reasonably amusing book but I found the movie dreadful. Other than the title there wasn't much to suggest they paid Westlake for anything beyond the title.

Which reminds me of the two worst bits of SF-to-movie butchery: NIGHTFALL and STARSHIP TROOPERS. The latter would've been better off dropping the pretense of being even "inspired" by Heinlein and just calling it NAZIS IN SPACE.

The former doesn't have even that going for it. (brrr.)

(The ROUGHNECKS animated series, on the other hand, is actually good. Go figure.)

Nazis in space:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_IndUbcxc :D

Nazis in space:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_IndUbcxc :D

See? My point.
That one has two chances at making money; by being actually good farce, or by being so bad its actually good. :rofl:

Too bad they couldn't launch on April 1st.

I have to disagree about 'The Princess Bride', too - the movie is such a 'stripped-down' version of the book, it had only about 10% of the book's value, IMHO. The book is about our relationships with books and the interrelation between the worlds we inhabit (RL vs fantasy) - the movie was all right so far as it went, but there's no way a film could capture the book, because movie viewers don't inhabit those worlds the way that readers do.

Back to the Original Question - the first thing that popped into my head was 'The Black Stallion'. I also offer 'Mary Poppins'.

Also agree with the assessment that perhaps TV is a better medium for filmed novels - the BBC versions of 'Our Mutual Friend' and of Elizabeth Gaskell's 'North and South' spring to mind. Both excellent.

Lord of the Rings - the film was more engaging and did some much-needed updating.

The Princess Bride - I think the casting and delivery added more that the novel couldn't provide at the time; the new version of the book incorporates the film into the narrative so I think it's better than the movie.

Fight Club - Not that the novel was horrible to begin with, but I think the movie had more ooompth, especially by the time we get to the ending.

Starship Troopers - The film and the book are two entirely different creatures.

Three old films, from novels by Nevil Shute:

"A Town Like Alice", "No Highway" and "On the Beach". *

For me, Shute was a very pedestrian writer, but he told great stories, so his books worked really well as films.

* (The story goes that Ava Gardner said she thought it was very appropriate to make a film about the end of the world in Melbourne. It was probably pretty dull back in about 1960.)

I'm still asking myself why do I see Lord of the Rings on this list. You can't compare the depth of the book with the movie. Don't get me wrong, the movie was great but the book was more than that.

The theatrical releases have really bad pacing, the extended versions confirm as much since they're vastly superior. I mean it's not even close.
Oh really? I never seen the theater version. Got only the extended box set. Even the extended leaves a lot to wish for compared to the book. Don't get me wrong, I like the movies and I am debating if rebuying them in BD is worth it.

LotR is probably a very good example why comparing movie to book won't always work. You can like one and not the other or both or none. If the book is better then it does not automatically make the movie bad.

I'm still asking myself why do I see Lord of the Rings on this list. You can't compare the depth of the book with the movie. Don't get me wrong, the movie was great but the book was more than that.

I avoided seeing the movies for the longest time. But I broke down, I watched them and they may very well be the greatest thing ever. Not as a telling of Tolkien's epic story, oh no. But as costume porn.

Most of the titles on this thread I didn't consume in book form because I wasn't aware that the books existed. So thanks to the OP for posting this.

The ones that I did read are The Shining, The Princess Bride, LotR and yes, the Twilight series. For me The Shining was better as a book because it is more exciting, The Princess Bride was better as a book because the humor was better, LotR was better as a book because movies can't seem to express the passing of time in the right way. I read the Twilight series because I've seen the movie and I decided that the book can't be as bad because of one line (I'm paraphrasing): her name is Italian so she must like pasta. The book is like the diary of a self-involved teenager, but the movie is like a vampire parody that is taking itself seriously.

I avoided seeing the movies for the longest time. But I broke down, I watched them and they may very well be the greatest thing ever. Not as a telling of Tolkien's epic story, oh no. But as costume porn.

Costume porn? :blink:

LotR is probably a very good example why comparing movie to book won't always work. You can like one and not the other or both or none. If the book is better then it does not automatically make the movie bad.

Good point and quite true. But on the other hand, assuming the movie won't be as good as the book does seem a safe enough bet!

Costume porn? :blink:

Did you look at the costumes? The detail, oh the detail, and the dun designs, I still need to at some point make myself a sheildmaiden of Rohan costume. Paisley shift with 9 rows of pintucks, the epically full sleeves held in place and with the bottoms held up by braided cord around the upper arm, brown vest with the rows of tiny embroidered leaves done in gold and over that the brown quilted corset with the same little gold leaves, several rows of them along the top.

I'm still asking myself why do I see Lord of the Rings on this list. You can't compare the depth of the book with the movie. Don't get me wrong, the movie was great but the book was more than that.

I loved the ents scene in the movie. However, when I read it in the book, I kept turning the page and thought, we are still here?

My husband loves Tolkien, and his brother is even more of a Tolkien geek, but I just couldn't get into it. But for me, I am not really into fantasy, and I didn't really find the desire to learn the languages Tolkien created appealing. (Although I was suitably impressed that he actually created unique languages for his characters to speak in from time to time). Every time someone broke into poetry reading or reciting in the book I couldn't wait for it to be over.

I've read the entire series, my husband and I together, and I have no desire for a re-read.

EDIT: well, that last sentence is not entirely true. A re-read is possible, but I like good long breaks between. I've read the whole thing twice, so I don't even dislike the books.

The 1950s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I loved the book, right up until about the last chapter. That made me want to hunt the writer down and punch him in the face.

The Maltese Falcon.

Just about anybody who knows anything about movies has heard of it, even if they haven't seen it. A surprising number of moviegoers don't realise it was a book first (although everybody on this forum will know that).

The movie deleted one character (Gutman's daughter) and one major scene. Almost every word of dialogue was direct from the book (rare in movies).

I like both, but I think the movie is a bit better.

I loved the ents scene in the movie. However, when I read it in the book, I kept turning the page and thought, we are still here?

My husband loves Tolkien, and his brother is even more of a Tolkien geek, but I just couldn't get into it. But for me, I am not really into fantasy, and I didn't really find the desire to learn the languages Tolkien created appealing. (Although I was suitably impressed that he actually created unique languages for his characters to speak in from time to time). Every time someone broke into poetry reading or reciting in the book I couldn't wait for it to be over.

I've read the entire series, my husband and I together, and I have no desire for a re-read.

EDIT: well, that last sentence is not entirely true. A re-read is possible, but I like good long breaks between. I've read the whole thing twice, so I don't even dislike the books.

Quite true about the Ents scene in the book and also a 2-chapter-boring-example is Tom Bombadil. Very annoying. But, as a whole, marvelous piece of work.

P.S. Try and read the poems. Some of them are nice. :2thumbsup

"Gil-galad was an Elven-king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
The last whose realm was fair and free
Between the mountains and the sea.
His sword was long, his lance was keen.
His shining helm afar was seen.
The countless stars of heaven's field
Were mirrored in his silver shield.
But long ago he rode away,
And where he dwelleth none can say.
For into darkness fell his star;
In Mordor, where the shadows are."

I know... my relationship to poetry is weird. I could not live without "The Road Not Taken" or "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening", but poetry as a whole genre takes me a while to warm up to.

Of course, when I was a teenager I wrote lots of "poetry" because I was oh so deep and had transcended traditional thinking.

The poem quoted above is beautiful.

I like "The Ten Commandments" better than the book. :-)

While I think that LotR in book form is better, I do see where people who like the movie better are coming from. Tolkien is inconsistent (maybe there's a better word) as a stylist. I.e., some parts of LotR are tight and very well written (many of the battle scenes; the scouring of the shire; the unexpected party; most bits with Gandalf; most bits with Gollum); but other parts would benefit from a good editing - the section on the Ents, for example - but also a lot of the Sam and Frodo scenes after they've left Rivendell. (And the class differences between Frodo and Sam seem dated and out of place in the book). Also, I think Merry and Pippin are supposed to be comic relief but then develop into more serious characters...but I don't think they are actually that funny to begin with - and then their transformation into serious characters isn't that convincing either.

I'm not into Tom Bombadil, but I don't think that's an editing or writing issue - I don't really care for the characters or the plot...but I think they are pretty much what Tolkien wanted.

I think it does. I am a Pride and Prejudice snob, and I hate the film adaptations that totally rewrite the character of Eliza Bennet...

I read the book About a Boy before I saw the movie and didn't like the movie as much as the book.

However I saw High Fidelity first and I am more critical of the book... So yeah, I think whichever I was exposed to first makes me critical of the other.

I agree, even if the book is a novelization of the movie. An example of this is "Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan." I read the movie novelization before seeing the movie itself, and as great as the movie is the novel was even better. The author added much detail to the story (such as an explanation for why Saavik had such a reaction to Peter Preston's death, and Saavik's backstory). Since then, I've avoided reading a movie novelization until I've seen the movie.

Another book to movie I'd like to mention is "Watchmen." I found the movie more enjoyable than the original graphic novel. The most of the changes made to the story for the movie were an improvement to me and worked more logically. Plus, the actors brought much to the characters.

The 1950s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I loved the book, right up until about the last chapter. That made me want to hunt the writer down and punch him in the face.

Heh. I just finished this book on Audible two days ago. Epic rant about the book and the ending. :D

I saw/read it many years ago (and I was young), but how about Out of Africa? I remember falling in love with the movie, and then trying to read the book and getting bogged down in too many details about how to run a plantation in Africa. I would like to try both again. As I understand it, the movie takes details/story from several of her books, not just the eponymous one.

And, I'm definitely not saying the movie is BETTER than the book, but I recommend seeing The English Patient before reading the book. Some people found the book confusing and hard to follow, but if you've seen the movie and already know the story, you can just lose yourself in Ondaatje's beautiful writing and enjoy. That was my experience, anyway.

eP

Tolkien is inconsistent (maybe there's a better word) as a stylist. I.e., some parts of LotR are tight and very well written (many of the battle scenes; the scouring of the shire; the unexpected party; most bits with Gandalf; most bits with Gollum); but other parts would benefit from a good editing - the section on the Ents, for example - but also a lot of the Sam and Frodo scenes after they've left Rivendell.

I agree. Tolkien seemed more concerned with style and make-believe than actually telling a story. I can understand that some people like that level of detail and immersion, but I don't. I like character and plot. I don't have any interest in 4-page descriptions of a hill or to be reminded every time that Gimli is mentioned that he is the son of Gloin.

When reading the books I often found myself just wanting a scene to end because I had already got the gist of what Tolkien was saying.

The movies have the story, they are brilliantly realised.

The movies have the story, they are brilliantly realised.

vmuT8UeTk4s

Three old films, from novels by Nevil Shute:

"A Town Like Alice", "No Highway" and "On the Beach". *

For me, Shute was a very pedestrian writer, but he told great stories, so his books worked really well as films.

+1 I especially hated the narrator in Alice. We're supposed to believe that Jean shared the most intimate details of her reunion with Joe with Mr. Strachan?

I saw/read it many years ago (and I was young), but how about Out of Africa? I remember falling in love with the movie, and then trying to read the book and getting bogged down in too many details about how to run a plantation in Africa. I would like to try both again. As I understand it, the movie takes details/story from several of her books, not just the eponymous one.

Gack. I know Dinesen took some liberties with the truth, but not as many as the film did. Robert Redford was ridiculously miscast. Denys Finch Hatton was younger than Dinesen and bald as a proverbial billiard ball, as well as not having an American accent!

I haven't seen anyone mention Gone with the Wind, which is a far better film than book, even though I prefer the story told in the book.

And the class differences between Frodo and Sam seem dated and out of place in the book

Actually, the fact that their relationship is not one that feels right to a 21st century reader is, I think, a strength in a book that is set in our remote past (or if you prefer, in an entirely different world entirely). Now granted, in the 1940s when the book was being written, such a relationship would not have seemed that odd to many in England (or at least, that is the impression I get from watching some old British sitcoms and reeding Jeeves and Wooster books).

--
Bill

The Bourne Trilogy.

Ludlum's story was melodramatic but plausible. The movie was tight and exciting with believable characterizations if not entirely believable stunts.

I couldn't make it through the last book. Just got bogged down.
--MH

I haven't seen anyone mention Gone with the Wind, which is a far better film than book, even though I prefer the story told in the book.

Ack! I will grant you that there are a few lines that are better in the movie than the book (e.g., Rhett saying "Has the war started?" after Scarlett throws a vase, and his line "A minor point at such a moment" when she says he isn't a gentleman), but I rank GWTW as my favorite book of all time, and GWTW as my favorite movie of all time--each version is at the pinnacle of its format.

Ack! I will grant you that there are a few lines that are better in the movie than the book (e.g., Rhett saying "Has the war started?" after Scarlett throws a vase, and his line "A minor point at such a moment" when she says he isn't a gentleman), but I rank GWTW as my favorite book of all time, and GWTW as my favorite movie of all time--each version is at the pinnacle of its format.

I'm splitting the hair that says that GwtW is a great film, but it's not great literature, albeit compulsively readable. Has there ever been a shorter 1,037-page book? And as I said, I prefer the story in the book, as I think Rhett's character (and he really is cold and controlling) gets whitewashed in the movie, making Scarlett an unregenerate b!tch.

The 13th Warrior:
The movie was great fun and the book left me cold (I couldn't get into it).


I always thought The 13th Warrior was based on Beowulf...

Of course, when I was a teenager I wrote lots of "poetry" because I was oh so deep and had transcended traditional thinking.



^That was me, too! :D

I always thought The 13th Warrior was based on Beowulf...

The 13th Warrior is a 1999 historical fiction action film starring Antonio Banderas as Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Vladimir Kulich as Buliwyf; it is based on the novel Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton.[2] It was directed by John McTiernan and an uncredited Crichton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_13th_Warrior

Love that flick.

The 13th Warrior is a 1999 historical fiction action film starring Antonio Banderas as Ahmad ibn Fadlan and Vladimir Kulich as Buliwyf; it is based on the novel Eaters of the Dead by Michael Crichton.[2] It was directed by John McTiernan and an uncredited Crichton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_13th_Warrior

Love that flick.

Yeah, I've seen the movie but never read the book. But it has to be based on Beowulf. Anything other than that is crazy. It's classic Beowulf...

Oooh! I just looked up the book. So the movie is an adaptation of an adaptation of Beowulf!

Not confusing at all. ;)

I'm splitting the hair that says that GwtW is a great film, but it's not great literature, albeit compulsively readable. Has there ever been a shorter 1,037-page book? And as I said, I prefer the story in the book, as I think Rhett's character (and he really is cold and controlling) gets whitewashed in the movie, making Scarlett an unregenerate b!tch.

My head is exploding. I think both characters are multidimensional and sympathetic in both versions. I see very little difference in how they are portrayed in the movie and the book.

I had read the book multiple times before I ever saw the movie, and had formed my ideas of who the characters were. I thought the movie was completely true to the book.

I happen to be rereading the book right now ...

I think it is great literature. It's entertaining, accessible, memorable, and readable.

Movies do not deal with ideas very well. The whole point of a movie is to show things in motion. Books can deal with long passages of description that set up scenes that just won't work in a movie.

I was reminded of this since I have just finished reading The Executioners (Cape Fear) and thinking how the whole emphasis of the movie was different from the book. The movie is about the conflict between Sam Bowden and Cady. It's a great movie, well done. On the other hand, the book is about the idead that there are corners in the legal system, where the system breaks down. The police and the legal system can't protect the Bowdens from Cady, and they decide that the only thing they can do to protect themselves is to go outside the law and take it on themselves to execute Cady. The book is mainly about Sam Bowden coming to terms with fact that he will have to go ouside the law to protect his family. I think it is a great book. But the connection between the book and the film are superficial.

One of my all time favourite movies is the original "The Flight of the Phoenix". I read the book some years later and I found the book dull, dreary and disappointing. On the screen, Stewart and Kruger made the characters of Town and Dorfmann just sing and live. Those actors, along with the rest of the cast, made a dreary story live.

So if you liked the book, you may like the movie and if you liked the movie you may like the book, but don't count on it. What you can count on, is that they won't be the same.

My head is exploding. I think both characters are multidimensional and sympathetic in both versions. I see very little difference in how they are portrayed in the movie and the book.

I had read the book multiple times before I ever saw the movie, and had formed my ideas of who the characters were. I thought the movie was completely true to the book.

I happen to be rereading the book right now ...

I think it is great literature. It's entertaining, accessible, memorable, and readable.

Sorry Catlady, I'm with issybird on this one, enjoyable though the book was at the time I read it (which was after seeing the film, back in my 'teens). Maybe the whitewashing (sorry, no pun intended) of the origins of the Ku Klux Klan was part of what stuck in my throat, even back then, or maybe I have added that layer on subsequently.

I did think the film was very well done and I loved Vivien Leigh as Scarlett - a great performance - but the principals were all very good. I don't know what I would make of it now - I haven't seen it for many years.

The Bourne Trilogy.

Ludlum's story was melodramatic but plausible. The movie was tight and exciting with believable characterizations if not entirely believable stunts.

I couldn't make it through the last book. Just got bogged down.
--MH


I have to agree with this one. You got further than I did, I couldn't finish the second book. Love the movies though, the wife and I just did a rewatch this past week. When I heard about the new movie, I wasn't looking forward to it, but the trailer does make it rather intriguing to me now.

One Few Over the Cuckoo's Nest, by far.

Logan's Run

Bladerunner.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a good example. Definitely better than the book IMO.

Fight Club? Interesting...but I think they are just very different. The chapter in the book about what he put in the food when he worked as a waiter...well, it's not in the film.

LOTR? OMG, sacrilege! What! :eek::eek::eek:
I liked the first film very much, but after that they went down hard. To compare to the book? Ludicrous! They should have made six separate movies faithfully mapped to the original six books. All that story-line flipping made me dizzy.

BTW you need to read the Silmarillion and the Lost Tales to appreciate the poetry and just who Gilgalad was and why you should care ;)

Film better than the book? Only one that comes to mind is The Graduate. I complained how dull it was to a friend [science fiction writer A. Bertram Chandler] and he just puffed on his pipe and said in his experience bad novels often made good movies and vice versa!

On consideration, I do remember that the movie PBS made of Ursula K. LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven was slightly different to the novel but the differences were improvements for once.

The Shawshank Redemption I thought worked much better as a film, though I did enjoy the book immensely and would rather like to read it again some time.

Lord of the Rings is a tricky one - the films (...has to be the extended editions!) are superb, though a touch cheesy in some places. I think the books are better but definitely lean towards a bit too much poetry (which I also tend to skim through after reading some of it) and exposition - you can really tell that Tolkien was an English professor! The books give much more of an impression of scale of the lands and the task at hand than the films do but the films are excellent and keep the important aspects of the story intact - trying to fit the sheer scope of the books into three films must have been a herculean task. I've watched the extra material on the extended editions (in all there are 9 dvds of documentaries on the blu-ray set!!) and the amount of work and attention to detail they put into the films is quite astonishing - they had people working for years making chainmail!

Oh, and I saw the Fellowship of the Ring before I'd read the books - I certainly prefer the flow of the first book, even though I'm not actually terribly keen on Tom Bombadil.

I agree about High Fidelity too, I saw the film and thought it was fantastic but the book just left me cold. I've read another of his books and quite liked it but that one just didn't work as well as the film did for me.

I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie.

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

eP

this might be controversial but i've gotta say Lord of the Rings. i thought the books were painfully dull and the movies did a nice job of cutting to the chase.

agree 100%... also 'get shorty' by elmore leonard.

I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie.

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

eP

Nope. I had read 'The Black Stallion' probably a dozen times as a kid years before I saw the movie. I still think the movie is far, far superior.

I think whichever you experience first might prejudice you a bit, but if your judgment is still intact, you ought to be able to judge each on its own merits.

On the other hand, I've yet to see a film version of 'Little Women' that even began to do the book justice, although the TV version starring Susan Dey came by far the closest.

LOTR is kind of a Rorschach test - some people LOVE the books, some are completely bored by them. Some of the same people who dislike the books might love the movies, some who love the books might hate the movies (although I've met very few of the latter category). Me, I think the movies are awe-inspiring achievements of film, but I still think the book was better because of the level of detail and because Tolkien's philosophy is clearer. Tolkien's writing is quite Victorian in tone - doesn't bother me because I read of lot of Victorian lit anyway, but for those with more 'modern' tastes I can see where they might find it draggy. But then I find much of modern lit *too* stripped down. When there's nothing left but plot, then there's nothing left worth reading, IMHO.

As far as LOTR is concerned. I think the movie and the film are both brilliant, but clearly different.
There are parts of the novel that I couldn't stand, and parts of the movie that I thought were sappy and overdone.

On consideration, I do remember that the movie PBS made of Ursula K. LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven was slightly different to the novel but the differences were improvements for once.

But the A&E remake with James Caan and Lukas Haas was not only bad but, though the plot was similar,the point the movie seemed to be making was the complete opposite of what the book was all about.

Kick Ass the movie was much more fun and joyful tribute to over-the-top Superheroics and unashamed comic book violence that I felt the actually comic was. The comic book was actually fairly depressing and ended on a low note.

I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie.

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

eP

ive never watched the shining movie because i loved the shining book so much.


closest i came was watching a spoof of it on a simpsons halloween special.

I was disappointed by The Shining (the movie) at the time. I was a big fan of the book and didn't think the movie measured up.

If you want a King book that was better as a movie, I think Carrie (original, haven't seen the remake) is a better example.

I was disappointed by The Shining (the movie) at the time. I was a big fan of the book and didn't think the movie measured up.

If you want a King book that was better as a movie, I think Carrie (original, haven't seen the remake) is a better example.

i agree, also pet semetary was a good adaptation in my opinion.

I was disappointed by The Shining (the movie) at the time. I was a big fan of the book and didn't think the movie measured up.

If you want a King book that was better as a movie, I think Carrie (original, haven't seen the remake) is a better example.

I agree about the Shining. I really enjoyed the book but the film I thought was pretty poor, though it seems to be held up in some circles as a great work. I'd forgotten about the Simpsons version, that was a good one. Ach! He's got the Shinning! :D

I remember reading a movie novelization once, I think it was Terminator 2 (!), and the only thing I can remember is that every time the author wanted to add a dramatic emphasis it involved something 'which missed him by inches!' - it was awful!

Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?

I've always liked the book better independent of what I've seen/read first. But you could make a poll.

Movies were better:
Children of Men
Breakfast at Tiffany's (close one, could be because I saw the movie first)
Fight Club (close one, could be because I saw the movie first)

Movies were better:
Breakfast at Tiffany's (close one, could be because I saw the movie first)


For me Mickey Rooney as the Japanese gentleman upstairs tips the balance strongly toward the book.

For me Mickey Rooney as the Japanese gentleman upstairs tips the balance strongly toward the book.

But... it was such an authentic performance. :blink: ;)

"Mish Gorightry! I musht protest!"

The Day of the Jackal always stands out for me as a case where the film is better than the book. I hasten to add that I mean the 70's adaptation with Edward Fox, rather than the 90's version with Bruce Willis which is about something completely different!

The Shining (in every possible way)

The Manuscript Found in Saragossa (formally)

The Third Man could be better in some ways than the Graham Greene novel, but, like most adaptations, it's really an entirely different object.

Huston's Maltese Falcon is brilliant, but it's seen through a far more distorted lens than the book and approaches sardonic noir expressionism, whereas, for me, Hammett's angular visual prose has more in common with the modernist portraits of Wyndham Lewis.

Have to disagree on Bladerunner: The film is good, but in a completely different way from Do Androids Dream. It's more like an adaptation of Neuromancer. Besides which, at his worst, P.K. Dick is on a different level conceptually than that film. You can't really make a film out of Dick and get the texture (though Through a Scanner Darkly comes close).

Truthfully, I'd feel more comfortable contributing to a thread about films which were as or almost as good as the books but in completely different ways, making the relationship between film and literature complimentary but almost never equivalent.

Jan Kolski's adaptation of the Gombrowicz novel Pornografia falls into this category. It misses the amoral tone entirely, and isn't as great a work of art, but captures Gombrowicz's texture of paranoid coincidence and synesthesia like no other film I've seen.

Not that the entire movie is better than the book, but Alfonso Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was more succinct than J.K. Rowling's story and it added certain plot variations that made more sense to me.

It's not so much that Godfather the movie is better than Godfather the book (although it is), but that Godfather the movie is considered one of the greatest movies ever made, whereas the book is considered mostly a good potboiler. The movie puts the director into the pantheon and is still a perennial favorite on cable (and I check it out whenever I stumble across it). Who reads the book any more?

Bourne Identity. Book was sooooooo dull and cheesy.

Bourne Identity. Book was sooooooo dull and cheesy.

Everyone keeps saying this...I think I'll have to take this series off my TBR.

It's not so much that Godfather the movie is better than Godfather the book (although it is), but that Godfather the movie is considered one of the greatest movies ever made, whereas the book is considered mostly a good potboiler. The movie puts the director into the pantheon and is still a perennial favorite on cable (and I check it out whenever I stumble across it). Who reads the book any more?

I'd add "The Godfather Part II" (TGP2) to the list along with the original "The Godfather." I enjoyed the original novel and the two movies, together, cover everything in the novel. TGP2 is a sequel which is just as good as the first movie, and I found both movie more involving than the novel.

For me Mickey Rooney as the Japanese gentleman upstairs tips the balance strongly toward the book.

That and the fact the movie completely whitewashes the narrator's homosexuality and Golightly's fruit fly aspect. Blake Edwards' rather literal-minded political incorrectness can be wearily amusing in a Pink Panther flick, but Tiffany's demanded a lighter touch and Edwards bludgeons his way to the ethereal. The only reason we think he accomplished the task is because Audrey Hepburn made it work.

Besides which, Capote's a gorgeous stylist when he's at his best, and Tiffany's and Music for Chameleons are probably his best.

And I can see Barty's point about The Godfather in theory, but I can't sign off on Puzo's supposed mediocrity because I've never been interested in reading him.

It doesn't matter what others say about a book. What matters is the empirical.

Another example of that is Jules Dassin's Rififi (a classic jewel heist flick that deserves a place alongside Melville's Le Cercle Rouge), which is a completely rewritten film based on a garish novel by an equally garish gangster known for his conspicuous lack of literary talent. For all I know, even that novel might be good.

Another example of that is Jules Dassin's Rififi (a classic jewel heist flick that deserves a place alongside Melville's Le Cercle Rouge), which is a completely rewritten film based on a garish novel by an equally garish gangster known for his conspicuous lack of literary talent. For all I know, even that novel might be good.

I hadn't picked up that Rififi was originally a novel, but I believe it is one of the great films. I watched it on television some years ago and am still haunted by it. Utterly brilliant.

I would like to see the new John Carter film, which is based on A Princess of Mars. The director is pretty good so I think it could be a good flick.

I'd add "The Godfather Part II" (TGP2) to the list along with the original "The Godfather." I enjoyed the original novel and the two movies, together, cover everything in the novel. TGP2 is a sequel which is just as good as the first movie, and I found both movie more involving than the novel.

The difference between the TGF and TGP2, is that the main plot of the TGF is the major part of the novel. In the TGP2, a subplot from the novel (i.e., how Vito got started) was made a subplot in a movie that otherwise contained new material. As a result, I am not sure TGP2 can be considered an adaptation.

--
Bill

Don't take the Bourne Identity off your reading list! I'm one of those who say the movie was much worse than the book (from one of my all-time favorite authors). Matt Damon played an unexpectedly fine action-hero role but it was shallow, full of sound-bite condensations, compared with the novel. The movie's pacing is more modern "go, go, go" but the book has its own charms.