Need help! Movies that were better than the books

[Patiod]

My colleague at work challenged me: she claims the book is always better than the movie. This can't be true. But I can't think of any good examples....

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. Godfather I and II.

[Patiod]

2. OK, that's a good one nt

[edbermac]

3. Jaws

[Patiod]

16. OOO!!! Good call

I remember I loved the book (I was 17 at the time - read it on our class trip to Hershey Park), but the movie blew it away.

[applegrove]

4. The Orchid Thief, but I loved the book too.

[SouthoftheBorderPaul]

5. The Shining

[kath]

17. Gotta disagree with you there - I liked the book MUCH, much better.

[Mad_Dem_X]

29. Nope, the book was MUCH better

King's books are always a least a little better than the movies made from them.

[SouthoftheBorderPaul]

36. Excuse me, but I think I'm entitled to like the movie better.

And you smug tone is not appreciated.

[IndianaJones]

6. Lord of the Rings trilogy. nt.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

7. mmmmm..... I can see why you would say that

as Tolkein tends to drag on and on and on, but I still think the books are better than the movies.

[IndianaJones]

9. It opened up a much wider audience. nt.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

12. Thats a good point

and I definately thought Peter Jackson did a great job

[IndianaJones]

13. Lots of fans of the books criticize him, and there were parts...

I would have liked to see in the movies, but things had to be cut, and I thought he did a great job.

[Reciprocity]

49. Ooops this was meant for #6

Did you see the movie first or read the books? I have read the books every year (starting on Sept 22 because that's Bilbo and Frodo's birthday) since I was 17 and I'm 49. So yes, I think the books are better than the movies. That said, what Pete Jackson did with the look and feel of middle-earth was beyond brilliant.

[Patiod]

21. Actually - that's one my colleague suggested

But she wasn't 100% convinced - she loved both.

[jobycom]

31. I'm biased because I hated the movies (unless you mean the animated films, which were cute)

but I don't think you'd get consensus on that one. The books were literary masterpieces, and though they are dated now, they are still impressive to many.

[billyskank]

48. Only if you never liked the books anyway.

[Shakespeare]

8. Enchanted April

Which they STILL haven't released on DVD. x(

Wonderful movie, three Oscar nominations, phenomenal cast....and it's not on DVD.

But it's much, much better than von Arnim's novel on which it was based.

[CBHagman]

26. And that version was better than the earlier one.

Turner Classic Movies ran the earlier version (I think it was from the 1930s), and the 1992 film is superior in every regard -- art direction, cinematography, casting, performances, etc.

Other books that worked better as films or mini-series:

Nevil Shute's A Town Like Alice (original title: The Legacy). The basic story is enthralling (British woman in Japanese prison camp falls in love with Australian POW), but Shute got carried away in some of the chapters. Can you imagine pages and pages on what it's like to learn to make shoes? On top of that are the unvarnished racist attitudes towards Aborigines.

Things were cleaned up considerably for the mini-series.

The same went for the TV adaptation of the Flambards novels. I remember the British mini-series as terrific. The novels were, in retrospect, just workmanlike.

[cascadiance]

10. Blade Runner

Philip K. Dick had a nice story with "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", but Blade Runner was a masterpiece of film making in my book.

Perhaps someone could also make the case for "Wizard of Oz"?

And perhaps "Apocalypse Now" too. Haven't read "Heart of Darkness", but the film also was a great achievement.

[EstimatedProphet]

22. I disagree about Blade Runner - I think both the book and the movie were masterpieces

[cascadiance]

23. I agree that they were both great works...

... but Blade Runner as a movie in my mind was truly ground breaking scifi of its time, leading to a whole genre of cyberpunk books and films then. I guess I look at it like I do Lord of the Rings. I liked the books for different reasons than I liked the movie trilogy. Both were groundbreaking and classics for different reasons.

[Richard Steele]

62. That's the first one that popped into my mind, as well. nm

[seemunkee]

11. The Perfect Storm

The book started as a magazine article and should have stayed that way. The other 100+ pages where filler, factoids about the fishing industry and speculation.

[BOSSHOG]

14. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

I agree with your colleague about 90% of the time but on occasion a movie outdoes the source. Cuckoos Nest the Movie was fairly true to the book but Nurse Ratched, R.P. and the Big Chief were much better defined in the Movie. And the liberties the Movie took with some details in the book made for a greater flow. The book was great, the Movie greater.

[begin_within]

45. This is a joke, right?

The book is one of the best novels of the 20th century. The movie is an absolute abomination. Ken Kesey himself hated the movie.

[BOSSHOG]

56. I guess its a good thing

we all don't like the same things. I find it hard to think of the movie as an abomination as compared to the book when it was so close to the book itself. And the acting was superb (in my opinion.) An author hating a movie adaptation of his work? Now thats a new one. One of the best novels of a hundred year period? Would that be like in the top 10,000?

And if you don't mind, please share why you think the movie was an abomination, especially compared to the book.

[begin_within]

57. The movie completely misses the two main points of the book

1. The entire story is an allegory, where the nurse and the hospital represent the Establishment, with the full power of authority to back them up, and McMurphy represents the individual, whose only power is his own indomitable will. This is completely absent from the movie.

2. The narrator of the book is Chief Broom, and his progression from paranoid schizophrenic at the beginning to sane and free-thinking person at the end is clearly evident in his style of narration and choice of words. In the movie, he is merely a bit player.

3. Kesey hated the characterization of McMurphy in the film and felt it was nothing like the character he wrote. I attended a lecture by Ken Kesey in April 1982 at Portland State University, and someone asked him a question about the film, and he grumbled about it profanely for a few seconds and then changed the subject.

[BOSSHOG]

63. Wow

Your first paragraph is what I got out of the movie. The Big Nurse, the authoritarian figure with the weight of the world on her side and she knew it, even bossing around the Doctor. She even had a Darth Vader look about her except in white. (Book and Movie the same.) R.P., an individual with indomitable will. He stood out as an individual from the rest of the collective "residents." (Book and Movie the same.) Completely absent? Maybe we didn't watch the same movie.

Big Chief, a bit player? Like Billy Bibbit was a bit player? The biggest difference I found between the movie and the book was point of view. We weren't constantly inside the Chief's head during the movie but I did not consider him a bit player. He was the incredible silent observer, R.P.'s straight guy and the only one to escape. I don't think bit players do that.

Whether Kesey liked the movie or not is not germane to the original posters question.

I have enjoyed our chit chat about a segment of the arts.

[Dr. Strange]

15. A couple from Stephen King

The Running Man

and

The Lawnmower Man (although the story and the movie have very little in common beyond the title).

[Patiod]

20. She won't accept Stephen King as an answer

doesn't read or watch horror.

I'm thinking "Misery" might be a good argument. Good book, awesome movie. Kathy Bates rocks.

[Mad_Dem_X]

30. "won't accept Stephen King"?

WTF?

[Patiod]

38. I should be clearer: has never read him or seen a movie

based on one of his books. So can't really use King as an argument, since she's completely unfamiliar with his work

[terrya]

18. "The Hours"

A much better film than the book. Imo.

[kath]

19. Your colleague is right probably 99% of the time. I saw a great t-shirt in a catalog once:

"Never judge a book by its movie". I really wish I'd bought one!

[SPQR]

24. Mysterious Skin

Neither the book nor the movie are as well known as the others mentioned here. I read the book after seeing the movie, and I felt like it was a case of an author unable to do justice to his own terrific story. Araki's film took the story and told it brilliantly. A moving and devastating film, and highly recommended.

[Jade Fox]

59. Saw the movie recently.....

and was blown away. I've been thinking about checking out the book, but I don't have a lot of time for fiction reading.

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. Slightly OT- Has anyone both read and seen "The Namesake"?

I really enjoyed the book but missed the theatrical release of the film. Was the film any good, especially in comparison to the book? TIA..

[seemunkee]

27. I didn't care for it

I didn't read the book and saw the movie without knowing anything about it. I thought it was slow and boring.

[Fire Walk With Me]

34. Thanks!

[Mr. Blonde]

28. High Fidelity

Jack Black really makes the movie, and who doesn't like John Cusack?

And inthe very near future I could see No Country for Old Men being better than the book.

[mitchum]

43. I agree about the movie being far superior to the book, but I don't like...

Black or Cusack as performers. I think the genius of the movie is due to Frears' direction. He really gets across how Black's character is a pretentious hypocrite and Cusack's character is a self-absorbed babyman

[jobycom]

32. I can think of a lot that were equal, but only a couple that were better

I'm sure there are lesser-known books that were made into great films, but I can't think of any. Maybe Forrest Gump--the movie wasn't as good as it was cracked up to be, but it wasn't a washout, either, and the book was pretty average.

The Godfather series was better than the books, but that's been said.

A list of some films that were equal, though not always equivalent, to the books, IMHO:
Lonesome Dove
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Name of the Rose (different than the book, but good)
Jaws
The Shining
Fight Club
The Unbearable Lightness of Being

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[bamacrat]

35. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. The Wizard of Oz.

The book was pretty good. Movie is, well, the Wizard of fucking Oz.

[Patiod]

39. Nicely put, Bornaginhooligan

It was, indeed, the Wizard of fucking Oz.

[cascadiance]

40. A Time Magazine article late last year does this comparison...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1134742-1,00.html

For the following works, the winner:

Memoirs of Geisha (the movie wins)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe (the book wins)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (the movie wins)
The Ice Harvest (a tie)
Brokeback Mountain (the book wins)
Pride and Prejudice (the book wins)

[swag]

41. Fight Club

Sorry, Chuck.

[mitchum]

42. "High Fidelity", "The Ice Storm" and, of course, "The Godfather"

[Aristus]

44. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" The book blew chunks.

It tried to be a pastiche of old hard-boiled detective fiction, but it was pretty lame. The overall concept of the book was poor, too. The film postulates that cartoon characters are actually living beings who are simply being filmed going through their paces. The book started the general idea, but didn't go far enough with it. In the book, they are comic book characters whose stories are still-photographed instead of filmed. Jessica hates Roger, Roger gets killed, and the book ends abruptly and unhappily. Almost ruined the movie for me.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

46. My dear Patiod!

"The African Queen" with Humphrey Bogart!

Waaaaaaaaaay better than the book!

:hi:

[DarkTirade]

47. The Empire Strikes Back. :)

[Reciprocity]

50. The Hunt for Red October and The Bourne series.

[jgraz]

58. All the Clancy novels, really

Esp Clear and Present Danger. What a snooze.

[Release The Hounds]

51. Goodfellas

[Starbucks Anarchist]

60. Good choice, and welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Orangepeel]

52. over fifty posts and no one said "Gone with the Wind" yet?

much better than the book.

[Reciprocity]

55. I thought the book was better than the movie.

Except for Clark Gable.

[AmyDeLune]

53. American Psycho n/t

[jpgray]

54. Testament of Dr. Mabuse

Kicks the shit out of the book.

[Jack_Dawson]

61. The Shining. Game over.