Films better than the books they are based on

[WolfThomas]

I hope there isn't another topic on this, I did a brief search and what I did find was countless threads about movies about books being horrible (there's a good one being run at the moment). But what there isn't is a thread about films better than their original book, I'm not saying as good as (like the LOTR IMO), I mean honest to god better.

For example Jumanji, that was just average kid's picture book and the movie was (and still is) a fantastic family film.

Now 13th Warrior that's a fantastic action movie with vikings and Antonio Banderas playing an arab who earns their trust and friendship as they fight monstrous bear creatures. The book however was just a boring rip-off of Beowulf by Michael Creighton called "Eaters of the dead".

 

[grimsprice]

Chronicles of Narnia. that is all.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

 

[Murrah]

Chronicles of Narnia. that is all.

Wow there's a Chronicles of Narnia Books? How come I didn't know about this?


Not that I like it or anything (shifty eyes).

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Lord of The Rings. The books were too long and dreary and went into too much details. And the hobbit stories were generally uninteresting.

Chronicles of Narnia. that is all.

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

What made the books so bad, my dear gentlemen?

 

[kiteboy]

Lord of the rings, the books rambled a bit to the extent that you missed a lot of the epic which WAS there... the movies were the defination of awesome. especially return of the king.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Children of Men. Book was relatively decent, and a good look at the human psyche (premise is that, for some reason 18 years before, everyone just suddenly lost the ability to have children. It demonstrates the collapse of civilization that goes with it), movie was absolutely phenomenal.

 

[Fudgo]

Harry Potter comes to mind. I found the movies pretty interesting when I watched them, but fell asleep when I tried reading the books.

 

[Maze1125]

Lord of the Rings.
As we all know, a picture is worth a thousand words, and JRR Tolkien tried to write down all one thousand of those words for what would become a single frame of the film.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

What made the books so bad, my dear gentlemen?

Its a childrens book and pretty horribly written

I mean I understand that it can be popular, but it doesn't mean that it is written very well

 

[ThisTypeofThinking]

Chronicles of Narnia. that is all.

Lol, the books were good, movies terrible. Anyway, none I can think of, but I haven't read as many books as I have seen movies.

 

[Scikosomatic]

Lord of the Rings.
As we all know, a picture is worth a thousand words, and JRR Tolkien tried to write down all one thousand of those words for what would become a single frame of the film.

lol i share your senteiment

 

[Raven's Nest]

Although it kind of got butchered I did enjoy I Am Legend more than the book.

Also, Minority Report made a good film out of a short story.

Also also, it has to be said "The passion of the Christ" is considerably better than the book it's based on...

 

[grimsprice]

Lord of The Rings. The books were too long and dreary and went into too much details. And the hobbit stories were generally uninteresting.

Chronicles of Narnia. that is all.

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

What made the books so bad, my dear gentlemen?

Don't lump me with that freak. Its just not humane... Harry potter was a greatly engrossing book, with shitty movies that compressed 8 hours of story into 2. As for Chronicles of Narnia, the books have little to no action or plot content. They're stale bread. The movies made the universe seem more actiony and exciting. While the books were catered twards 5 year olds, the movies were made to excite the 13 year old audience. That, coupled with the nostalgia trip, made the Narnia movies infinitely more likable.

 

[WolfThomas]

Children of Men..

Wow I love that movie, and yet I never knew it was based off a book.

 

[whiskey rock n' roller]

Fight club, even the author agrees

Edit: Also Raging Bull based on Jake LaMotta's biograhphy
A Clockwork Orange (in my opinion, the books still awesome and way more controversial)
Blade runner and Shawshank redemption but only marginally

 

[Puzzles]

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

I absolutely hated the last movie, I thought it was beyond boring, but the rest were alright.

 

[pelopelopelo]

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

What made the books so bad, my dear gentlemen?

Its a childrens book and pretty horribly written

I mean I understand that it can be popular, but it doesn't mean that it is written very well

But... the films aren't even coherent films, just scenes continuously jumping from plot point to plot point.

Well, the first two were better, but the acting is so damn bad that it doesn't really matter.

I thought Passion of the Christ was more exciting than the book.

 

[Trivun]

Lord of The Rings. The books were too long and dreary and went into too much details. And the hobbit stories were generally uninteresting.

Chronicles of Narnia. that is all.

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

What made the books so bad, my dear gentlemen?

Ninja'd on all counts. I loved the Harry Potter books, though I prefer the later ones. I still think the films there are better than the books, and get better each one (despite what everyone says, I actually think Half Blood Prince was the best movie so far). I read some of the Narnia books when I was young, and again, they were awesome, though again I do prefer the films. And I could never get into the LOTR books, they were long and drab and pretty boring (apologies to Tolkien, of course). But the films made it much mre accessible and cool for me, especially the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. And yes, I do realise that battle and the Siege of Minas Tirith weren't named in the films and were done as a single battle (when they were really closer to two seperate battles), but I did still read all the LOTR books. I just didn't like them much.

Anyway, those are pretty much my main choices here. There are, however, plenty of books where I haven't read them but I have seen the films. Such as Atonement, which was brilliant, by the way

Oh, actually, the two Dan Brown films (TDVC and A&D) where both much better than the books. I loved the books, of course, but the films were even better. Main reasons being:

1. Tom Hanks. Do I need to say anything more?
2. Ron Howard. Great director.
3. Sir Ian McKellen. Again, need I say more?
4. Audrey Tautou is hot.
5. Paul Bettany is awesome.
6. We actually get to see the antimatter explosion over the Vatican. I mean, how cool did that look on screen? Answer - extremely cool indeed.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Harry Potter. The books are rubbish but the films are kind of interesting

What made the books so bad, my dear gentlemen?

Its a childrens book and pretty horribly written

I mean I understand that it can be popular, but it doesn't mean that it is written very well

But... the films aren't even coherent films, just scenes continuously jumping from plot point to plot point.

Well, the first two were better, but the acting is so damn bad that it doesn't really matter.

I thought Passion of the Christ was more exciting than the book.

I found the films okay because I didn't care much for the plot. They were pretty interesting at first. But I really haven't watched the latter ones