Films better than the books they are based on

[Fiskmasen]

No Country for Old Men. Mostly because a) the film is almost a word-for-word adaptation of the book, and b) everything just looks so beautiful with the Coen-brothers and Roger Deakins [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005683/] behind the camera.

 

[Trivun]

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.

"Anyone can write a book Mr. Miles. And they can put whatever they want on it's pages. I even believe there is a book that claims the world was created in seven days... A best-seller too..."

 

[manaman]

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 creature. The book however was just a boring rip-off of Beowulf by Michael Creighton called "Eaters of the dead".

Reread the afterward on that book. Michael Crichton didn't exactly rip off Beowulf he admits to crafting a story based on the factual writings of Ahmad ibn Fadlan's around the story of Beowulf. I also have no idea where you got the bear creatures from. The dragon and the Grendel where re-imagined into a single threat: The mist-monsters, a band of Neanderthals.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Children of Men..

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

Yeah, but I wouldn't recommend you read it. It's not a bad book, it's just that the movie is so much better.

 

[Beartrucci]

From what I have heard, the Fight Club film was better than the original novel.

 

[malestrithe]

The godfather. The book was kind of boring. The movie was less boring.

 

[Avatar Roku]

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.

"Anyone can write a book Mr. Miles. And they can put whatever they want on it's pages. I even believe there is a book that claims the world was created in seven days... A best-seller too..."

Ah, got to love some of the quotes from Assassin's Creed.
"We'll see how sweet they are, the fruits of your labors. You do not free these cities as you believe, but damn them. And in the end, you will have only yourself to blame; you, who speak of good intentions."

 

[EvilBug]

Every one already beat me to the obvious ones. ;___;
Screw it!
The Godfather

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Chronicles of Narnia. that is all.

The book "The Magician's Nephew" was probably one of the worst book I've ever read.

I went to go see Fantastic Mr. Fox yesterday and really enjoyed it. It's not like that enjoying in an ironic way like most people are with kids' movies, but genuinely thought that it was a funny film. But yeah I picked up the book and skimmed through it at a bookstore and the book was nothing like the movie. It was... boring. Really, the movie was much more intelligent and mature than the book. Roald Dahl's books are either a hit or a miss for me. Like, I enjoyed the BFG and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but the Great Glass elevator was terrible.

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 creature. The book however was just a boring rip-off of Beowulf by Michael Creighton called "Eaters of the dead".

Reread the afterward on that book. Michael Crichton didn't exactly rip off Beowulf he admits to crafting a story based on the factual writings of Ahmad ibn Fadlan's around the story of Beowulf. I also have no idea where you got the bear creatures from. The dragon and the Grendel where re-imagined into a single threat: The mist-monsters, a band of Neanderthals.

I was lead to believe that the book was written because someone had told him great works of literature couldn't be told in a different perspective. Then he took that challenge and sort of rewrote it from a different perspective. I enjoyed the movie, yet haven't read the book.

 

[WolfThomas]

I also have no idea where you got the bear creatures from. The dragon and the Grendel where re-imagined into a single threat: The mist-monsters, a band of Neanderthals.

Sorry I said bear creature, instead of tribe of primitive humans pretending to be bears, because the early parts of the film make the enemy appear supernatural/monstrous and more scary, it is only to the big battle in the middle, that they realise they are men. I was trying not to spoil that reveal.

 

[Glass_House]

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.

The 6th movie the best so far?!?!?!? *Dies* It was like they merged Harry Potter with a teenage drama, the whole thing was aimed at the same audience that wants to rape Edward from the Twilight movie (Edit* Changed the words to make it less anti-twilight, though Twilight and all its affiliates need to be imprisoned for life). Anyways, I couldn't really get into the LOTR books for the same reason, I read and enjoyed The Hobbit, but the books droned on too long before getting to any major point. Never read the Narnia books and don't really plan on it, and I did find the Harry Potter books and movies both equally interesting (minus the 6th one where the book was vastly superior). The first and second Harry Potter were the best movies but the acting was terrible, and the 6th and 7th the best books.

Disclaimer - The previous rant was my own opinion, I do acknowledge that this view may clash with the views of others and I have my fire extinguisher at the ready.

 

[Altorin]

the classic example of this is The Godfather.

 

[kelsyk]

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".

I did not even realize those were based off of books.

I liked the LOTR movies more then the books, but not because they were "better". I enjoyed the movies because they made tthe story feel more epic and actiony.

Apart from them I can't think of any movies that were better then the book they were based off of.

 

[Deleted]

Hehehe Twilight hehehe. But to quote the Nerd: that's like saying the shit I took yesterday was better than the shit I took today.

 

[G1eet]

In my own opinion? None. (I never knew Jumanji was a kid's book, so I'll run with that)

Though I'm looking forward to the new Percy Jackson movie to prove me wrong. Sadly, I'm not too hopeful. Soap McTavish is going to be Poseidon, and Steve Coogan is going to portray Hades (oh, James Woods, your agent really dropped the ball on that one).

Then again, Pierce Brosnan is Chiron, and Sean Bean is Zeus. Will it be enough? Time will tell.

 

[Bad Cluster]

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was much better than the book in my opinion.

 

[AvsJoe]

Jurassic Park (the book was amazing but the film was even better!)
Fight Club (the book wasn't all that good IMO)

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".

Fine, I'll agree with you, but I loved Eaters of the Dead myself. The movie was just a little bit better.

 

[FROGGEman2]

Too many people are choosing The Lord of The Rings for slow pace and Chronicles of Narnia for being childish.

I am losing faith in humanity.

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.

I have feeling that YOU'RE MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.

Also, C.S. Lewis was a better writer than you.

Sorry, just...

 

[Skuffyshootster]

Too many people are choosing The Lord of The Rings for slow pace and Chronicles of Narnia for being childish.


I have feeling that YOU'RE MISSING THE FUCKING POINT.

Also, C.S. Lewis was a better writer than you.

First off, mind telling us what the point is before you start accusing us of missing it?
Second, that's a terrible excuse to make. We did not decide to be writers. He did, and it turns out he's terrible at it. Therefore, it is ok for us to criticise him without actually writing anything ourselves.