Movies That Are Better Than the Book

[DrunkWithPower]

Blasphemy!
LotR must be whorshipped!

See any Kevin Smith interview about LotR and you'll have my opinion.(If needs be, I'll explain)

Anywho, Jurassic Park, mainly because when I read the book I couldn't stay with it but the movie had me locked in.(If that makes sense.)

 

[Flying-Emu]

Animal Farm was pretty beast.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

True, except I don't quite get why Zack Snyder had to turn the scene with Night Owl and Silk Spectre into softcore porn. Not only was it unnecessary, it was flow-breaking. But I think the ending was much better in the movie than the book.

He didn't. The movie sequence was shot per panel from the book, including the flamethrower at the point or orgasm.

That said, my vote is for Fight Club. Chuck Palahniuk is my favorite contemporary author but the movie conveys the tale far beter than the book. In fact, there is only one area in which the book proves superior, and that is properly explain just what the hell Marla had to do with any of it.

 

[fenrizz]

Blasphemy!
LotR must be whorshipped!

See any Kevin Smith interview about LotR and you'll have my opinion.(If needs be, I'll explain)

Anywho, Jurassic Park, mainly because when I read the book I couldn't stay with it but the movie had me locked in.(If that makes sense.)

Will do, I assume it can be found on the internet?

I liked the Jurrasic Park book, it was very different from the movie.
Which reminds me, I must read it again.

That said, my vote is for Fight Club. Chuck Palahniuk is my favorite contemporary author but the movie conveys the tale far beter than the book. In fact, there is only one area in which the book proves superior, and that is properly explain just what the hell Marla had to do with any of it.

I gotta agree with this.
Marla was poorly adapted in the movie.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Without a doubt, Twilight.

While the movie was made of suck, the books are at least 100 times worse.

 

[TheSunshineHobo]

Watchmen, whilst I wouldn't say better, is at least on par with its source and a very good screen adaption.

The movie was shit. Perhaps my experience was sullied by the imaturity of the audience I was with, but I found the film to be terrible. The action scene completely defeated the purpose of the novel and the scenes that rested souly on dialogue were handled so poorly that I almost left the theatre. It was an okay adaptation at best, but it could've been so much better. The novel outways the film astronomically, in my opinion.

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

The Lord of the Rings (flame-shield up!)
Don't get me wrong, Tolkien wrote it very well, it's just that... well, I was eleven at the time of reading/viewing the films, and the books were more than a little tedious for me (seriously, how do you fit that many words onto a page???) =P

 

[lostclause]

Watchmen, whilst I wouldn't say better, is at least on par with its source and a very good screen adaption.

The movie was shit. Perhaps my experience was sullied by the imaturity of the audience I was with, but I found the film to be terrible. The action scene completely defeated the purpose of the novel and the scenes that rested souly on dialogue were handled so poorly that I almost left the theatre. It was an okay adaptation at best, but it could've been so much better. The novel outways the film astronomically, in my opinion.

I too am inclined to say the novel was better but the adaption was by no means bad.

By action scene, do you mean in general or at the beginning? I found the one at the beginning to be very effective, the choreographed violence in contrast with the music made it more horrible. Rorshach's capture was also very good. I do think the showdown at the end was the weakest fight but otherwise they were fine. I'm not certain what the 'purpose of the novel' was in relation to the action scenes, I found those bits to be the most irrelevant in the novel and I can't say the were given much greater prominence in the movie (except the comedian's demise which I already said that I quite liked).

No strikingly bad dialogue moments come to mind. I freely admit that some could be better but none were so dire as to make me want to leave (though this may be my Alan Moore fanboy nature).

 

[Dark-Dreymer]

Without a doubt, Twilight.

While the movie was made of suck, the books are at least 100 times worse.

I wholeheartedly agree. A friend and I suffered our way through about two-thirds of the movie yesterday where as I only managed a chapter of the book; so that works out as better but still pretty shitty.

I appreciated the screen writers attempts to humanize Bella is small ways to avoid making her a massive Mary-Sue like she is in the book. However all the good was blown away when I saw they'd put Stephenie Meyer in a small cameo role where she is sat in the diner and a waitress hands her a bowl of soup and says 'Here you go Stephenie' I'm surprised they didn't stop the film to look directly at the camera and give a massive wink.

 

[Hitman 43]

I don't have any in mind.

 

[Blackadder51]

Without a doubt, Twilight.

While the movie was made of suck, the books are at least 100 times worse.

I disagree, the movie was was pathetic, but the books were freaking awesome

 

[SirDeadly]

I don't think I've ever seen a mvoie better then the book. In my opinion, Eragon was the BIGGEST failure ever, they left out so many important things. They'll need to remake Eragon to be able to make Eldest.

 

[TheSunshineHobo]

Watchmen, whilst I wouldn't say better, is at least on par with its source and a very good screen adaption.

The movie was shit. Perhaps my experience was sullied by the imaturity of the audience I was with, but I found the film to be terrible. The action scene completely defeated the purpose of the novel and the scenes that rested souly on dialogue were handled so poorly that I almost left the theatre. It was an okay adaptation at best, but it could've been so much better. The novel outways the film astronomically, in my opinion.

I too am inclined to say the novel was better but the adaption was by no means bad.

By action scene, do you mean in general or at the beginning? I found the one at the beginning to be very effective, the choreographed violence in contrast with the music made it more horrible. Rorshach's capture was also very good. I do think the showdown at the end was the weakest fight but otherwise they were fine. I'm not certain what the 'purpose of the novel' was in relation to the action scenes, I found those bits to be the most irrelevant in the novel and I can't say the were given much greater prominence in the movie (except the comedian's demise which I already said that I quite liked).

No strikingly bad dialogue moments come to mind. I freely admit that some could be better but none were so dire as to make me want to leave (though this may be my Alan Moore fanboy nature).

I've read Watchmen 4 or 5 times. I read bits and peices of it when i'm bored with whatever else i'm reading. To my understanding Watchmen (The novel) is an exploration of not superheros, but the people behind the mask. Alan Moore's story takes a look at the reality of what a superheros daily life would be. He shows us just how screwed up superheros would be, look at nightowl, he can't have sex without wearing his costume. The novel presented these people as real, in both nerosis and fighting prowess. No one in the novel could kick others across the room.
The film ramps up their fighting prowess past the realm of the possible (In my opinion) and presents their superhero lives as hyper violent battle royals. Zak Snyders adaptation undermines the point of the novel with each Hyper-violent fight scene it presents, turning the story into a violent action film, rather than a thoughtful look at the people behind the mask. The novel was firmly grounded in reality (Or at least as grounded as a naked blue god will allow for), but the strength of the film rests in those action scenes, whereas the strength of the novel rested on the dialogue, the action scenes were negligable to the plot. That was my problem, Zak Snyders strength as a director rests in action, not in dialogue, whereas the strength of Moore's novel was in its characters and presentation, not its action.
The action scenes turn these real people inot super-human fighting machines, rendering the point of the novel pointless.

 

[Bagelfish]

Night Watch.

From a Russian author. The book was excellent, and the film was just totally freaking awesome!

Seriously... the film only takes one of three shorter stories from the book, and it's changed quite significantly.

TBPH it's hard to work out what's going on most of the time, but it's just so crazy and with fantastic action that it really draws you in.

 

[NotHisRealName]

I think Trainspotting is potentially a film to fit in to this category.

The book is good, don't get me wrong. But it's too scattered, and sometimes you're halfway through a chapter before you realize what character you're reading.

The film leaves so much out, that the book had, but it's much more accessible.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

The Entity, god that book is boring.

 

[AvsJoe]

I agree with people who say Jurassic Park. That was an incredible book, but it was even better as a movie.
I will also add that the movie Die Hard was better than book that it was based off of.

EDIT: Oh jeez, what am I thinking. I forgot Fight Club. The movie was tons better than the book.

 

[Guestowel]

I liked Requiem for a Dream, and American Psycho more as movies than as books