Movies That Are Better Than the Book

[lostclause]

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.

You sound like me with V for Vendetta.
Anyway, you claim that the movie attempts to turn people into superheroes which I don't think it does. There is no more unreasonable powers than in the novel, such as the bullet catch. Their nerois (damn, I wish I could spell) are still there, although some are not as well expressed through since they had to cut out things like the doctor (who I felt added to Rorshach's character a far bit). Reinforcements of the central ideas, namely the black freighter, were left out but the ideas themselves survive.

Hyper-violent was not negligable to the plot of the novel either, it was often used to prove a point. Rorshach's strength of conviction was shown through his disdainful brutality, nightowl's sincerity of feeling was shown by one of his few violent moments being at the death of Hollis, the detachment of Dr Manhattan was conveyed in his brutal way of destroying his foes, the death of the vietnamese lady shows the comedian's disillusionment with humanity and his utter indifference to the fate of people (although that is shown to be incomplete by what he discovers, sorry for being vague but I think I'm giving away too many spoilers already).

Really though, I think that some of the emphasis on action in inevitable with film being a more visual medium. Doctor Manhattans power was simply in the novel, it wasn't easy to see what it was but people exploded. In a movie they can't simply show a static result so they have to animate it and an animation of someone being turned inside out is eye-catching no matter what. Disjointed cuts, like how the novel presented the death of the comedian, don't work so well and adaptions to the method are inevitable. Whether or not you judge it as better is a matter or opinion.

 

[clicketycrack]

4) Blade Runner. I'll just say it: Philip K. Dick was a fucking horrible writer, and it's no wonder that almost none of his material ever survives when the time comes to make a movie. His characters are like sock puppets, and his plots don't flow so much as lurch.

Give the guy a break. The was so off his rocker it shot it two miles away.

Anyway, lets go with fight club.

 

[The Sorrow]

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

Sir, the book is about a pedophile fairy pretending to be a vampire. No character has personality.
It's an old Mormon lady's wet dream on print. I also like to call it an abortion on paper.

There is nothing "awesome" about this tripe.

 

[messy]

The Shining. The book was decent, but it was standard Stephen King fare. Fairly descriptive, decent environments, but it didn't really stand out. The movie however, you have Stanley Kubrick directing, and Jack Nicholson starring. When the director calls up the star at 2 in the morning and asks him if he believes in God because it's important for a scene, you know it's a good movie. The attention Kubrick put into his films, and the sheer awesomeness of Nicholson combines to make a truly great film.

I agree with this, but then again it'd be hard for that not to be a great film. However I found the book more spooky but then I read it when I was younger, then saw the film later so I guess I was more prepared for it.

 

[Vern]

The Shining. The book was decent, but it was standard Stephen King fare. Fairly descriptive, decent environments, but it didn't really stand out. The movie however, you have Stanley Kubrick directing, and Jack Nicholson starring. When the director calls up the star at 2 in the morning and asks him if he believes in God because it's important for a scene, you know it's a good movie.

I don't know why, but something about Jack Nicholson, whether off-screen or on, always unnerves me. Maybe its because of the roles he's played over the years, but he really looks like a creepy guy.

On topic; I've never seen a movie better than the book, except Lord of the Rings. I struggled to reach the end of the series without skipping ahead.

I had the opposite with Lord of the Rings. Even though they made three movies, and totaled about 29 hours I was disappointed. I suppose my imagination did the series more justice than film could, but I'm still pissed about them removing the barrow wights. One thing I found with The Two Towers, was I would switch between the two halves of the book, the first part with Mary and Pippin, and the second part with Sam and Frodo. When one part caught up with the other I would switch, it helped the story maintain continuity in my opinion. It's rather hard to live up to a series that you had envisioned in your mind since you were eleven, but they still did a pretty good job, but I'll always nitpick about production quality above story. And seriously, the barrow wights? They were the shits tits. Oh, and the ghost pirates at Pellenor. They were ridiculous in the book at the right place, they're ridiculous in the movie in the wrong place.

 

[Beartrucci]

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.

I thought that the movie's ending always worked better for the movie because having:

Spoiler: Watchmen spoilers

A gigantic alien octopus destroy New York would be a bit too weird for cinemas

But they did a poor job actually explaining it, because all my friend's never understood the idea behind the:

Spoiler: More Watchmen spoilers

Killing millions to save billions

The movie's ending didn't feel like it had anywhere near as much of a "omg wtf just happened" impact as the book did on me (if that makes sense).

My last gripe with the movie is that:

Spoiler: Spoilers inside

In the book Adrian killed half of New York to prevent nuclear war between America and Russia I think (haven't read the book in a while) but in the movie every major city in the world gets destroyed to prevent this war from breaking out.

Despite all that I love the movie and would rate it like 9.7/10.

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.

I also got annoyed whenever I would see these scenes happen, because they are just supposed to be normal people wearing masks to fight crime, yet in the movie when they fight, it's as if they actually have superpowers.

/rant about film I love

 

[Spider Expert]

I have yet to see a movie that was better than the book.
This includes, but are not limited to the following book/movies:

* Jurrasic Park
* I am Legend
* The Lord of the Rings
* Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (That movie was in fact quite horrible)
* Interview With a Vampire, and sequels

>Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (That movie was in fact quite horrible)

>That movie was in fact quite horrible)

>That movie

>horrible

 

[inflamessoilwork]

fight club

I just COULD NOT get into the book

 

[Lynx]

Harry Potter... Seriously. Emma Watson/Hermione... I guess I am just a pervert huh. >.>

Uuughh... She may be cute and all, but I reheally don't like any of her performances except maybe in the Philosopher's Stone.

 

[dantheman931]

Ooo ooo ooo, I got another one! The Mothman Prophecies. Damn good (but creepy) movie, but the book just read like some conspiracy nut's manifesto. Couldn't even finish it.

 

[GreyFox389]

The Count of Monte Cristo.

I've tried reading that book so many times, and there are too many characters and too much blah. The movie is nicely condensed and still sets up a completely cathartic payoff.

 

[Plurralbles]

I have yet to see a movie that was better than the book.
This includes, but are not limited to the following book/movies:

* Jurrasic Park
* I am Legend
* The Lord of the Rings
* Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (That movie was in fact quite horrible)
* Interview With a Vampire, and sequels

I was just skimming hte page and saw I am Legend in a list. I was about to give you a long, winding narrative as to why I am Legend the movie fails on so many levels when considering the book, bu then you said, "this includes" so I had to refrain.

Thank you for not being a dumbass.

 

[Blindrooster]

3) Just about any movie based on a Michael Crichton novel.

Are you kidding? have you actually read jurrasic park or the andromeda strain? Jurrasic park MIGHT be the only exception but the andromeda strain and sphere were nothing compared to the books. especially sphere, Kick A book. terrible movie. do some reading mate. sorry, i'm kind of a fan, ive read every Michael Crighton book.

 

[tetron]

The Princess Bride

 

[chozo_hybrid]

It's subject to opinion in the end, but if I had to choose one it would be Deathnote, I think the movies were better.

 

[sam_savage1393]

The Harry Potter Series [/sarcasm].

I thought the Green Mile movie was well-played.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

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

Sir, the book is about a pedophile fairy pretending to be a vampire. No character has personality.
It's an old Mormon lady's wet dream on print. I also like to call it an abortion on paper.

There is nothing "awesome" about this tripe.

I wouldnt say the books were horrible nor would i say they were awesome, I thought they were decent probably between a 6 and 7 out of 10. I honestly dont get why its so hard for people to accept Stephanie Meyers version of the vampire. Its like saying Brokeback mountain was bad because gay people are supposed to be flamboyant and always trying to get in any mans pants.
I applaud Black Adder for having the balls to say the books were awesome

OT: I dont think that movies based off books can be better than the book, the movies would be more of an introduction to that series, for example the Lord of the Rings movies were fantastic but the books go so much deeper into Tolkiens universe.

 

[RussetRanger]

Mario Puzo's "The Godfather" is not a very good novel, but Francis Ford Coppola made it into a hell of a movie! But to be fair, in most cases I agree with you.

You beat me to mentioning the Godfather. Though I disagree, the novel was great I reckon, in the book it padded out many instances and stalled the flow a bit. Plus, you could not make the baptism as effective on paper as it was on screen.

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest. The book was good but how it was written made it ambiguous. There is also the contrast of whose perspective it is told from, and both work.

 

[Daniel Cygnus]

I'm going to be lame and unoriginal and say Fight Club. Even Chucky P agrees.