Movies That Are Better Than the Book

[Shamanic Rhythm]

OT: I can't think of a single film that is arguably "better" than the book/playscript on which it is based. People don't make movies out of bad books (I promised myself I wouldn't mention Twilight at this point), so it's not so much that a good film will "improve" the story, but that it will hopefully offer a new and appropriate interpretation of the original material. Case in point Apocalypse Now: Conrad's Heart of Darkness is an amazing book, but would seem outdated, boring and inappropriate in today's culture, particularly for its inherent racism. Francis Ford Coppola managed to transfer the basic anti-imperial discourse of the novel to a contemporary issue, the Vietnam War, and still keep much of Conrad's powerful imagery intact in his fantastic cinematography.

It's worth also remembering that film and literature are very different mediums; as film appeals directly to our senses with sight and sound, while literature relies on engaging our imagination. This is by no means a criticism of anyone in particular, but audiences accustomed to film and television may not have had the chance to develop the imagination necessary to get the most out of a more subtle breed of novel, leading them to argue that the film is "better" because it succeeds in communicating where a novel would not. There is also in Hollywood a lack of appreciation for the nuances of certain types of literature, particularly tragedy, so what you end up with often are "happy" endings that satisfy more people but utterly destroy the author's vision. My Fair Lady and Breakfast at Tiffany's are two classic examples. What happens then is people read the book and declare it to be "worse", because it doesn't provide the expected happy ending.

 

[MetalDooley]

The movie version of Interview with the Vampire is much better than the book imo.The book is really drawn out and dull and is basically 500 pages of Louis moaning about shit

 

[Kittenmauler]

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.

NOOOOOOOOO. That is one of my favorite books. There is so much character development in the book, and when Dantes gets his revenge, he has extremely elaborate plans that are simply awesome and a joy to see unfold.

The movie is a disgrace to the book. They couldn't condense the whole book into the movie, so they replaced most of what made the book so great. There is no depth to the antagonists, they are all just cliche'ed assholes. Dantes getting his revenge takes about 5-10 minutes per person, and it consists of them just walking into stupid, obvious traps.

Also, the book actually had a message at the end. In it, when Dantes finally exacts his revenge on everyone, he realizes how hollow it all was. In the movie, he gets the girl, he is rich, all the assholes are in prison or dead (I can't remember all the details of the movie), and Dantes walks away happily ever after. Typical Hollywood bullshit ending.

Ugh, sorry for the rant, I just really hate that movie. If you can't get through the book try reading the condensed version if you didn't already, it's only about 400 pages as opposed to the real one that is ridiculously long.

 

[the Dept of Science]

A lot of Kubricks movies are based on books that would probably have been lost to history had Kubrick not adapted them. The Short-Timers and Red Alert! which Full Metal Jacket and Dr Strangelove were adapted from are pretty much unheard of. I haven't actually read the books, so I may be talking out of my arse.

 

[Tuddle]

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.

They had to dumb-it-down for regular movie people, because if they did it exactly like the novel it would have been confusing. I think the novel and the movie were both equal-ly good and awesome, but it would be interesting to see the full graphic novel compleat-ly turned into the movie.

 

[Legion]

That said, my vote is for Fight Club. Chuck Palahniuk is my favourite contemporary author but the movie conveys the tale far better 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.

Agreed. The film kept the twist until near the end too, whereas the book slowly hinted on it throughout. The whole Marla thing was explained much better in the book, but the ending in the book wasn't as good.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I honestly think unless the movie fucks with the plot or takes out important bits it's usually better. The simple reason for this is that text cannot maintain momentum nearly as well as film can, and it can't go into description without becoming too wordy and boring.

Anyways, Fight Club

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

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.

Personally I quite liked "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (and love the title) but I've yet to see the movie. I want to though.

On Topic: I'd definitely say that I prefered V For Vendetta the film to V for Vendetta the comics. I found the comics meandered around and didn't do much. On the other hand I loved the way the film is done. However I would've liked to see the scene where the detective trips on LSD and visits the prison (all the names are escaping me).

I also thought the Watchmen film was superior to the comic in a few ways but also inferior in other so I guess its about equal.

On the other hand I loved both of the Shinings but for completely different reasons. I was angry at how they lowered the importance of the little boy in the film and I hated the actress for Wendy Torrance. Hated as in ULTIMATE HATRED (notice the caps). I also thought that how Jack died was sub par in the film compared to the book. Then again I loved the elevator scene. Really, really loved it.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

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. Kubrick also did this with The Short Timers and Full Metal Jacket.

Exactly what I was gonna say! Amazing movie, much better than the book.

 

[Sovvolf]

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

Honestly I think Snyder made it like that in order to actually sell it to a wider or more casual audience. He probably thought that people who haven't read the comic or don't generally read comics wouldn't be interested in it without the over the top fight scenes. I didn't think the film version of the book was better in any way but I though the film version was a very good effort, one of the best efforts of making a comic book movie I've seen so far. I can see past the changes and I can see a lot of them make sense in that these changes had to be made for a casual(none comic book readers) audience to get the movie or at least sit through it. The ending is a good example of this, it's a change that had to be made as an audience who haven't read the comics would just laugh their arses off at the whole Octopus alien idea.

As for Film... well it's probably been said already but Fight Club, the novel is brilliant but the movie was just better.

On Topic: I'd definitely say that I prefered V For Vendetta the film to V for Vendetta the comics. I found the comics meandered around and didn't do much. On the other hand I loved the way the film is done. However I would've liked to see the scene where the detective trips on LSD and visits the prison (all the names are escaping me).

I completely respect your opinion... but you will now be murdered -Sharpens knife-. I'm just kidding of course (Imagine if I was really like that, yikes) I just don't agree the film was better... it kind of missed the point of the comic book and I didn't understand why they got Natalie Portman to play a Brit. Honestly why, why bring her over and teach her (badly) British accents?, why not just pick one of the hundreds of British actresses to play the part?. Not that Natalie Portman is a bad actress she's brill but I just didn't see the logic in why they did it.

 

[Zepren]

I'm of the view that books nearly always outshine their movie counterparts but there are exceptions. Watchmen, whilst I wouldn't say better, is at least on par with its source and a very good screen adaption.

I'm afraid i must disagree. What ruined the Watchmen movie for me was the ending. I loved every moment of it as it kept so true to the novel then BAM! lets fuck with the ending. I'm sorry but i liked the original ending, though maybe a little far-fetched, it still made sense.

Goodfellas - I prefer the movie over the book but the book is still well worth reading.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

I thought "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was a great book when compared to the "War and Peace" book i was forced to read in high school.

This is something I feel kills so much reading in School. It's like Panto/Cosplay, most of the people who loathe it were forced into doing it in their early life and have grown up to loathe it.

The thing to remember about Watchmen though was Moore's dealings with reality are slight at best (Putting Meyer to shame on that as well) and Watchmen was the film Terry Gilliam said couldn't be filmed.
This is the man who hired elephants for a battle scene on a beach because it fitted the scene.

Zak Snyder deserves full credit for even managing to get it on screen, never mind getting it as close as he did. Just think what Watchmen could have been like in Bay's terms.

/shudder

What part of "War and Peace," did you actually like? And if I have grown up loathing to read, why did I read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

 

[Lavi]

LOTR. Yes, I read the books. They're rather dull and cannot hold my attention (whereas with Crime and Punishment I read 350 or so pages in one sitting). The movie cuts out a lot of stuff that, well, no one cares about except hardcore fans.

 

[Rational-Delirium]

I'd have to go with (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was in desperate need of an editor, and I think that's what Peter Jackson's main goal was: not to change incredibly major things, but to fix pacing and to NOT show the destruction of Isengard in flashback.

 

[NBSRDan]

Two examples comes easily to me:

-The Lord of the Rings trilogy
The Lord of the Rings books are extremely boring due to being 90% descriptions of scenery. The movies replace this with just showing it in the background, and fill the rest of the time with high-production-value battles.

-Watchmen
The Watchmen comic suffers from a lot of filler, most obviously the pirate sub-comic. In order to get it down to near-average length, the movie had to have all of that cut.