Movies That Were Better Than The Book

[Shoggoth2588]

Lord Of The Rings - it feels like sacrilege to say it, but there's an awful lot in the books that a good editor would have cut out. We didn't need eleven pages of Elven song, or Tom Bombadil (at all). Peter Jackson cut what needed to be cut and made the whole vision much more compelling.

I didn't watch the entire trilogy but Two Towers was much easier to get through in the form of a film than the book. God, I HATED that book. It took 3 times before I could get through it and I was only able to do that because I knew Return of the King would be better.

Other than Lord of the Rings I can't really think of any others...I can't wait to see how The Hobbit stacks up...

 

[spartan231490]

Lord Of The Rings - it feels like sacrilege to say it, but there's an awful lot in the books that a good editor would have cut out. We didn't need eleven pages of Elven song, or Tom Bombadil (at all). Peter Jackson cut what needed to be cut and made the whole vision much more compelling.

I disagree on a massive level dude. LoTR books did have a lot of unneeded extra that a good editor would have cut out, but the movies took it way, way, way, too far. Tom Bombadil was a great section, many people's favorite section of the first book, and it helped reveal the character of the hobbits, and how niave they were to the realities of adventuring. The return to the shire was epic and important, it showed the fate of Saruman and Wormtongue; they cut out the arrival of the rangers to help Aragorn, which was a sign of his growing authority, and his increased willingness to accept it; they also cut out a great deal having to do with the paths of the dead, and they changed the method of Arargorn's attack which also helped to reveal how good of a leader he was, and how honorable he was. They also turned Faramir into an asshole who fell to temptation, instead of his original honorable personality.

OT: I can't recall any movies that were better than their sources, but I have not read all of the source material for all of the movies I have seen.

 

[LITE992]

Lord Of The Rings - it feels like sacrilege to say it, but there's an awful lot in the books that a good editor would have cut out. We didn't need eleven pages of Elven song, or Tom Bombadil (at all). Peter Jackson cut what needed to be cut and made the whole vision much more compelling.

This. Ok, it's an awesome story; I'd read it over and over again, but I feel like I'm suffering through great walls of text to get through the story. The movies were well done in that it had everything in it to make it work.

 

[penguindude42]

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I am a thousand levels of sorry.

~Tom<3

 

[MrMixelPixel]

I'd have to say Coraline definitely comes to mind. Fantastic movie... mediocre book.

 

[Jacco]

Jurassic Park. Way, way, WAY better than the book.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Minority Report. It wasn't really a book, it was a short story. Spielberg really managed to distill a ton of elements from other Philip K. Dick stories into the movie, using the relatively staid Minority Report story as a jumping off point. I also thought Apocalypse Now was a little bit better, but the book was really good, too. They compliment each other. Never finished The Godfather book myself, even though I loved the movie. MASH is another example, but again, the book was also good.

 

[Apollo45]

Lord Of The Rings

Lord of the Rings.

Blasphemy! Madness! Insanity!!

The movies are some of my favorites of all time, but the books are the books. Tolkien revolutionized fantasy as we know it, and the books were spectacular. Heavily detailed, extremely intricate, and I thoroughly enjoyed the songs that he took the time to both write and put in there. The languages, everything was spectacular.

I will admit, however, that I can see where those with a... lesser mental capacity than myself (read: I just love heavy detail, the mental capacity thing is a joke) would see the movies as being better.

Still, blasphemy.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I am a thousand levels of sorry.

~Tom<3

You'd better be sorry. I can't fathom how anyone could think of the movie, which was decent but nothing special, to be better than the funniest books ever made.


As for my own, I have to go with Fight Club. Likely because I saw the movie before I read the book. I still think the movie is better though. Edit: And Jurassic Park. Definitely Jurassic Park.

I'll add that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is about even between the book and the movie in my mind. Both are good for their own reasons, which are, oddly completely different from each other. The book was good because it gave me so much more to reference and look in to than the movie, and it seemed deeper. But the movie's visuals were spectacular, it was remarkably faithful to the book, and being able to see the battle instead of getting a three page summary of it made it so much better.

 

[ShotgunZombie]

Watchmen if only because the ending of the movie makes way more sense, to me anyway, than the ending of the book...

 

[Shadu]

Howl's Moving Castle. It's my favorite movie but not my favorite book.
The film is very different from the book, especially in the second half and I prefer it.
The book isn't bad though.

My answer stolen out from under me...sort of.

Anyway, I agree. This is my only example really. Well, the only one I can vouch for.

 

[nothingspringstomind]

Screamers
Much preferred the off world setting of the film over the story

 

[Veylon]

Planet of the Apes. As cheesy and bizarre as that series of movies got sometimes, they were still much better than their literary inspiration.

 

[WarKirby]

Stephen King's The Mist (movie is just called The Mist)

A really great horror film about monsters.
The book just sort of stopped, with an inconclusive sequel-enabling ending.

The film on the other hand, ties things up neatly with what has the be the funniest twist i've seen in ages. in a black humor kind of way

 

[WarKirby]

Oh and Watchmen. I've not read the comic personally, but my research about it indicates a lot of confusing crap about a giant tentacled alien. The Film cuts that and works better with existing characters, so the plot eventually arrives at the same conclusion, but in a different way that doesn't feel like a stupid deus ex machina

 

[Mallefunction]

Watchmen if only because the ending of the movie makes way more sense, to me anyway, than the ending of the book...

Oh yeah. I loved the comic, but this ending just made more sense and seemed less forced.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Stephen King - Misery

The book was shite and I seriously wanted to burn it. The movie was actually pretty good. That is the ONLY one I have seen so far that I can honestly say that about. I prefer books to mives so...

 

[BringBackBuck]

Trainspotting.

The book was written in a heavy scottish accent, so was really hard to get into - you had to sound a lot of words out just to figure out what was written. When spoken (particularly by an awesome Robert Carlisle) it made plenty of sense. Also a lot of the darker stuff from the book was taken out of the film. Oh and the movie had the advantage of a cool soundtrack.

 

[JWRosser]

Although the book of the Godfather is still great, the film is better I think.

Also Lord of the Rings - the books are pretty awesome, but they're a ***** to read, and Tolkein tends to over-describe things methinks....Plus the films are three of my favourite films.

Interview with the Vampire - again, whilst the book is quite good, I found the film to be a tad better.

 

[Avaloner]

I must say that I skipped most of the songs in Lord of the rings books, I mean I love the books, have read the hobbit aswell as the ringstory(the three books, not the prequels and such) maybe around 3 times, but I just can't stand those damn songs or storys, instead of drawing me in they completely destroy the experience for me.

Having said that the Movie is visually stunning of course and its great, but too much was cut out in my opinion.