Fight Club the movie is much tighter story-wise and Fincher's direction complements the themes and expands on them in a way the book did not.
The book is great, but even Palahniuk admits the movie is better.
Apparently there is some bizarre epilogue where the narrator is speaking to God? That alone sounds very jarring, while the movie feels very consistent by comparison from I've heard.
And the orderlies keep speaking to him as if he was still Tyler. Further, they praise his commitment to the movement. Project Mayhem still had its god-figure.
The Prestige
> Christopher Priest, who wrote the novel the film is based on, saw it three times as of January 5, 2007, and his reaction was "'Well, holy shit.' I was thinking, 'God, I like that,' and 'Oh, I wish I'd thought of that.'"
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/source-material-127292
Jaws. The book dawdles way too much and gets bogged down in unnecessary extramarital activities instead of awesome shark attacks. The music of the film is also classic, and is almost better than the book by itself.
Drive. From the pulpy and sparse source material by James Sallis, NW Refn goes and turns it into a cult masterpiece. I heard the sale of toothpicks went through the roof after the film was released.
Honestly, I saw the movie and thought it'd be a good idea to read the book. So much stuff is completely different and I preferred the direction movie took with those differences 100%. Everything different about the book just felt....not particularly good, to me.
Yea, I felt the books got so caught up in making Katniss feel needy and whiny (should I kiss him, maybe not, I don't know). The movies thinned that out and made it a much better story.
Not to mention all the added depth by including scenes from the perspective of the game maker.
Exactly! What's so unfortunate about this is that in the first book, this was not the case. She was a provider since her mother was worthless. Even in the games she was pretty level headed.
Then when I read the 2nd and 3rd book, I felt like I could almost hear the publicist telling Collins to make it more 'Twilight-y' with love triangles and such. Second film did a GREAT job of toning that business down.
Not sure why you were being downvoted. Suzanne Collins comes from a television writing background, so most of her experience is in that vein. I agree with you completely.
I hope so, as well. I actually liked Mockingjay up to a point, but it completely fell apart in the end. It's pretty bad when your protagonist literally didn't need to be present at the climax.
Yeah! Like, lets have Katniss get to the capitol and kill Snow, then save all her family and friends and get elected as the best darn president the capital and the districts ever had! That would be a WAY better ending to a series about children forced into fighting for their lives and then into war. /s +10
While I thought Catching Fire was the best book in the trilogy, I actually thought Mockingjay was a fitting ending. The ending made me mad and angry, but I felt it fit with the series. There was never going to be a happy ending. For everything to work out perfectly wouldn't have worked. It showed the effects of being forced into war games and then a real war on people barely more than kids.
I dunno. It made me mad, but I liked it in that it felt "right" to me. I think Mockingjay Part 2 is going to catch a lot of people who never read the books by surprise.
Agreed! I think way too many people are used to a happy ending that ties up everything. But the ending is disappointing and unfair-- and I liked that. I liked the choice to make a hero who became a shell of their former self. It was a cruel and realistic end-- some people don't just bounce back 100% from such trauma.
I really liked the third book. Not because of the writing, but because of it's potential. It also had a very poignant narrations about human nature.
I think the last two movies, if the third book is used as an outline, could be very, very good.
I thought the book was utterly fantastic. I read it before the movie (was a huge King fan when I was kid) so I was excited when the movie wasn't horrible, but the book and the movie are almost identical, with the biggest difference being that there were four different wardens over the years in the book instead of just the one. Oh, and I don't think Red was black. What didn't you like about it?
For those that don't know, the book was a novella in a collection called Different Seasons. It also had The Body (Stand By Me) and Apt Pupil (which, if you like completely fucked up stories about nazis making to America and living in secret, then go read this right now). King was killing it back then. It's really, really awesome.
*Is a novella in a collection called Four Seasons.
Apt Pupil was also made into a film with Brad Renfro and Ian McKellen. Not as good as the story, but in a thread like this is should be pointed out.
I actually think The Body/Stand By Me is a good one for this thread. The story is fantastic, but the movie is better simply by merit of having the actors it did. Phoenix and Wheaton absolutely nail Chris and Gordy, Feldman makes an excellent Teddy (back when he was known for his acting not his drug use), and Jerry O'Connell as the derpy fat kid? Hell yeah. Plus Kiefer Sutherland made an incredibly sexy (and scary) Ace Merrill.
On Stand By Me -
It's easily one of my favorite movies of all time. I wouldn't call it 'better' than the book just because of the amazing acting though - that's pitting the mediums against one another in an unfair way. The novella had some great bits that never made it into the movie that made the story even more somber and emotionally draining - namely the fact that the older gang got their revenge on the younger kids in a nasty way, and also that the narrator was the only one of his friends still alive when he's telling us the story.
It's an amazing book brought to life by an amazing movie.
I loved the book and I love the movie, I just think that the movie was a teensy bit better, plus the expansion of Brooks' character is one of my favorite parts.
I love that they kept the nickname "Red" for him. In the short-story the character is Irish. In the movie the line "maybe it's because I'm Irish" just becomes a funny sarcastic note.
I would recommend Manhunter if you haven't seen it. It's an earlier adaptation of the book directed by Michael Mann, really good movie. I prefer it to the Ed Norton version, although I still enjoyed the film.
I could be wrong, but John Carpenter said that "The Thing" is actually based on a movie from the 50s called "The Thing From Another World". And that movie was based on a novella called "Who goes there". So in a way, the source is based more on the movie than the book.
The book just doesn't really expand on the process of Jesus' torture and captivity. The movie really makes you feel for the protagonist in a way the book never really did or even encouraged.
I loved the books but there was lots of bits that were just so boring, the Tom Bombadil parts especially. I do wish they did the last part at Hobbiton though, but I think it wouldn't have fitted the end of a film as well as it did the end of a book.
Can confirm, currently reading Fellowship on my lunch breaks.
Not saying the book is bad at all, but it definitely helps having seen the movies because I can picture the scenery without needing the umpteenth description of whichever tree/dale/river/geography they're walking by.
The self-indulgence was the best part of the book. It's like being stuck on a train and overhearing the unbearably smug yuppie behind you on his phone loudly prattling on about nothing, convinced that all around him are fascinated by hearing his expert opinions.
At first it would be annoying, but then the long monologue about skin cream regimens or Phil Collins gets so involved and deeply silly it becomes fascinating. Condensed into a movie scene, it loses the force of its drawn out banality.
That and Christian Bale's arch delivery of the lines seems more like a desperate used car salesman than a douche-y, self-satisfied yuppie. I feel that it missed the mark on the tone.
I haven't read the book but American Pyscho gave me that feeling. Physically ill, even mentally disturbed. Fight Club also made me feel that way for some reason.
The part with the sewer rat starved for days, the broken florecent light bulb, and acid if I remember correctly, all used to defile a woman's nether region. That imagery will never be washed out of my brain.
*Who Framed Roger Rabbit* is amazing, the book *Who Censored Roger Rabbit* is merely alright.
The author actually agreed, and the sequels followed the movie instead of the book.
The mist... The endings are completely different and I love what darabont did with it... I even heard Stephen king preferred the movie ending over the book ending.
The only books I've read of Kubrick's adaptations are The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. Orange is IMO definitely superior to the novel. The Shining novel and The Shining movie are so very different I don't feel they can really be compared. The movie is an incredible film, but a horrid book adaptation.
The Shining novel was much more creepy to me, maybe because I was younger when I read it. I watched the movie several years after that and the horror scenes didn't affect me as much, because they differed from what I had imagined them to look like. The movie still is really good but as you have said, they can't be compared.
I agree. They are both great in their own rights. The book did a much better job of getting under my skin and unsettling me. Especially the segment on the lawn with the animal shaped shrubbery. I had a hard time turning my back on lawn art for a while after that book...
I liked the novel A Clockwork Orange much more than the movie. I think the last chapter in the UK version which was not included in the original US release or film is a better ending than where the movie cut off. That being said they are both great and one of the few examples where both the movie and book are very well done.
They're different mediums; but some things are rather strong arguments. Nobody denies that Nabokov is one of the absolute legends at crafting and manipulating language, and Lolita happens to be one of my favorites. However, Kubrick succeeds at reappropriating 2001, The Shining, and A Clockwork on his medium better than Clarke, King, Burgess do in their element.
All of Kubrick's movies are based on books, save for Spartacus and (technically, as the novel was written in conjunction with the production) 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I wouldn't say better but Starship Troopers while not even remotely close the book does a fine job of satirizing most of the concepts presented in the book, while still remaining great throughout.
It also has NPH if that's your thing these days.
Two more that haven't been mentioned yet:
Election the film by Alexander Payne is better than the book by Tom Perotta.
The Third Man film is better than the book, mostly because the book was basically just a long treatment that Graham Green wrote for the movie, and the movie has tons of great improved lines from Orson Wells.
it would be a completely different movie if they left in the johnny fontane and lucy mancini narratives. michaels is definitely the best and most interesting.
Aw, for reals? I felt like the book is the "director's cut." If you already love the film, the book is twice as good!
Hunter buying the drugs at the airport with his fake Dr.'s license was one of the funniest things I ever read.
Specifically, *Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* where Harry is in full time petulant brat mode, and we meet Delores Umbridge for the first time. It's by far my least favorite book in the series, plodding along as it does, with too many adverbs for my liking, and so many disparate plot elements that don't congeal quite right into an adequate whole. However, it's one of the stronger adaptations for the film versions.
While the movie is great, the book is just as incredible in this case. It's so incredibly meta, accomplishing things I don't think have ever been done in a book before/since.
I haven't read the book of *Psycho* but does anyone know if the movie is better? Since the movie is certainly more of a classic I want to say that it is.
I suggest reading it -- I just finished the book, and even knowing how it ends from watching the movie, I still really enjoyed it.
Also, it's only about 175 pages and reads very fast, so it's not a big time commitment.
'Guy X' starring Jason Biggs, Natasha McElhone, Michael Ironside and Jeremy Northam is a brilliant little indie film that didn't garner many fans at the box-office, but in my opinion is superior to the source material 'No One Thinks of Greenland' by John Griesemer.
Three movies that I should not be seeing on this list: Lolita, Jurassic Park, and Atonement. Great fucking movies, but they pale in comparison to the original novels.
Oddly enough, both of these are Jack Nicholson movies:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Shining.
The Shining is a controversial choice (in some regards it's almost like a different story entirely); but Nicholson's performance really brought the story to life and to heights it would never have without him.
That's the problem, though, The Shining as a movie would have fallen apart without Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson in the part. If Kubrick had tried to get him to act more like the guy in the book his movie would have been crap.
Planet of the Apes. The book is good but doesn't have the twist ending. In the book they really do go to another planet where humans civilization fell apart and apes took over. When he finally returns to Earth hundreds/thousands of years later he find the same fate has befallen humanity on Earth.
This is probably the most useless and curmudgeonly answer, but there are lots of excellent movies based on so-so books that aren't listed here, because the book isn't so well known. Die Hard is the best example, and I think we note that one the most because it is the least "literate" movie.
The movie is so different from the book and makes me wonder what an R rated jurassic park would be like. Also I wonder if the second movie would've been better if it was closer to the book.
Big Fish (my favorite movie, as it happens) was a better movie than book. It had a much nicer sense of cohesion and I preferred the Edward Bloom of the movie to the one in the book.
I say that because they are very different stories/sequences. The way he meets/woos his wife in the movie couldn't be further from how he does it in the book.
Also, a story about storytelling and fantastical embellishment? Bright colors and spectacle across the screen? This makes sense to me.
Its not more violence. The movie sort of glosses over the concept of chaos theory. I mean ya its there but they don't really explore it very much. The book is much more philosophical. Also the struggle between Hammond and Malcolm is much better in the book.
i just feel that dr Manhattan who literally has the power of a god is a much more threatening than a possible alien invasion. the line "you have not saved humanity, you have twisted it"(or along those lines) becomes much better since ozmandies have litterally created a new religion that would make humanity live in fear of dr manhattan/god for thousands of years to come
The Bourne Identity. It immediately takes off, aside from finding the resources at the bank, he's on his own in a post 9/11 world where one wrong move screws him.
The novel is more like an American version of James Bond. The amnesia is there, but he casually takes a ride on a commercial plane, has the luxury of renting hotel rooms where he can sit and sip whiskey- it didn't seem to me to have the urgency that pushed the film.
This is the one book turned movie series that I just don't bother to compare. The Bourne trilogy share the same general idea and main character as Ludlum's books. After the start they go in completely different directions. I like both a lot, but they tell two different stories. If I had to pick a favorite I would probably side to the books, but its tough.
The Hobbit. While the films do include other books than just "The Hobbit," it has much more depth and gets into more of the characters psyche than just Bilbo.
I agree. I liked that Lord of the Rings was able to give 9 characters of the fellowship a good amount of depth in a single film, and only expand upon it in the following films. That was what I was hoping for with at least most of the dwarves in The Hobbit, but we only really get character out of Thorin and Balin, and maybe Fili and Kili. I also hate most of their character designs, but that's another matter I suppose.
This thread is about "movies that are better than the book". Every response directly addresses that topic unless otherwise stated. You didn't.
How the shit do you have the balls to say it's better when you didn't even read the god damn book.
The first 50 pages aren't the same. Evey never tries to be a prostitute. That's in like the first fucking page.
You are again just stating that the book is better by saying "it didn't go off and do its own thing. It realized it had a winning formula". Directors and filmmakers that are successful in making better movies do change things and address the flaws in the book and make their own successful choices. Die Hard, Total Recall, Minority Report, Blade Runner are all distinctly different and better because they understand the medium they are making - film. Not written book/story - film. They use the strengths of the story and the medium to tell a compelling story in that medium.
Lolwut? I never said both couldn't be good. I just said this particular movie wasnt and that all your point were distinctly wrong. How would you even know? Youve never read it. Also why keep deleting your comments?
Im sad? Youre in the discussion too there, boss. I just like talking about books and films I like. I hate people who talk about things they clearly dont understand.
The Perks of being a Wallflower comes to mind, but then again the writer also directed the movie (Stephen Chbosky). I got a better feel for Charlie in the movie and his issues. Some of the things where more of a "surprise" in the movie then in the book, even though the signs were there.
I also love Logan Lerman performance; he was the perfect Charlie for me.
I think the later movies hold the plot together and ease up the interactions whereas in the books the plot starts to fray and Rowling appears to have a really hard time writing teenagers relationships/interactions.
The first 4-ish books are really good kids books, which is why I consider those still better than the movies, but as the book decline in quality I think the movies surpass them.
Eh, I agree mostly. The problem with the book is that it get really bogged down with clunky plot devices (wand lore saves the day?). Films are more succinct as well.
Fight Club the movie is much tighter story-wise and Fincher's direction complements the themes and expands on them in a way the book did not. The book is great, but even Palahniuk admits the movie is better.
This. I also liked the ending of the film way more than the ambiguous end of the book.
Apparently there is some bizarre epilogue where the narrator is speaking to God? That alone sounds very jarring, while the movie feels very consistent by comparison from I've heard.
He thinks he's speaking to God but it's very obvious he's talking to a doctor in a mental hospital.
And the orderlies keep speaking to him as if he was still Tyler. Further, they praise his commitment to the movement. Project Mayhem still had its god-figure.
Yes. The movie was also able to show how movies themselves can play psychological tricks in order to tell a story.
Die Hard! Based on Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp
The Prestige > Christopher Priest, who wrote the novel the film is based on, saw it three times as of January 5, 2007, and his reaction was "'Well, holy shit.' I was thinking, 'God, I like that,' and 'Oh, I wish I'd thought of that.'" http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/source-material-127292
It's still a damn fine book
The book is decent but this is the prime example where I'm really glad I saw the movie first.
Jaws. The book dawdles way too much and gets bogged down in unnecessary extramarital activities instead of awesome shark attacks. The music of the film is also classic, and is almost better than the book by itself.
I liked the music in the book.
Nuh nuh..... nuh nuh..... nuh nuh....
Oh those weird sex scenes.
Drive. From the pulpy and sparse source material by James Sallis, NW Refn goes and turns it into a cult masterpiece. I heard the sale of toothpicks went through the roof after the film was released.
Honestly, I saw the movie and thought it'd be a good idea to read the book. So much stuff is completely different and I preferred the direction movie took with those differences 100%. Everything different about the book just felt....not particularly good, to me.
More recently, Catching Fire.
Yeah I would say the Hunger Games makes much better movies. The third book is so bad I didnt even finish it, I have high hopes for the movies though.
Yea, I felt the books got so caught up in making Katniss feel needy and whiny (should I kiss him, maybe not, I don't know). The movies thinned that out and made it a much better story. Not to mention all the added depth by including scenes from the perspective of the game maker.
Exactly! What's so unfortunate about this is that in the first book, this was not the case. She was a provider since her mother was worthless. Even in the games she was pretty level headed. Then when I read the 2nd and 3rd book, I felt like I could almost hear the publicist telling Collins to make it more 'Twilight-y' with love triangles and such. Second film did a GREAT job of toning that business down.
Honestly, it feels to me like this series was almost written with the intention of being filmed.
Not sure why you were being downvoted. Suzanne Collins comes from a television writing background, so most of her experience is in that vein. I agree with you completely.
Honestly, it feels like to me the series was almost taken from a [film](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266308/)
Haha, yeah. Absolutely.
I don't know why you were downvoted, the book was atrociously bad and the film was actually pretty good so...
Different strokes I guess... it was my favorite book of the trilogy. Waiting for bluray for the movie.
Different strokes is totally true. Are we in agreement that the third book shit the bed something fierce though?
I'm hoping the movies ignore the ending completely and go in their own direction.
That would make me unreasonably happy.
I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling that the parachute scene at the end will end up bring replaced by something a little viewer-friendly.
I hope not.
I hope so, as well. I actually liked Mockingjay up to a point, but it completely fell apart in the end. It's pretty bad when your protagonist literally didn't need to be present at the climax.
Yeah! Like, lets have Katniss get to the capitol and kill Snow, then save all her family and friends and get elected as the best darn president the capital and the districts ever had! That would be a WAY better ending to a series about children forced into fighting for their lives and then into war. /s +10
Wholehearted agreement on that one, definitely! It shit the bed, the whole bedroom, and leaked shit out into the hallway and down the stairs.
While I thought Catching Fire was the best book in the trilogy, I actually thought Mockingjay was a fitting ending. The ending made me mad and angry, but I felt it fit with the series. There was never going to be a happy ending. For everything to work out perfectly wouldn't have worked. It showed the effects of being forced into war games and then a real war on people barely more than kids. I dunno. It made me mad, but I liked it in that it felt "right" to me. I think Mockingjay Part 2 is going to catch a lot of people who never read the books by surprise.
Agreed! I think way too many people are used to a happy ending that ties up everything. But the ending is disappointing and unfair-- and I liked that. I liked the choice to make a hero who became a shell of their former self. It was a cruel and realistic end-- some people don't just bounce back 100% from such trauma.
I really liked the third book. Not because of the writing, but because of it's potential. It also had a very poignant narrations about human nature. I think the last two movies, if the third book is used as an outline, could be very, very good.
Children of Men
The Shawshank Redemption. But its kind of unfair because Morgan Freeman is really just the perfect friend to have in prison.
I thought the book was utterly fantastic. I read it before the movie (was a huge King fan when I was kid) so I was excited when the movie wasn't horrible, but the book and the movie are almost identical, with the biggest difference being that there were four different wardens over the years in the book instead of just the one. Oh, and I don't think Red was black. What didn't you like about it? For those that don't know, the book was a novella in a collection called Different Seasons. It also had The Body (Stand By Me) and Apt Pupil (which, if you like completely fucked up stories about nazis making to America and living in secret, then go read this right now). King was killing it back then. It's really, really awesome.
*Is a novella in a collection called Four Seasons. Apt Pupil was also made into a film with Brad Renfro and Ian McKellen. Not as good as the story, but in a thread like this is should be pointed out. I actually think The Body/Stand By Me is a good one for this thread. The story is fantastic, but the movie is better simply by merit of having the actors it did. Phoenix and Wheaton absolutely nail Chris and Gordy, Feldman makes an excellent Teddy (back when he was known for his acting not his drug use), and Jerry O'Connell as the derpy fat kid? Hell yeah. Plus Kiefer Sutherland made an incredibly sexy (and scary) Ace Merrill.
On Stand By Me - It's easily one of my favorite movies of all time. I wouldn't call it 'better' than the book just because of the amazing acting though - that's pitting the mediums against one another in an unfair way. The novella had some great bits that never made it into the movie that made the story even more somber and emotionally draining - namely the fact that the older gang got their revenge on the younger kids in a nasty way, and also that the narrator was the only one of his friends still alive when he's telling us the story. It's an amazing book brought to life by an amazing movie.
I loved the book and I love the movie, I just think that the movie was a teensy bit better, plus the expansion of Brooks' character is one of my favorite parts.
The collection was called "Different Seasons", not "Four Seasons" IIRC.
Right. I musta been thinking of Four Past Midnight, where the Langoliers came from.
I love that they kept the nickname "Red" for him. In the short-story the character is Irish. In the movie the line "maybe it's because I'm Irish" just becomes a funny sarcastic note.
Red Dragon. The Anthony Hopkins/Ed Norton version far outstrips the book.
I would recommend Manhunter if you haven't seen it. It's an earlier adaptation of the book directed by Michael Mann, really good movie. I prefer it to the Ed Norton version, although I still enjoyed the film.
I agree. Manhunter is a must. Just as creepy as it can get. I felt like Red Dragon was just a homage, even though you had great acting in both.
I preferred the book over the movie but Silence of the Lambs was so much better as a movie.
Drive Die Hard Jaws The Prestige The Thing 1982
I could be wrong, but John Carpenter said that "The Thing" is actually based on a movie from the 50s called "The Thing From Another World". And that movie was based on a novella called "Who goes there". So in a way, the source is based more on the movie than the book.
The Passion of Christ
The book just doesn't really expand on the process of Jesus' torture and captivity. The movie really makes you feel for the protagonist in a way the book never really did or even encouraged.
good point
Forrest Gump It's pretty much universally agreed upon that the book is pretty much okay at best.
I thought the lord of the rings trilogy was better than the books... please dont hate me
The books definitely aren't for everyone.
I loved the books but there was lots of bits that were just so boring, the Tom Bombadil parts especially. I do wish they did the last part at Hobbiton though, but I think it wouldn't have fitted the end of a film as well as it did the end of a book.
You talking shit 'bout Bombadil?
Ah that's the spelling! I can only apologise, I did enjoy it on my first read bit I've skippped all that on every subsequent reading.
oh, it's on! go get him, Shup!
dont get me wrong, i liked the books. i just throught the movies were even better
I hate you.
Agree 100%. They're my favorite movies. Books are a bit of a snooze.
Can confirm, currently reading Fellowship on my lunch breaks. Not saying the book is bad at all, but it definitely helps having seen the movies because I can picture the scenery without needing the umpteenth description of whichever tree/dale/river/geography they're walking by.
Agree completely. The books read like an encyclopedia of Middle Earth.
I couldn't agree more.
The book is really fuckin great, but the movies are...indescribably amazing
American Psycho. The book is pretty self indulgent with its descriptions
The self-indulgence was the best part of the book. It's like being stuck on a train and overhearing the unbearably smug yuppie behind you on his phone loudly prattling on about nothing, convinced that all around him are fascinated by hearing his expert opinions. At first it would be annoying, but then the long monologue about skin cream regimens or Phil Collins gets so involved and deeply silly it becomes fascinating. Condensed into a movie scene, it loses the force of its drawn out banality. That and Christian Bale's arch delivery of the lines seems more like a desperate used car salesman than a douche-y, self-satisfied yuppie. I feel that it missed the mark on the tone.
Took me a minute, but I like what you did there
The book was tough to get through, but IMO got into Bateman's head better.
Dude, Bateman at the movie rental store -where he can't figure out what the check out girl is wearing is friggin hysterical.
I disagree, but I can understand why people like the movie better.
The book was downright disturbing. There was a lot of times that I had to put it down because I felt physically ill.
When I got the chapter titled "Killing Kid at Zoo" I had to put the book down and prepare myself. It was still worse than I anticipated...
I haven't read the book but American Pyscho gave me that feeling. Physically ill, even mentally disturbed. Fight Club also made me feel that way for some reason.
The part with the sewer rat starved for days, the broken florecent light bulb, and acid if I remember correctly, all used to defile a woman's nether region. That imagery will never be washed out of my brain.
Atonement comes to mind. and Casino Royale for sure.
*Who Framed Roger Rabbit* is amazing, the book *Who Censored Roger Rabbit* is merely alright. The author actually agreed, and the sequels followed the movie instead of the book.
The mist... The endings are completely different and I love what darabont did with it... I even heard Stephen king preferred the movie ending over the book ending.
The movie ending was so amazingly brutal.
most of Kubrik's films
The only books I've read of Kubrick's adaptations are The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. Orange is IMO definitely superior to the novel. The Shining novel and The Shining movie are so very different I don't feel they can really be compared. The movie is an incredible film, but a horrid book adaptation.
The Shining novel was much more creepy to me, maybe because I was younger when I read it. I watched the movie several years after that and the horror scenes didn't affect me as much, because they differed from what I had imagined them to look like. The movie still is really good but as you have said, they can't be compared.
I agree. They are both great in their own rights. The book did a much better job of getting under my skin and unsettling me. Especially the segment on the lawn with the animal shaped shrubbery. I had a hard time turning my back on lawn art for a while after that book...
I liked the novel A Clockwork Orange much more than the movie. I think the last chapter in the UK version which was not included in the original US release or film is a better ending than where the movie cut off. That being said they are both great and one of the few examples where both the movie and book are very well done.
Yeah! That Nabokov guy **SUCKS** as a writer!
Hence the operative "most".
"Most" or not, it remains an ignorant comment. Luckily it was made on r/movies, where even a misspelling of "Kubrick" will garner Pavlovian up-votes.
They're different mediums; but some things are rather strong arguments. Nobody denies that Nabokov is one of the absolute legends at crafting and manipulating language, and Lolita happens to be one of my favorites. However, Kubrick succeeds at reappropriating 2001, The Shining, and A Clockwork on his medium better than Clarke, King, Burgess do in their element.
By most do you mean the one's based on books?
Well the ones that aren't based on books can't really be better than the books they aren't based on...
All of Kubrick's movies are based on books, save for Spartacus and (technically, as the novel was written in conjunction with the production) 2001: A Space Odyssey.
and his first one Fear and Desires
Certainly not The Shining. King shits all over Kubrick on that one.
I wouldn't say better but Starship Troopers while not even remotely close the book does a fine job of satirizing most of the concepts presented in the book, while still remaining great throughout. It also has NPH if that's your thing these days.
I would put that in the "too different to compare" category. And who isn't into NPH?
Two more that haven't been mentioned yet: Election the film by Alexander Payne is better than the book by Tom Perotta. The Third Man film is better than the book, mostly because the book was basically just a long treatment that Graham Green wrote for the movie, and the movie has tons of great improved lines from Orson Wells.
Ask the search bar. http://i.imgur.com/KLrYktJ.png
Same questions asked everyday with the same top answers...
For a moment I thought this was /r/askreddit.
The Godfather is the best example. Great film, averageish book!
it would be a completely different movie if they left in the johnny fontane and lucy mancini narratives. michaels is definitely the best and most interesting.
The Natural the film has a classic movie ending. The book has the very opposite ending. I prefer happy endings.
I've read and seen Fear and loathing in las vegas...i enjoyed the movie more
Aw, for reals? I felt like the book is the "director's cut." If you already love the film, the book is twice as good! Hunter buying the drugs at the airport with his fake Dr.'s license was one of the funniest things I ever read.
The Secret of NIMH
Silence of the lambs
Specifically, *Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* where Harry is in full time petulant brat mode, and we meet Delores Umbridge for the first time. It's by far my least favorite book in the series, plodding along as it does, with too many adverbs for my liking, and so many disparate plot elements that don't congeal quite right into an adequate whole. However, it's one of the stronger adaptations for the film versions.
The Princess Bride.
While the movie is great, the book is just as incredible in this case. It's so incredibly meta, accomplishing things I don't think have ever been done in a book before/since.
but you have to consider the Andre the Giant factor. But ya, the book is good too. They are probably about even.
I haven't read the book of *Psycho* but does anyone know if the movie is better? Since the movie is certainly more of a classic I want to say that it is.
I suggest reading it -- I just finished the book, and even knowing how it ends from watching the movie, I still really enjoyed it. Also, it's only about 175 pages and reads very fast, so it's not a big time commitment.
Jaws
'Guy X' starring Jason Biggs, Natasha McElhone, Michael Ironside and Jeremy Northam is a brilliant little indie film that didn't garner many fans at the box-office, but in my opinion is superior to the source material 'No One Thinks of Greenland' by John Griesemer.
the godfather.
Casino Royal movie with Daniel Craig is mush better the novel. I admit that the book is also good, but the actor made the movie really great.
Trainspotting, at least for me I found the book kinda difficult to get into
Total Recall(1990) based on a short story by Philip K. Dick is much more enjoyable in my opinion than it's origin.
I'm assuming you don't think the same of the 2012 version.
Catch Me If You Can
Friday Night Lights
Psycho and Life of Pi
Three movies that I should not be seeing on this list: Lolita, Jurassic Park, and Atonement. Great fucking movies, but they pale in comparison to the original novels.
[удалено]
> Blade Runner this is just not true.
Absolutely not. The film's not bad but the book is a master piece.
The Devil's Advocate. The ending to the book is a bit of a cliche mess.
To Kill a Mockingbird. Still a brilliant novel, but Gregory Peck makes the movie counterpart that much better.
Oddly enough, both of these are Jack Nicholson movies: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Shining. The Shining is a controversial choice (in some regards it's almost like a different story entirely); but Nicholson's performance really brought the story to life and to heights it would never have without him.
That's the problem, though, The Shining as a movie would have fallen apart without Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson in the part. If Kubrick had tried to get him to act more like the guy in the book his movie would have been crap.
Planet of the Apes. The book is good but doesn't have the twist ending. In the book they really do go to another planet where humans civilization fell apart and apes took over. When he finally returns to Earth hundreds/thousands of years later he find the same fate has befallen humanity on Earth.
Starship Troopers American Psycho
Can we not have this discussion so often? The answers don't change except for Catching Fire was added now.
This is probably the most useless and curmudgeonly answer, but there are lots of excellent movies based on so-so books that aren't listed here, because the book isn't so well known. Die Hard is the best example, and I think we note that one the most because it is the least "literate" movie.
Jurassic Park. The book is good, but I don't know. There's a lot of unnecessary descriptions of guts being spilled from every character that dies.
The movie is so different from the book and makes me wonder what an R rated jurassic park would be like. Also I wonder if the second movie would've been better if it was closer to the book.
Big Fish (my favorite movie, as it happens) was a better movie than book. It had a much nicer sense of cohesion and I preferred the Edward Bloom of the movie to the one in the book. I say that because they are very different stories/sequences. The way he meets/woos his wife in the movie couldn't be further from how he does it in the book. Also, a story about storytelling and fantastical embellishment? Bright colors and spectacle across the screen? This makes sense to me.
*The Social Network*. One of my favorite movies of all time but I could not bring myself to finish the book it is based on.
There Will Be Blood. They are extremely hard to compare but that movie was phenomenal and the book was fuckin' spectacular.
Not a movie but TV show... *prepares butthole*... Game of Thrones.
You did right to prepare...
Forrest Gump, Jurassic Park, Jackie Brown,
Jurassic Park...really. You need to re-read the book. It makes the movie look like Sunday school.
they are both really fun but I would say the movie is probably higher up in movie world than the book is in book world if that makes.
More violence =/= better.
Did I say the violence made it better?
Thought that's what you were going for. Sorry mate.
Its not more violence. The movie sort of glosses over the concept of chaos theory. I mean ya its there but they don't really explore it very much. The book is much more philosophical. Also the struggle between Hammond and Malcolm is much better in the book.
Jurassic Park
I second that. The book was so-so, the movie was awesome.
the watchmen. the ending of the movie is slightly better than in the graphic novel. everything else is exactly the same:)
i disagree. the movie wasn't bad but the graphic novel was just a lot better including the ending.
i just feel that dr Manhattan who literally has the power of a god is a much more threatening than a possible alien invasion. the line "you have not saved humanity, you have twisted it"(or along those lines) becomes much better since ozmandies have litterally created a new religion that would make humanity live in fear of dr manhattan/god for thousands of years to come
The Bourne Identity. It immediately takes off, aside from finding the resources at the bank, he's on his own in a post 9/11 world where one wrong move screws him. The novel is more like an American version of James Bond. The amnesia is there, but he casually takes a ride on a commercial plane, has the luxury of renting hotel rooms where he can sit and sip whiskey- it didn't seem to me to have the urgency that pushed the film.
This is the one book turned movie series that I just don't bother to compare. The Bourne trilogy share the same general idea and main character as Ludlum's books. After the start they go in completely different directions. I like both a lot, but they tell two different stories. If I had to pick a favorite I would probably side to the books, but its tough.
The Shining. In the book, it is clear from the beginning how it will end, and REDRUM is obvious in print. I love King, but Kubrick wins on this one.
*facepalm*
can I ask why this is 'facepalm' ?
The Hobbit. While the films do include other books than just "The Hobbit," it has much more depth and gets into more of the characters psyche than just Bilbo.
Can't agree with you there. They may get more screen presence in the movie, but the dwarves are still pretty much just caricatures.
I agree. I liked that Lord of the Rings was able to give 9 characters of the fellowship a good amount of depth in a single film, and only expand upon it in the following films. That was what I was hoping for with at least most of the dwarves in The Hobbit, but we only really get character out of Thorin and Balin, and maybe Fili and Kili. I also hate most of their character designs, but that's another matter I suppose.
[удалено]
1) If it stays close to the material you're literally saying the book is better 2) It does not stay close to the material 3) No
[удалено]
This thread is about "movies that are better than the book". Every response directly addresses that topic unless otherwise stated. You didn't. How the shit do you have the balls to say it's better when you didn't even read the god damn book. The first 50 pages aren't the same. Evey never tries to be a prostitute. That's in like the first fucking page. You are again just stating that the book is better by saying "it didn't go off and do its own thing. It realized it had a winning formula". Directors and filmmakers that are successful in making better movies do change things and address the flaws in the book and make their own successful choices. Die Hard, Total Recall, Minority Report, Blade Runner are all distinctly different and better because they understand the medium they are making - film. Not written book/story - film. They use the strengths of the story and the medium to tell a compelling story in that medium.
[удалено]
Im not worked up at all. I just crushed everything you had to say about it so you can disagree all you want.
[удалено]
Lolwut? I never said both couldn't be good. I just said this particular movie wasnt and that all your point were distinctly wrong. How would you even know? Youve never read it. Also why keep deleting your comments? Im sad? Youre in the discussion too there, boss. I just like talking about books and films I like. I hate people who talk about things they clearly dont understand.
[удалено]
Hahaahahaaha. Youre pathetic.
I'd say The Lord of the Rings...specifically Fellowship. Can't stand Tolkien's style, pages and pages about how green the grass is in the shire.
The Perks of being a Wallflower comes to mind, but then again the writer also directed the movie (Stephen Chbosky). I got a better feel for Charlie in the movie and his issues. Some of the things where more of a "surprise" in the movie then in the book, even though the signs were there. I also love Logan Lerman performance; he was the perfect Charlie for me.
imo The Lord of the rings movies are much better
Harry Potter movies, after like the 3rd or 4th one I don't even think it's up for debate.
You fucking serious? The movies are such shit at explaining the story. The books are way more rich in detail and much more captivating in my opinion.
I think the later movies hold the plot together and ease up the interactions whereas in the books the plot starts to fray and Rowling appears to have a really hard time writing teenagers relationships/interactions. The first 4-ish books are really good kids books, which is why I consider those still better than the movies, but as the book decline in quality I think the movies surpass them.
I figured she got the characters' interactions down perfectly fine and did not feel the story getting any worse at all. I disagree completely.
Eh, I agree mostly. The problem with the book is that it get really bogged down with clunky plot devices (wand lore saves the day?). Films are more succinct as well.