Movies that are actually BETTER than their source material.

[Warachia]

EDIT: I'm not gonna quote anyone but, the Harry Potter movies better than the books?? 7 billion people in the world and I honestly thought no one could ever have that opinion, there are opinions, and then there is that opinion... HERESY!

On average, I thought the books were much better than the movies, with the exception of the seventh, that book was a piece of shit. So many characters died for no reason other than shock value, and nearly all of them die off-screen too, the book even starts with hedwig dying in the dumbest possible way (a spell ricochets down a chimney and hits her randomly), there was a ridiculous amount of coincidences (everyone just happened to have a love interest that was never mentioned until near the end), plot elements that were never properly foreshadowed before (all three of the deathly hallows), terrible writing (why waste 8 polyjuice potions to make people look like harry, when you can just make harry look like somebody else?) Lastly, there's completely changing how your universe works at the end, why does a near death experience make harry invincible to all of voldemort's attacks?

The movie(s) did almost all of these much better, characters usually die good deaths (either in a fight or saving somebody else), the coincidences were still there but trimmed down a bit, since it's a movie it's easier to accept the hallows, because you know they don't have as much time to establish everything, not to mention movies are paced differently, so you have more freedom to bring in elements you haven't mentioned before (which also helps with the never before mentioned love interest), and harry doesn't randomly become invincible.

 

[Warachia]

Also, I'm genuinely surprised by how many people are saying LOTR. The books can definitely drag in some places, but the only movie that I find to be on par with the books is Fellowship. I enjoyed Two Towers until the last half hour and I really did not like his decision with Faramir. I realize it adds tension to the movie but I like that he wholly rejects to be corrupted by The Ring. Plus, I think that Frodo being killed by Shelob would have been a great cliffhanger to end the movie on. I have more negative feelings than positive feelings for Return of the King. Alas, it was my first taste of the bitter disappointment when something you so look forward to and love doesn't meet your expectations. I've learned to handle this better now, and try to manage my expectations. Live and learn as they say.

Faramir and Tom Bombadil were two things that really bothered me about the books, because they ruined the image of the ring being an all corrupting influence, everyone else is becoming corrupted or is so scared of becoming corrupted by the ring, and Bombadil not being corrupted you could sort of excuse, but yet here's Faramir who basically says "Don't worry about it, I'm not even going to try and take it, even if it Gondor's going to burn."

There's plenty of other things I didn't like about the books too (any decent editor could probably remove half of each book as unnecessary filler), but those are the only two that relate to your argument.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Basketball Diaries: the movie streamlined the book really well. The book got tedious after a bit. There's only so many times you can read about the same guy shooting heroin, nodding off, and throwing up.

Harry potter by a long shot. I couldnt really get into the books and the overall story isnt great and a bit of an x-men rip-off (school for gifted kids, one half want to save humans the others want to wipe them out). However the atmosphere created by the movies is superb, the acting is really good, the locations (a lot of them in scotland and northern england) are beautiful and the special effects are spectacular. They are just 6 movies with brilliant cinematography and good acting with an average story line

I had the opposite exp. Couldn't get into the movies until I finally started reading the books.

 

[Squilookle]

Freakin' Sahara (2005)

An adventure film adapted from a series of slow, plodding so-called 'adventures' where everyone's downright boring and completely lacking in empathy.

The movie, on the other hand, is a lean, fast paced, kick-ass action adventure that rides like a perfect blend of Indiana Jones and James Bond. The characters are great, the humour sharp, and the action pulls no punches and is a blast to watch.

There's a difference between light-hearted and 'so stupid it boggles the mind' The book was definitely the latter, while the movie was just downright great.

 

[wulfy42]

Steven king is so hit or miss with his movie/mini series adaptations.

The stand for instance is one of my all time favorite mini-series. I absolutely love the sound track that goes with it, and the characters came across so well on the screen. That being said, the book was awesome as well...and WAY longer. I think I liked the mini-series better then the book though, considering I read the book many times first, and still really enjoyed the mini-series so much.

Many other adaptations (firestarter, IT, Christine etc) just didn't work as well..either due to being way to truncated to make it into film form, or just because it didn't work nearly as well to have a silly car be a super evil spirit....when you were actually looking....at a car instead of imagining it.

Sometimes it's the actor/s that make a translation work so well. Stew redmand for instance in the Stand, just worked for me...so did Randal Flag. Another good adaptation of a book was/is One flew over the cookoos nest. Jack Nickleson made that movie in my opinion, and made it better then the source material in the process.

Another Stephen king book that I think worked well as a film (possibly better then the source material..which I think was a short story or was part of a collection of stories if I remember right) was The Shawshank redemption...again the main actors Tim robbins and Morgan Freemen (Sorry for messing up names) made the film..and in my opinion, made it better then the book (which was also quite good..and again, I had read it more then once before it was adapted).

There are other Stephen King books that where converted well into a movie/miniseries...but I'll stop with Stand By Me...yet another case of the cast pushing the story further...and in my opinion, making it more enjoyable then the original material. I'd almost put Maximum Overdrive on the list as well...except I have not read it in SOOO long, and I have only seen the movie like twice (been a good 20 years or so since I read the book!!).

Now for some "quick" honorable mentions that are not by Stehpen king:

The Princess Bride....I may have read the book, I don't remember, but the movie rocked and has some great memorable sayings!!!

Interview with a vampire: Not because the movie was that great (Though I loved the soundtrack..and it wasn't horrid), but because I HATE the first book of the series and they did a good job making it into something worth watching. I wish they hadn't ruined any chance of continuing the series when Lestat actually tells the story with they horrid adaptation of Queen of the damned.

Fight club and Bladerunner...which have both been mentioned before, and the Lord of the Rings Series...if only for Golum's My Precious....heh...never liked Tolkien...but the LoR movies worked...and me and my wife still use "My Preciouuuuussss" all the time hehe.

 

[suitepee7]

Catching Fire (The Hunger Games).

Badly written book, fantastic film.

Hopefully the 3rd one (which is just a terrible book) will get similar treatment and will be amazing.

Harry potter by a long shot. I couldnt really get into the books and the overall story isnt great and a bit of an x-men rip-off (school for gifted kids, one half want to save humans the others want to wipe them out). However the atmosphere created by the movies is superb, the acting is really good, the locations (a lot of them in scotland and northern england) are beautiful and the special effects are spectacular. They are just 6 movies with brilliant cinematography and good acting with an average story line

There's 8 movies, and they're just plot hole after plot hole. The books on the other hand manage to avoid this.

The acting, from the adults (and the trio come the 3rd film I guess), is fantastic, but cinematography and acting doesn't make up for all the plot holes, events that just straight up don't make any sense, and bad directing in a lot of scenes.

yeahhh, while i agree the acting from the adults is fantastic, and the majority of the child actors were pretty decent, i am not keen on daniel radcliffe's part in the films. he does it ok, but that's the highest praise i can give. it might be because the others were so damn good he gets overshadowed, but he's just... meh.

also, i can't say the films even slightly compare to the books for me. there's so much more detail in them that the films just gloss over completely, and things the films just miss out, and then have to shoehorn in at a later stage because it was integral to the plot of the later films.

OT: LOTR. don't get me wrong, i enjoyed the books, but they never quite felt as epic as the films did. especially seeing as the extended cut films were so long, but it all seems relevant and neccessary, whereas the books have pages of hobbit songs and tom bombadil...

 

[Reaper195]

The latter Harry Potter movies. It was incredibly hard to keep reading the books since while they contained such dark material...they were written for twelve year olds.

The Hobbit. While a lot of people were amazed and annoyed at Peter Jackson for making three films out of a relatively short book, I'm glad he did. There were a tonne of events in the book which seemed very important, or a lot of things happened, but were covered in only one or two pages. A similar thing happened with Helms Deep in The Two Towers. In the book, the battle was a page and a half with next to nothing happening. In the movie, we get some epic battle scenes, as well as some amazing character development.

 

[Azahul]

Cloud Atlas. The book is amazing, but the movie... the movie is something out of this world. I guess the sappy part of me likes the additions of love stories transcending lives, but mostly it's the fact that the book just wasn't able to pull the tricks they do with actors. The use of actors in that movie is just plain inspired. Each decision has clearly been carefully made, to the point where you can trace entirely new stories just by going through the characters each actor plays in chronological order. Tom Hanks is in a slow quest for redemption, Halle Berry is liberating herself, and then others, Hugo Weaving is evil (with one exception) no matter what he does. It's fantastic.

 

[tzimize]

The Two Towers Extended Edition I enjoy much more than the book, for one scene: Faramir and Boromir's past. That one moment put into the Extended Edition gave Faramir so much more depth than he ever got in the book. I know that people were mad that he wasn't the pure, incorruptible Faramir who immediately rejected the One Ring, but I felt that was kinda boring. He just goes "Fear not! For I don't want it!" in the book.

In the movie, there is some real tension as to whether he will suffer his brother's same fate, or if Faramir can be the man of Gondor to aspire to. I enjoy a character overcoming a problem rather than being immune to it.

Starship Troopers the movie is nothing like the book. Therefore it's hard to be "better", but it still stands up to me as one of the best War Movie satires ever produced.

I have this feeling about the entire Lotr trilogy. I am a huge fantasy book buff, but I really thing the lotr books are awful. Boring, with terrible characters. The movies are a lot better. The characters are still relatively flat but we can actually get a "few" awesome nature shots instead of ENDLESS descriptions of grey rocks or green fields. Also, thank fucking GOD they didnt include Tom Bombadil ._.

Have to disagree about the harry potter movies. While they are awesome, too much cool stuff is left out. I'd have liked extended editions of them in the least.

Also, I think Watchmen movie has a lot more entertainment value than the comic. This will usually be the case if the movie is cast right and has a decent budget, and by god the cast in Watchmen is fucking perfect. Especially the comedian and rorscach (spelling?) is A+, but the rest is brilliant as well.

 

[E-Dogg]

In some areas... the Game of Thrones HBO series has done a better job at making EVERY character sympathetic, no matter how minor or dickish they were in the books. With the obvious exception of Joffrey, of course.

Prime example: in the books Tywin Lannister was... a more restrained version of Joffrey... an asshole with little to no redeeming value... but in the HBO series, he's actually likeable, even relatable. He's still he a jerkass, but you can at least understand his motives, and he had enough Pet The Dog moments with Arya to kind of balance out his dickishness.

I have to agree here; I find the series much more enjoyable than the books. A lot of the non-important stuff has been removed, characters are more three dimensional, and here's to hoping they avoid the clusterfuck of characters with little to no relevance that keep popping up in this, and every other "epic" fantasy series out there (Jordan, i'm looking at you). One of the things that struck me about aSoIaF is that the battle scenes were not so grand/important as in other books. So the tv-show mostly deal with single characteres and the aftermath. Good choice.

 

[C2Ultima]

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is far superior to King's original novel. The book wasn't scary at all and I almost sprained my eye from all the eye rolling I did when I was reading it. In comparison, the movie has an unsettling and genuinely creepy/scary feel to it and the cinematography is gorgeous.

Beyond this, almost all Kubrick films fit in this topic.

 

[Azahul]

I have to agree here; I find the series much more enjoyable than the books. A lot of the non-important stuff has been removed, characters are more three dimensional, and here's to hoping they avoid the clusterfuck of characters with little to no relevance that keep popping up in this, and every other "epic" fantasy series out there (Jordan, i'm looking at you). One of the things that struck me about aSoIaF is that the battle scenes were not so grand/important as in other books. So the tv-show mostly deal with single characteres and the aftermath. Good choice.

I will admit that the way Martin glosses over battle scenes but goes into beyond-expected detail in sex scenes has led to me wondering if I were reading erotic fiction at times. That does make sense in the TV series at least, since I imagine a sex scene is much cheaper to shoot than a giant battle.

 

[thehermit2]

Fight Club the movie was better than Fight Club the book. I think they actually both fell flat towards the end for different reasons, the movie for the weak motivation-for-terrorism reveal and the book for the cop out ending, but the movie had better flow and was visually amazing.

Terminator 2 (the movie) was better than Terminator (also the movie). Not sure it would have been as good if there hadn't been a first Terminator since a lot of what made it great was the constant referencing to the first film.

I have been told Children of Men is much better than the P.D. James short story on which it was based. I saw the movie, haven't read the story. Good film, although it is more of a film-geek film than a mainstream film.

Soviet Heavy, good call on Starship Troopers. I liked both the book and the movie, but they were too different to compare. I'd like to say something about Puppetmasters, too, but the book was way better than the movie, and this isn't that thread.

Moribito Guardian of the Sacred Spirit (the anime) was based on a Japanese young adult novel. The show spun the novel into 26 beautifully animated and expertly paced episodes. I have not read the book, but I read the second novel in the series (I think there are about ten altogether), which leads me to believe the show was much better than the book.

The Haruhi Suzumiya anime series (the Melancholy of, the Disappearance of). Although the light novels are brilliant, the show elevates them to an art form.

The Monogatari anime series (Bakemonogatari, Nekomonogatari, Nisemonogatari, Monogatari Second Series). Again, the books are brilliant, but the anime is truly an art form.

 

[teebeeohh]

kick-ass, especially kick-ass 2
the movie turned chris from a straight up psychopath and real villain into a whiny little ***** who just spends daddies money. the scene in kick-ass 2

Spoiler

where he wants to rape nightbitch but can't get his dick up is priceless

i also liked that the showdown didn't actually happen in times square, because that makes the villains out to be actual threads but rather in a warehouse, so they just spend all their time fighting themselves.
the one thing i didn't like is the change to big daddy, he was better as comic book nerd

 

[Jiffex]

I really didnt like the hunger games movie. I havent read the books so I cant comment but I really did not enjoy that film. I can see what it was trying to achieve but I just didnt like it

The second movie is what I was talking about, not The Hunger Games.

I agree with you partially on harry potter. They do have a few plot holes but the atmosphere that they created is brilliant. Im not really into the story that much but like I said I like watching the harry potter movies just because they are a really pretty piece of cinema. I tried to sit down and read the books but i just couldnt get into them

By "a few" you must be meaning things like the entirety of the 7th film.

For example, they escape from the wedding and teleport into a random cafe in the middle of Muggle London. Moments afterwards some builders go into the same cafe, and it turns out they're Death Eaters (cue strange scene that has moments of comedy intertwined - bad directing). The trio have absolutely no idea how they were tracked down, the chances of that happening were astronomical, so they decide to constantly stay on the move, pitching up a tent in the middle of nowhere for a few days and then teleporting somewhere else, just in case they get tracked down again.

AAAAAND it's never explained how they were tracked so quickly in the movies. Literally the entire point of them moving from place to place was because of that cafe scene, and at no point do they ever explain how they were found.

Massive plot holes like that is why it's books > movie, simply because the films make almost no sense.

Didn't the Taboo explanation come in the last film when Ron comes back? I've forgotten which events happen in which film.

I like Game of Thrones more than the books but not by much, I like how they streamline the story and any major changes aren't to bad. Like the character Roz who wasn't even in the books is fantastic.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The Two Towers Extended Edition I enjoy much more than the book, for one scene: Faramir and Boromir's past. That one moment put into the Extended Edition gave Faramir so much more depth than he ever got in the book. I know that people were mad that he wasn't the pure, incorruptible Faramir who immediately rejected the One Ring, but I felt that was kinda boring. He just goes "Fear not! For I don't want it!" in the book.

In the movie, there is some real tension as to whether he will suffer his brother's same fate, or if Faramir can be the man of Gondor to aspire to. I enjoy a character overcoming a problem rather than being immune to it.

Also, that book was just such a clusterfuck of discriptions. Not only does the Fellowship split up, but it takes place in Rohan which apparently has no discernible landmarks anywhere. I only read it once a long time ago, but I was constantly confused by all the vague discriptions of treelines, fields, and lakes. Atleast in the first and third book they were in like towns and castles and shit.

The build up to the battle at Helms Deep was also way better. In the book the refugees just arrive at Helms Deep, and oh yeah, now there's like an army right behind them. Queue battle.

 

[Someone Depressing]

The Hunger Games was a ... bad movie.

The book? A crappy, Lord of The Flies/Battle Royale rip off. Yeah, entertainment is "take something, add onto it" but it's literally shameless.

A group of teenagers on an isolated island/in an isolated jungle forced to kill each other by the government?

It just so happened the movie didn't make me want to tear up all of the pages and eat them.

 

[FalloutJack]

The Hunger Games was a ... bad movie.

The book? A crappy, Lord of The Flies/Battle Royale rip off. Yeah, entertainment is "take something, add onto it" but it's literally shameless.

A group of teenagers on an isolated island/in an isolated jungle forced to kill each other by the government?

It just so happened the movie didn't make me want to tear up all of the pages and eat them.

That's more like it. Food isn't how you threaten people. Fucking threatening to blow their heads off with the press of a button is.

OT: Let's take a Neil Gaiman route. I thought Stardust was better on the big screen than the original material. 'Course, what Neil wanted to happen in both cases, happened. He wrote it and he got the creative control in production, ergo he simply converted his own piece into live action and it worked.

 

[The AmeriCanadian Gamer]

I'm going to say the LOTR movies. I know there are many arguments over what the movies did wrong and what was cut out compared to the books, but I feel the movies did a much better job of telling the same story as the books without making me want to fall asleep several times a chapter like the books did

I don't think its a bad thing that LoTR was changed. The book is a great, but its not easy on the reader. Tolkien used the book for just as much world building as he did storytelling. He made an amazing world and told an amazing story, but not in a reader-friendly way. The movies did an amazing job of translating that and opening up the mythos to more people, even if some liberties were taken.