Movies that are actually BETTER than their source material.

[MetalDooley]

Another vote for Jaws here.The book is good but it's the type of thing you read once and then forget about whereas the movie is an absolute classic that I've watched multiple times

 

[Nadia Castle]

'Cloud Atlas. The book is amazing, but the movie... the movie is something out of this world.'- Defiantly agree, the book blew me away but the film was such a masterpiece of editing, make-up, acting and music that it ended up being so much more. The editing together of all the final scenes felt so much more powerful than it could have in text form.

 

[Kotaro]

It's not exactly BETTER than the book, but the movie adaptation of "Cloud Atlas" is equally good, in my opinion. Some things it did better than the book, but there are other things that the book did better.
I recommend both.

 

[Korenith]

'Cloud Atlas. The book is amazing, but the movie... the movie is something out of this world.'- Defiantly agree, the book blew me away but the film was such a masterpiece of editing, make-up, acting and music that it ended up being so much more. The editing together of all the final scenes felt so much more powerful than it could have in text form.

See I found myself feeling the opposite. Whilst I liked how they did the film I don't think there was enough room in a single movie to do the book justice. In the film I felt quite unattached to a lot of the characters and their threads whereas the book has time to build up each story so I care what happens. I found in the movie, the moment I got into one story we jumped off to another and I missed the structure of a story within a story within a story that the book had. That said the use of the actors and their make up was inspired and visually it's stunning.

 

[Syzygy23]

Also, While I don't think that Watchmen movie was much better than the comic, I do think that Ozymandiases plan to unite USA and USSR was better in the movie (some stupid allien attack vs framing Dr. Manhattan).

I have it the opposite way regarding that.
If Dr. Manhattan wanted to attack the planet, there was nothing they could do about it at least they would stand a chance against an imaginary enemy like aliens.

What I don't get is why doesn't EVERYONE start using the machine that zapped Dr. Manhatten out of the universe without killing him? It gave him super God-like powers, what's to stop it from working on everyone else?

 

[Ishigami]

I?m throwing an Anime:

Ghost in the Shell

The animated feature is nothing like the manga. I mean at all. Motokos character, the atmosphere and the visualization of the world all changed from the source and I believe for the better.
The animated feature is better because it focus on the important stuff cutting all the unimportant subplots. The shift in tone to a way more serious story without all the comic relief makes for more gripping experience all the meanwhile the introverted Motoko makes a way more compelling case for her urge to explore the puppet master than the tomboy of the manga ever could.
I like the manga for what it is, I really do, but the anime is so much better in conveying the message that when I think about GitS the anime comes to mind way before the manga.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

What I don't get is why doesn't EVERYONE start using the machine that zapped Dr. Manhatten out of the universe without killing him? It gave him super God-like powers, what's to stop it from working on everyone else?

As I remember it he was one of the few who would have the knowledge to assemble himself due to his watchmaking youth and theoretical physicist adulthood.
And it was a freak accident on the side

 

[Dr. Cakey]

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

My only complaint about the Monogatari anime is that they cut some really great material, and some important stuff as well. It all coheres, so they did an excellent job of choosing what to cut, and as a TV series it has to be more compressed than something written, but it still makes me sadface. They cut the best part of Nekomonogatari. The best part.

At the very least, though, I would consider them equal.

 

[Cooperblack]

Not a movie but I find the Tv adaptation of Game of Thrones far superior than the Books, I don't really like G.R.R Martin's writing style(in fact I find it pretty poor).. But I do like the story.

 

[EiMitch]

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 don't buy the "apples and oranges" logic in this case. I say those stark differences made the movie better than the book for damn sure. The movie didn't just satirize war, it also satirized fascism. The book, on the other hand, glorified fascism. I hated the book for that reason alone. What else matters? The book had battle-mechs and the movie didn't? Ppht! Whatever. Fascist propaganda sucks, and this one got the film adaptation it deserved.

 

[shootthebandit]

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.

Ive not seen the 7th and 8th yet so I cant comment

Im not saying im a huge fan of the movies. I like them but im not a massive potthead (if this isnt the name for potter fans it should be). I think they are really pretty films with great actors (pretty much all the adults are well known UK actors). They are just good movies to sit down and watch and not concentrate too much on (im sure like yourself if you concentrate too much you are bound to spot A LOT of mistake). I can happily sit down and have a good time watching the movies whereas the books I struggled to get past the first couple of chapters before giving up.

Each to their own I suppose. I just find them much more entertaining in a movie format

 

[rbstewart7263]

Id say that movie where they could curve bullets. Wanted yeah. the comic was just fight club and watchmen smashed together. I thought it was boring as hell. Oh no the protagonist does what! he lets his girl sleep around on him and eats unmanly gourmet sandwitches! better get a badass in here to tell him that deep down hes a badass and not a pathetic waste of space.blegh. movie was better though by far.

 

[Rastrelly]

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'm not saying Blade Runner is better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?... but the movie nails a lot of stuff the book never paid much attention to in the first place. Namely the character of Roy Batty. He's a secondary enemy in the book and has none of Rutger Hauer's chilly Ubermentsch awesomeness. No climactic fight either. Also the movie makes it a point to question Deckard's humanity whereas the book more or less skims over it. The book also has two protagonists and whenever the story isn't focusing on Deckard it loses momemtum. It's not bad by any means, but kudos to the screenwriters for improving a lot of stuff.

Very much so. As said, it's not really that one's better than the other, but both work very well on their own and tackle some of the same material in different ways. That's more you can say for many book to movie adaptations. Either they do it worse, or they do it well but require a firm knowledge of the source material to really "get."

... except the movies didn't show what the books were about. I am talking about The Scouring of the Shire, without which Gray Havens part is kinda useless, and which is the part everything was leading to, the ultimate moral end philosophical basis of the trilogy.

 

[BaronVH]

Many of my long time answers to this topic have been mentioned. Shining, Godfather, and Jaws are my easiest. Some others are more obscure. Anatomy of a Murder is another that few people might be familiar with. From Here to Eternity is another for me. The Mist is better than the novella to me. Also the Walking Dead before they ditched Darabont. While I enjoy TWD, the current writing is poor. There are many that are just the opposite with changes that befuddle the mind. Jurassic Park would have been much, much better if it followed the book more. I also think some subtle changes in Peter Jackson's Hobbit and LOTR would have improved them greatly. In the last Hobbit just the short scene with Beorn is an example of this.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

A Clockwork Orange. I just felt that it worked better visually as a film (as opposed to the tiresome chore of penetrating through Alex?s thick ?nadsat? dialect throughout the more overdramatic yet underwhelming book), Malcom McDowell is fucking perfect as ?Your Humble Narrator?, and it omitted the ending chapter that seemed to give us the left-field and totally retarded message of ?Sociopathy is just a teenage phase? (I might be getting the message wrong, but that?s what it felt like Burgess was trying to say, what with Alex just getting bored with beating up people rather than actually reforming from seeing how his actions had damaged people ? he was the same bastard from start to finish). Also, dat soundtrack tho.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Ok not a movie but Game of Thrones. And i read them first, watched them second. The books are interesting but not particularly top tier fantasy writing. They are long, drawn out, poorly paced, largely dull and more medieval fiction than actual fantasy. The television captures the characters (mostly) and presents them in a way thats exciting and compelling without the dull dull dry dry man that mr martin is.

 

[RonHiler]

I guess everyone has their own opinions, but WOW. Those of you saying The Shining (movie) was better than the book? I could not possibly disagree with you more. The book is a classic, and showcases King's talent in his prime. The movie bears no relation at all to the book other than the characters are named the same and it has the same setting. To be honest, if Kubrick wanted to make a horror movie, why even use the book at all? He clearly wanted to tell his own story rather than adapt what King wrote. I don't really understand why he didn't just write an original script.

But then, I think Kubrick is possibly the most overrated director of all time. I pretty much hate everything he ever did (possibly with the exception of Full Metal Jacket, which wasn't bad), and I'm a huge Stephen King fan, so I'm not exactly unbiased.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't agree with the several people saying The Shining was better than the book though. The film has some good moments and yes it's all very clever from a technical film making point of view but as a story with characters it's very shallow and my least favourite of Kubrick's work (that I've seen so far). Contrast that with King's book where characters are the be all and end of his novels and the film seems like its innards have been scooped out.

Completely agreed. I loved the book; important themes like alcoholism were dealt with much better than they were in the film. The film was an example of fantastic cinematography and sound, but it reduced the story to more of a simple ghost/madness story, which it shouldn't be. I enjoyed the book greatly.

 

[Bruce]

Have to disagree with all the people saying Lord of the Rings.

The movies kind of eliminated everything that made Frodo a tolerable protagonist, over-suped up Legolas, and took Gimli, who was supposed to be a stoic warrior race type guy, and turned him into the comic relief.

The other major flaws were in Faramir and Denethor, and how the movie dealt with their relationship. Faramir is weakened overall as a character, losing his defining trait (namely wisdom). His father meanwhile is turned into an insane despot desperate to retain power, whose defining moment was a marathon sprint while on fire in order to jump off a high wall at its most dramatic point.

For me the movie that did better than the books is - Dr Strangelove. Beats Red Alert hands down.

 

[TakerFoxx]

I have it the opposite way regarding that.
If Dr. Manhattan wanted to attack the planet, there was nothing they could do about it at least they would stand a chance against an imaginary enemy like aliens.

If I recall (could be wrong, it's been a while since I've seen the movie), the idea with the threat being changed to Dr. Manhattan wasn't that he was an enemy that they had to unite against, but that they felt that he was telling them to knock that shit off, and they complied for fear that he would blow them up again.

Anyway, for me it would be Holes. The book was great, make no mistake, but the movie was just awesome. Helped that the original author wrote the script. Pity that Shia Labeouf's best role was also one of his firsts, as everyone remembers him for Transformers now.