Movies that are actually BETTER than their source material.

[Seracen]

I actually preferred the film Starship Troopers to the book. I could be that I was entirely too young to read the book at the time, but still...

At the time of its release, I also preferred the film Blade over the comics it was based on. Recently, Blade has gotten better treatment in print, but I feel the film was a case of a big production turning a B-lister into greatness.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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.

The thing I like about the book is how it portrays a futuristic military force. I don't have to agree with fascism to enjoy reading about it. But give props to Heinlein, he took the concept of combat mechs and ran with it, going into far more detail than any other author I can think of. The novel was written as Heinlein's response to the way the United States Army was run, and the dude went into enough detail you'd think he already had his own army.

EDIT
Oooh, ooh, I've got one I totally forgot! Prince Caspian the movie is waaaay better than the book. The book isn't bad, just... not a lot happens in it. The expansions made by the film were great, and they lent a lot more tension to certain scenes.

 

[Olas]

The Chronicles of Narnia: all 3 of them.

Not to criticize the books, but they're short and simple and mostly child oriented, the movies on the other hand are much grander and more detailed, elevating the source material while still being loyal to it.

 

[Alarien]

I am an absolute Tolkien geek and I, of course, disagree with the LOTR comments, however, I complete understand why certain changes were made and why people prefer the movie versions. I can completely accept their rationale. I think Peter Jackson took something that was far more opaque than we recognize today and made it accessible, and did a great job at it.

That said:

Jurassic Park.

Wonderful movie. Horrific book.

 

[jamail77]

Off the top of my head I can't think of anything, which might have something to do with me not reading much anymore since books are the first thing to pop into my head in regards to the source material aspect of this question. I will throw in something that I've seen a few people point out in regards to the new historical comedy-drama movie Saving Mr. Banks. Ignoring any dramatizations, historical revisionism, downplaying, or other tampering to actual events I've seen some people comment that it's ironic how powerfully P.L. Travers resisted a Marry Poppins jump to film considering how much better it was than her book. I've never read the book so I can't say myself. Decades later, this author still supposedly hated what her work had been turned into though it is very possible how she perceived Disney's treatment of her had more to do with that.

 

[Tombsite]

STARDUST!
A criminally underrated movie that is much better than the book. Why is it better than the book? The book does not contain any skypirates or voodoo doll controlled princes. And anyone who has seen the movie would know how good those two things are.

 

[soren7550]

Ooh, thought of one none of y'all mentioned: Warm Bodies

The book takes itself far, far too seriously, and has several parts that contradict itself/doesn't make sense (R is said to have 'died' fairly recently and is dressed for office work, yet the book says that society collapsed about ten years prior to the start of the book; apparently reading is a skill that rather few people have ten years after society ends; etc.). The movie does away with all that. It's much more light hearted, it gets rid of a bunch of crap, and it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's sort of in the same vein as Shaun of the Dead.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Jurassic Park. The book is just another Michael Crichton story- Amazing technology goes wrong due to shady business types and the protagonists are experts in their field trying to figure out how to sort it all out. Literally every Crichton book I've ever read has had that premise.

The film works much better because it's the perfect vehicle for Steven Spielberg. The animatronics are fantastic, John Williams' score is awesome and the cast is pretty good. Even the child actors aren't that grating.

 

[CarrieWhitaker]

Jurassic Park is a definite one I can agree with, the book is painful to read really, after seeing the far more spectacular movie. Fantasic work on Spielberg's part, getting the actors, tech, and look to work in a way that made it amazing.

I saw last page that someone mentioned Ghost in the Shell. That's a VERY big case of YMMV. Lot of people liked the Stand Alone Complex series better than the movie. Plot and characterization over style, seriously. And being 'more like the manga' in some aspects was not a bad thing. Just that the Tachikomas were a dividing factor to some. For myself? I liked em. ^_^

 

[Angelowl]

Regarding Lotr, I have only two real complaints. The elves at Helm's Deep served no literary purpose what so ever. They showed up, died a bit and disappeared. Were they ever mentioned afterwards? And I would say that it lowers the stakes a bit and ruins the tention somewhat. It was still pretty damn good so I am willing to overlook it.

The other is a bit worse. The Army of the Dead, *God Mode Engaged*, the whole host of evil crumbled beneath them and would simply not stand a fraction of a chance. In the books he arrived with the Grey Company, representing the Dunedain of the North, as well as the army of Dol Amroth representing the Dunedain of the South. Meaning that he arrives at the head of a army of Arnor and Gondor reunited as the last remnant of the royal lines. Hence "Return of The King". All the symbolism was lost in the movies, and we saw a total of what? 4 Dunedain?
The original version would be just a lot more powerful and emotional, giving them another scene of a massive host marching into battle. Hell, we could actually have seen some easterlings fight while we are at it.

OT: V for Vendetta, the original work was far from bad. It was a masterpiece, and really hit home. Yet the movie delivered it with a superior force thanks to the brilliant acting. I know none improvements to the movie that could be made, but I'm sure there is something somewhere.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

Jesus the Harry Potter files were AWFUL in comparison to the books I thought. Each to their own.
I would have to say Lord of the Rings. Although I read and enjoyed the books they're perhaps too wordy and over explanatory to maintain a captivating continuity. The movies on the other hand were outstanding, and visually represented what I wasn't catching in the books. Brilliantly acted, incredible sets and really atmospheric. The extended versions in particular fill in a few holes.
Another one is the Wallander TV series, really good crime show.
Cheating a bit but I'd also say BBC's Sherlock. Really clever, funny and the modern twist is great. Each actor is perfect for their role.
I think I'd agree with Catching Fire. Collins is a bad writer who got lucky with a good concept and ran with it (thank god her readers hadn't watched Battle Royale). I thought the first book was great, second one ok, just about enjoyable, but the third one had me wishing I'd given up after the first book. Awfully paced unimaginative garbage. The movies are so far so good though. I hope they can work the third book into a good movie.