Movies that were BETTER then the Books
- Thread starter michiehoward
- Start date
The new one with Knightly?Scabadus said:
I loved the movie, but the slaughtered some on the main points of the book and over romantized to make it more lovey dovey and appealing to modern audiences.
I'm personally an Austen fan and Bronte fan lol
Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust was adapted from the 3rd VHD novel, 'Demon Deathchase'. The book was a fairly pointless cross-country ramble where a bunch of unlikeable and often outright ridiculous characters chase and fight each other and it all ends in an arbitrary slaughter which makes the entire story effectively meaningless. The movie strengthens certain weaker aspects of the plot (the Meier/Charlotte romance- Charlotte didn't even get a NAME in the book), rejigs a few of the characters to make them cooler and more likeable (the Marcus Brothers, the Barberois), adds a proper antagonist to give the film a proper climax and changes the pointless and depressing ending into one which was still sad but undeniably cool. The result...
...is probably my favourite action movie of all time.
...is probably my favourite action movie of all time.
holyshit I can believe I haven't got slaughtered about my opinion of the LotR, and that people actually agree yahhhh! lmao
Agree. Reading that book was hard work, and the movie excellent.SmartIdiot said:
I found Trainspotting similar, the movie was better and dropped some of the nastier stuff in the book
I'm going to have to add my vote to LotR. Honestly, shittiest piece of literature I've ever slogged through. It came greatly recommended decades ago to me from my parents (both have the collector's, red leather version)... and I honestly enjoyed the appendices better than the actual story. The Silmarillion was better.. and that was 'mythology'. 
At least the movies were awesome.
I will never understand anyone who says Tom Bombadil is an awesome character. Ever. Maybe if you're high while reading it. Blegh. Incredibly dry, boring fiction.
At least the movies were awesome. I will never understand anyone who says Tom Bombadil is an awesome character. Ever. Maybe if you're high while reading it. Blegh. Incredibly dry, boring fiction.
anyone else see the slight irony in simple grammar errors - that would likely originate from someone who hears words more than they read them - in a post title that gives the impression the author may like movies more than books?
don't get me wrong, I is terrible in grammar. Also, I've never really read a book in my life (not something i'm proud of) so I couldn't really comment.
don't get me wrong, I is terrible in grammar. Also, I've never really read a book in my life (not something i'm proud of) so I couldn't really comment.
I liked how A Clockwork Orange ended with the possibility of him going on a rampage rather than just growing up and wanting to have a family in the book. I understand that this a had a point and meaning to the author, but I still would rather it have ended on a bad note.
Personally, I read the entire LotR trilogy by the time I was 11. It was REALLY hard, especially with my ADHD, took me forever...about a year. That being said, I found the movies very approachable, faithful to the original narrative, and entertaining. I missed small details, like Tom Bombadill, but I can understand their exclusion from the movies.michiehoward said:
Is the movie better...eh. I think it is dependent on what you're looking for, and I'm certainly not going to rip on someone's opinion on this subject.
I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of a "movie was better" example. Really the best I can think of at the moment is Pokemon. Not a fan of the manga, the movies were...less than ok, but better than the manga IMO. ...Really digging to the bottom of the barrel for that example...
I really have yet to read a book and see a movie and think that the movie was somehow better.
obviously some of the visuals in the films have been better then some of the places i visualize while reading, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. I would say easier to sit through, but not better.
The only thing that would be close is fight club. but again i think this is less for plot and more for accessibility, the book was a bit too frantic at times.
obviously some of the visuals in the films have been better then some of the places i visualize while reading, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. I would say easier to sit through, but not better.
The only thing that would be close is fight club. but again i think this is less for plot and more for accessibility, the book was a bit too frantic at times.
Titus (1999)
from Titus Andronicus by Shakespeare. It was a weird, violent Shakespeare play that somehow worked really well as a movie.
from Titus Andronicus by Shakespeare. It was a weird, violent Shakespeare play that somehow worked really well as a movie.
I was going to say something of the sorts. Also, Great Expectations. Our class just had to kill time after exams, so we were advised to try these books, and we watched the movies. I read 25 pages of Great Expectations, refused to pick up Pride And Prejudice. We had to watch both the movies, and it was much easier to multi-task, i.e. Laugh at the emo Mr Darcy guy with my friends...Scabadus said:
I did read it when I was about 11 or something, and I freaking loved it. Especially the nitty gritty violence and gore.PhiMed said:
OT: I can't really think of a movie that did a better job than the book. I think the best an adaptation can do is show you the story in a different way. Or atleast, that's what it should do. Both the LoTR and Watchmen movies did certain things better than their book-counterparts and vice versa.