Movies that were BETTER then the Books

[BaronFelX]

It's been said many times here, but Lord of the Rings were better as movies. I have tremendous respect for Tolkien as a creator and linguist, but good God is the trilogy boring. The weird part is that he's actually a good writer, since I really enjoyed The Hobbit. The movies did a much better job of giving life to his settings than Tolkien's endless pages of poorly crafted description ever did, though.

Fight Club is about on par, I thought. Same with American Psycho. In fact, those two movies are the truest, most meaningful translations of books to movies that I've ever seen. They aren't 1 to 1 conversions, but the movies capture the essence and important parts of the books perfectly. The main difference in American Psycho is that the book is more detail oriented (with Bateman's neurosis), more intensely violent (think Saw meets 1984), and Bateman's reality is more clearly defined.

I've not seen the movie for Catch-22, but I've heard it's not as good as the book. This I can believe, because the book is absolutely brilliant.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I have to say Fight Club. The book is very good, but the crazed and paranoid direction of David Fincher and the absolutely brilliant performances by Norton and Pitt just put it up as one of the best films ever made. Rarely has a film based on a book taken on such a tone of its own.

And Roger Ebert didn't like it. *spits*

Anytime I hear about something that man said I completely disagree with him.
Videogames can never be art, Kick Ass is "Morally Reprehensible" and Fight Club isn't a good film? He just comes across like a stuffy old elitist. Why does everyone care so much about his opinions?
Speaking of Chuck Palahniuk, he's written some of the most disgusting stuff I've ever seen. I read guts [http://chuckpalahniuk.net/features/shorts/guts] and I felt sick after it, woo! My girlfriend had to read all of Haunted for her course, I felt pretty sorry for her.

 

[GundamSentinel]

If Equilibrium's script is based on a book, I need to read it, but I can't imagine the book being much better. I guess that's more of a plug for Equilibrium. SEE IT.

The greater part of Equilibrium's plot is pretty much a ripoff of 1984 by George Orwell. Equilibrium is a great movie (actionwise) and I love watching it, but reading 1984 is better IMO, even if it doesn't have gun kata's. It's such a dark and many-layered book.

 

[Snor]

weirdly enough i would say LOTR, the book was just to detailed and boring (this is coming from a the Wheel of Time reader, so it must be true XD)

 

[nadesico33]

I'd have to agree with LotR. Admittedly, I didn't read the books until after having seen movies, but still. They are incredibly well filmed adaptations of the books. I know they aren't exact, but most of the changes made were well within the spirit of the story. Losing Tom Bombadil, losing the Barrow Downs, losing the alliance did not cause an significant impact on the story, while the visualizations of the Battle of Helm's Deep and the Ride of the Rohirrim (my personal favorite scene in the entire set, love the massed cavalry charge) just upped the level of epic feel that the books tried to have, of which there are several more I could mention.

 

[Spinozaad]

Die Hard.

Because, well... could you imagine the actual book? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Lasts_Forever_%281979_novel%29]

 

[Xrysthos]

I am Legend (Will Smith)

I really liked how they just used the book as a inspiration rather than completely ripping it off...

I disagree, completely and utterly. I won't bore you with why, or my feelings on your opinion. I just wanted you to know that I do not agree with your opinion, not one bit.

Not sure if you've seen it, but I feel that the alternative ending to the movie does the book at least some justice.

 

[oppp7]

LoTR is the obvious choice, but from what I've read on Wikipedia I think IT the book would have been too tasteless and weird to be as incredible as the movie was. Since it is my favorite horror movie of all time and Pennywise is one of my favorite antagonists I'd say it wouldn't be hard to beat the book.

 

[Proteus214]

I've been told that The Shining as envisioned by Stanley Kubrick was much better than the book by Stephen King since he tends to be a bit too verbose in his exposition, while Kubrick just concentrated on scaring the shit out of everyone. Unfortunately I haven't actually read The Shining yet. Can anyone confirm?

 

[Mezzo.]

In before "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", because remember that Adams said none of his versions are actually coherent with each other.

 

[BubbaJeff]

I've been told that The Shining as envisioned by Stanley Kubrick was much better than the book by Stephen King since he tends to be a bit too verbose in his exposition, while Kubrick just concentrated on scaring the shit out of everyone. Unfortunately I haven't actually read The Shining yet. Can anyone confirm?

Yes, yes i can. Kubrick changed the ending too. There's more of the house and grounds being haunted in the book; stuff about a wasps nest and haunted topiary, which i can't remember being in the film, which could have been cool, but i can honestly say i wouldnt change anything about the film - except maybe the leading lady - but that could just be me.

I agree with everyone who's mentioned the LotR films being better than the books but - again - it could just be me not liking Tolkien's writing style. I read the Hobbit, and felt like he was patronising me and the tone was condescending, which felt a bit off. AND OH MY GOD I DON'T NEED TO KNOW EVERY TINY LITTLE DETAIL ABOUT HOBBITS.

Whoever mentioned 'I am Legend'; well, i disagree also. That film was a pile of wank imo.

I thought this would be a very, very short thread if i'm honest. It's not often anyone will say the movies are better than the books.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

The Prestige. Yes, it was based on a book. And the book is a pile of shit. Or nowhere near as good as the film, at any rate.

And V for Vendetta, if graphic novels count.

 

[Velvo]

The Godfather! TERRIBLE book. One of the most critically acclaimed mob movies ever! Just goes to show how awesome Coppola is.

 

[chenry]

Lord of the Rings if only because the movies did one thing Tolkien never did: skip the totally unimportant shit.

I don't think anyone ever edited Tolkien's works, so there was just so much crap that didn't add to the story.

 

[ginty2]

I've been told that The Shining as envisioned by Stanley Kubrick was much better than the book by Stephen King since he tends to be a bit too verbose in his exposition, while Kubrick just concentrated on scaring the shit out of everyone. Unfortunately I haven't actually read The Shining yet. Can anyone confirm?

personally i thought that the kubrick version of The Shining sucked terribly. the book was more supernatural story. where the movie was a dude going crazy from being isolated. also the book went more into the sorted history of the overlook hotel. the book also explained why people like danny, the kid in the story, were needed by the overlook to fuel its power. the book was actually scarier than the movie on several different levels such as isolation, each family member's individual fear ( such as wendy's fear of having to resort to cannibalism, danny's actual fear of the spriits in the hotel, and the father's fear of failing his family.

 

[kingcom]

And V for Vendetta, if graphic novels count.

w...ah? What? really?

 

[Velvo]

I am Legend (Will Smith)

I really liked how they just used the book as a inspiration rather than completely ripping it off...

I disagree, completely and utterly. I won't bore you with why, or my feelings on your opinion. I just wanted you to know that I do not agree with your opinion, not one bit.

Not sure if you've seen it, but I feel that the alternative ending to the movie does the book at least some justice.

I loved that book and the movie just tore it apart. It was good, but it was totally not like the book. Yes, the alternative ending saved it in my eyes, but in the theatrical release they went for the "lets Jesus him!" route instead.

 

[Velvo]

2001 was more enjoyable as a film, but they were written near simultaneously, and are almost the same. I just think that Clarke isn't always the most stimulating or wordsmiths.

Really? I thought 2001 was good for the first part, but the whole "acid trip" ending did NOT convey what the book could about the aliens and the star child. Was it a great film? Sure was. Was it as effective as the book? Not to me.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I can honestly say that i enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies, allot more than the books.

 

[blindthrall]

I am Legend (Will Smith)

I really liked how they just used the book as a inspiration rather than completely ripping it off...

And in the process completely missed the book's message. They used that book for its title, nothing else. It could have been called "Fresh Prince of Zombiepocalypse" and nothing would have changed. They made the infected out to be nothing more than animals, so of course it's surprising when they show any trace of humanity. In the book the infected remembered your name, and would call out to you and tease you as they hammered on your barricades. I think talking zombies are much more interesting than running zombies.

/rant

I agree that LotR movies were more entertaining, Bilbo's birthday goes on forever.

But on topic, Starship Troopers. The book wasn't bad, but it was almost completely about military procedure. There was one battle, in the very beginning. The bugs were kind of pathetic. It does contain one of the first depictions of power armor, but Heinelein devotes an entire chapter to describing it. The movie pulls of a rare trifecta-it's a "message" movie, an over-the-top gorefest, and funny as hell.