Movies that were BETTER then the Books

[kickyourass]

I can't really say, if there is a movie I'd like more then the book then I've never experienced both forms.

(Sidebar: I really do feel the need to object to the Lord of the Rings, yes the movies are fucking awesome, but for those of you who say "The books have too much detail" Tolkien wouldn't be Tolkien if there weren't insane amounts of detail, if he didn't go 50 pages into the backstory of the hobbits LOTR would be just another fantasy book)

 

[Scabadus]

Pride and Prejudice. I'll wait for your double take to subside... there we go. Perhaps a surprising choice, but let me explain: when I fell asleep reading the book (English coursework, I had to) I had to pick up from where I left off. When I gave up on the book and watched the film to try and get the story and also fell asleep watching that, it was over when I woke up. So, simple logic, the less time I had to spend enduring that excuse for classic literature, the better.

The new one with Knightly?
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

I'm not sure whether it was new or whether Knightly was in it, but it was the feature length series from BBC 2, essentially a movie but first shown on TV as four part show. My dad bought it for me as a joke after I hated the book so much but I ended up trying to watch it just so I knew what happened and could pass the exam.

 

[JemJar]

What's worrying is that I disagree with EVERY book/film mentioned which I have valid grounds to base an opinion on. I honestly can't think of a single case where I have read the book and yet prefer the film. Though I'm inclined to say all of James Bond might be a valid shout.

Jurassic Park: The Book just IS better. The way that the failure of the park to keep everything under control comes to light is much better paced and explained, as is the motivation and actions of Nedry. And more people die, and there's only one child (unlike hacker girl and her 3D door locking interface).

Fight Club:
To be honest, the film is a ridiculously straight adaptation of the book. If Chuck Palahniuk says it's better than his book, he's being modest to compliment Fincher. The book is rarely regarded as one of the best books ever whereas Fight Club sneaks in high up on every critic's list. But to regard the film as somehow better than the book is somehow deceiving, they're one and the same. Read Fight Club after the film and you could be forgiven for thinking it's one of those cheaply knocked out "book of the film" things because of how closely the two match up.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep / Blade Runner:
I'm quite likely to be in the minority here, but frankly I thought that Blade Runner was absolutely rubbish and I loved DADoES. Blade Runner takes all the intrigue and depth out of the setting and simply goes "hey look, how over-designed and 80s can we be?". Stuff that.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I can't really say, if there is a movie I'd like more then the book then I've never experienced both forms.

(Sidebar: I really do feel the need to object to the Lord of the Rings, yes the movies are fucking awesome, but for those of you who say "The books have too much detail" Tolkien wouldn't be Tolkien if there weren't insane amounts of detail, if he didn't go 50 pages into the backstory of the hobbits LOTR would be just another fantasy book)

There is a part in the second (or third, can't remember) where the characters are describing their previous adventures (which you already read) with other characters. He does not do the usual 'cut away and come back when their done.' He pretty much waste a whole chapters on reminding you on everything you've already read.

There's depth, and than there's diving into the same pool twice just for the hell of it.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep / Blade Runner:
I'm quite likely to be in the minority here, but frankly I thought that Blade Runner was absolutely rubbish and I loved DADoES. Blade Runner takes all the intrigue and depth out of the setting and simply goes "hey look, how over-designed and 80s can we be?". Stuff that.

You must have watched the bad version (not hard to do, since there's four of them). I found the movie to be very good all around, and spent weeks wondering is Ford was a fake person or not.

 

[Legendeer]

How to train your dragon, as a film is awesome. As a book, has a much narrower audience and lacks the charm.

Also if anyone says that Captain Corelli's Mandolin is better as a film than a book they will be shot instantly, without trial.

 

[JemJar]

How to train your dragon, as a film is awesome. As a book, has a much narrower audience and lacks the charm.

Also if anyone says that Captain Corelli's Mandolin is better as a film than a book they will be shot instantly, without trial.

Welcome to the Escapist, and I've still not read the book. But I did enjoy the film, because I'm easily deceived by mandolins and Nicholas Cage.

 

[Apackof12Ninjas]

I know I will get flamed for this but I enjoyed Lord of the rings more then I did the books. But I fault that on seeing the movies first and having my imagination not being able to compare (Sci-fi imagination isnt compatible with ye old school wizards and magic imagination)

 

[Krantos]

Every Bourne movie after the first. Don't get me wrong, the first movie was great, but so was the book. The books Supremacy and Ultimatum were just bad. Especially Ultimatum.

 

[The Root Beer Guy]

Wow. Didn't know everybody hated Lord of the Rings. The books, that is. I can understand someone not liking the movies, but the books....wow.

OP: Going to have to say Fight Club. I thought the book was ok for a quick read, but was totally blown away by the movie.

Edit: don't mean to offend anybody by the way. Just utterly perplexed, that's all. Just ignore the Tolkien fan boy.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Wow. Didn't know everybody hated Lord of the Rings. The books, that is. I can understand someone not liking the movies, but the books....wow.

OP: Going to have to say Fight Club. I thought the book was ok for a quick read, but was totally blown away by the movie.

I don;t hate the books, I just found that Tolkien had a habit of bogging himself down, than exploding into awesome, than bogging down again. The movies are a bit smoother and cut the crap.

I'd render them even, but honestly, I'd rather watch the movie than read those books again.

 

[Lengthy1]

Probably all by myself, but I think "The Count of Monte Cristo" was a much better movie than Dumas' (still very good) book. In the movie, Edmond Dantes achieves all the revenge he wanted, with little aftershock to anyone related to the targets. In the book, he does more of a 'scorched earth' policy: causes a guy to go insane, his family to commit suicide, another guy to commit suicide...just seemed like he went too far. Then again, I would've called it a day once I found a small island made filled with money.

Also, this:

What no mention of The Man in the Iron Mask? Granted thats more on the book being "Would rather shove needles under my finger nails." boring then the movie being all that great, but still.

Have yet to see the movie, though. The book just...didn't...end.

 

[Sparrow]

Kick-Ass, arguably. Then main character was a bit more likeable and Nicholas Fucking Cage was Big Daddy. And I prefered the ending.

 

[Caligulove]

Everything is Illuminated.

I love both book and movie. But in the end the movie, I fealt, was better with the brilliant performances of allcast members. And hearing something in Russian/Ukranian instead reading it's supposed to be... Is just a plus.

Plus Eugene fucking Hutz as Aleksander Perchov!!!!

 

[DefunctTheory]

Kick-Ass, arguably. Then main character was a bit more likeable and Nicholas Fucking Cage was Big Daddy. And I prefered the ending.

Nicholas Cage was the one that finally sold the movie to me. Watching a kid get his ass beat and a little girl doing horrible things is all fine and good, but BATMAN WITH A SHOTGUN.

Hell. Yes.

 

[StriderShinryu]

My two choices are not really clear cut "better than" but more "extremely good version of that can stand up next to."

The first would be, as others have said, LOTR. I know so many people love Tolkien's work, and I admire him for all he did, but I just do not like his writing style.. at all.

The second for me is BladeRunner. Both the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) and the film are beyond amazing, but they are actually very different and you'd be missing out if you didn't experience both.

Honourable mentions for me would be Watchmen and The Running Man. Once again, not that the original material is bad, but the movie adds to it or takes it in another direction altogether.

 

[jojoemon]

All's Quiet on the Western Front.
Arguably Catch-22. (The book and movie are pretty much even.)

That's about all I can think of.

There's a Catch 22 movie!? Holy cats! Must see.
Ot: I think the lord of the rings movies were better then the books, simply because of pacing. Sure the movies had a lot cut out but the books were overfull of sceanary description and traveling. The movies could just take a single shot of the wilderness and the audience got the point, whereas the books spent pages on end going into detail about woods or mountians

 

[gim73]

Twillight: wait, no, both the movie and book belong in the landfill next to the ET atari game.

Let's see, IT as a book was pretty twisted. I'm not suggesting that EVERYTHING from the book should be in the movie, but being a made for TV special IT had alot of the options taken away from it before it could even be made.

Starship troopers, oh where to begin? Most people know about the first movie, which was pure awesome. Fewer people know about the second movie, which is a good thing because it removed all that was good and cool about the first movie and turned it into a made for syfy horror flick. The third movie was alot closer to the first movie and the book, as we are returned alot of the campy humor and finally see mobile infantry in power armor, as they were always supposed to be in. Fewer people know about the anime, which was decent but not really all that faithful to the book. There is also an animated series for starship troopers, which is pretty awesome in my opinion. It's closer to the book than the movie, and well worth watching.

The lord of the rings did a great job exactly BECAUSE they deviated from the book. If they had tried to follow every line word for word the second movie would never have been made because people don't want that crap. We don't need alot of the crap that is in those books for the story. I'm a big fantasy fan and I believe I have only ever read the books through about twice. It's another book that has a larger cult following than it's content deserves.


btw: the title: Movies that were better then the books should be Movies that were better than the books. As it is written, the movie is better and then the book comes out.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

James Bond is the opposite way round for me. However I don't read many books so I can't say

 

[JEBWrench]

There's a Catch 22 movie!? Holy cats! Must see.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065528/

It's pretty awesome. Alan Arkin, Martin Sheen, Bob Newhart, Orson Welles, and so forth.