Movies that were BETTER then the Books

[JMan]

Kick Ass.

The book was just a little too on the nihilistic side for me to really enjoy it when it ended, whereas the movie actually made me feel like I'd had a good experience.

I have to disagree with that because the movie ruined the major plot twist that happened. When I read the comics I never saw the twist coming but when my friends saw the movie they said that they could see it coming from the beginning, and they thought it was stupid that they revealed it from the beginning when I told them how they did it in the comics.

 

[Suskie]

The Last of the Mohicans. The book is not fun at all, the movie is good (albiet a trifle sappy).

That's a ninja right there. The movie is one of my all-time favorites, but the book is a load of dry, tedious sludge. God bless Michael Mann for turning it into something great.

 

[NeuroShock]

1408 (if it counts, was based off a short story)

This. 1408 was a fantastic movie, though the short story is also good.

In the same vein, I very much enjoyed The Mist despite the just plain awful ending they decided to change for the movie.

 

[Cairo]

The Godfather

 

[kurupt87]

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.

I guess I'd agree with that, though I'd argue Supremacy is still worth a read and a good book. As for Identity, the film is awesome, but the book is on another level entirely.

With LoTR, the books are very good, but the films are more enjoyable. Especially the second part of the first book, in the fucking forest with Tom pissing Bombadil. That just kept on going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going...and going and going and going and going...
If not for that part, it'd be six of one and half a dozen to the other for me.

I can't think of any others, most all of the other suggestions I've only read the book or seen the film, not both.

 

[Brikson]

I gotta say Red Dragon. The movie and book are both fantastic, but the ending of the movie was so much better. The book ending didn't give the tooth fairy and Graham the justice to their characters that I saw in the movie ending.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Watchmen.

The film fixed all that by flowing a lot better than the novel and by removing that stupid pan-dimensional monster at the end and changing it for a finale that actually made some sense.

I second that. I just got through the Dr Manhattan origin section and while it was really interesting on the page, Snyder just made it come to life on screen. There's just a lot of unnecessary extra info in the book, like Ozymandias' Egypt fascination that was just background in the flick. The violence quotient in the movie was better at illustrating just how f-d up the "heroes" really were.

Other examples are Apocalypse Now, which moved Heart of Darkness's African colonization setting to Vietnam for a fascinating deconstruction / nightmare version of the war. Oh and Minority Report, which was just a so-so Philip K. dick short story, which got expanded into a distillation of all of his great works. I'd call A Scanner Darkly mostly a draw, since the movie is almost the whole book transcribed and put on screen.

And the Harry Potter movies because there's no way in hell I'm spending eight hours studying up on a boy wizard.

 

[ExileNZ]

Of Mice and Men. The book wasn't all that long and very action-based (not "guns and explosions" action but "and then he went there and did this" action) so it was easy enough to convert to film without losing out on subtleties or background information.
That and decent performances by Malkovich and Sinise, but the Lenny/Shorty clash is far better in the film and the ending doesn't drag on the way it does in the book.

The ending is far more sudden and shocking in the film as well.

Actually, that's a better way of putting it. I didn't mind what happened after "that", it was that they spent too long building up to it in the book, it felt kinda clumsy once I'd already seen the film. The film deals with it better, though I wouldn't have minded the closing dialogue.

 

[PurpleGoatMan]

Star wars perhaps? I know there was books but they were far, far, far less publicised... so not sure if it counts...

I know there were batman comics, but was there books? If not, then the films were definitely awesome anyway

I agree with Lord of The Rings btw.

Contrast: Better books
- Eragon
- Northern Lights (what was with the changing it to Golden compass too :/ )

 

[Lemon Of Life]

I hate to copy everyone else, but I found the LotR a tough read. They were good books, but I didn't have the willpower to make it past the Two Towers, especially since I had a new batch of Discworld books just staring at me.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

I think Jurassic Park was a way better movie than the book was. I remember trying to read it when I was a kid and thought it was not fun to read it.

It's not a kid's book. The movie is more family oriented, butthe book deals with a lot of obsessive scientific detail. I still preferred the book though, brilliant film though it was.

I have to agree with "Lord of the Rings" did not like the books much and if comic books count too I'd like to included "Kick-Ass" and "Watchmen"

 

[MortyMnemonic]

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.

I agree with you Angerwing. They completely destroyed the meaning of the book.

As for the topic I would go with "99 francs", movie just kicked ass.

 

[Norik]

Jurassic Park was great, but rather on par with the book. Same with Fight Club.
Shutter Island, maybe. But it's hard to say.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

Star wars perhaps? I know there was books but they were far, far, far less publicised... so not sure if it counts...

I know there were batman comics, but was there books? If not, then the films were definitely awesome anyway

I agree with Lord of The Rings btw.

Contrast: Better books
- Eragon
- Northern Lights (what was with the changing it to Golden compass too :/ )

The book of the first (fourth) film was released first I think, but it was an adaptation of the film, not a book in the sense "Lord of the Rings" is. "Star Wars" is not a book adaptation, the book is a novelisation of the movie which happened to be released first.

Also yes there are Batman books, but again the books are based off the comics/ characters and the movies (as with most hero movies) don't follow a particular plot from the comics so they're not adaptations in the same way other movies are. "Watchmen" and "Kick-Ass" amongst a few others are exceptions since they were a one-off series and the plot of the film was directly linked to that of the comic.

 

[Norik]

Oh, and I know it was never made into a MOVIE, but the show Dexter is, in my opinion, better than the books.

 

[Spy_Guy]

I'd say the Lord of the Rings films. The films were... dull... but they don't make me want to strangle myself. Tolkien keeps things at a far too slow pace, and OH GOD SO BORING!!

 

[The_Decoy]

I agree with lord of the rings, the films cut out alot of shit and are beautiful.

 

[MetalDooley]

Finished reading "Black Hawk Down" last night and while it was fairly good I still prefer the movie

 

[The Bandit]

"Bladerunner" is a lot better than "Do androids dream of electric sheep." A very different sort of film though. The book was about ideas. The film dripped with style.

And sorry razormint, you're going to get this a lot, but "I am Legend" with Will Smith was much worse than the book. Same goes for "I, Robot" actually. Keep Will Smith away from classic sci-fi!

Maybe it's because I've only seen the theatrical version (the only one I could instant watch on netflix), but Blade Runner sucked. I've been meaning to find the final cut, because I hear it's a lot better, but until then I have to say Electric Sheep was a lot better.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

I whole-heartedly disagree with you on V for Vendetta. I did not like the book, but I thought it was a masterpiece compared to what I viewed as an awful movie.

YES, THANK YOU.
Watching V for Vendetta was like being forcibly tied down and pissed on, and that's before I even start taking my love for the book into account.
If it was a good movie in its own right, I'd forgive it for not following the book closer, but it wasn't.
Badly acted, ham fisted, emotionless drivel that couldn't have possibly missed the point any more than it did.