Movies that were BETTER then the Books

[case_orange]

Fight Club.

The book had the same themes but didn't hit on them as directly (or eloquently) as the movie.

 

[GonzoGamer]

American Psycho.

The book had more in it, but it was so bogged down by the over-the-top descriptions in EVERY SINGLE SCENE! Yes, I understand that it was representative of Bateman's psyche. That doesn't make it any less tedious, irritating or boring to read. I'm sorry, I don't give a shit what your friend (or casual acquaintance) is wearing.

The movie removed most of that, and kept the rest how it was. The music also helped.

Also the book didn't have the "feed me a stray kitten" scene. Priceless.
Most Bret Easton Ellis books are better on the screen.

I would have to say Basketball Diaries. Any book about someone addicted to heroin get really tedious after a short while: they all eventually devolve into a loop of "I woke up, did heroin, threw up, then nodded off... then I woke up, did heroin, threw up...."
The Basketball Diaries movie edited out a lot of the tedium.

I know most of you aren't too farmiliar with the Twilight books but I actually kind of liked the last two (the third was a good old Vampire vs Warewolf war and the fourth was just plain trippy). The first two on the other hand (especially the second book) were in need of much editing. I recently watched the second movie and while it was still kind of silly (they draw a parallel with Romeo & Juliet but all I saw was an annoying Ross and Rachel kind of dynamic), it was a lot more tolerable.

I would also include any movie based on a Jane Austen book. Even Clueless.

 

[Hapetiitti]

I'm not even gonna count how many times this one has been said now, but... Fight Club. First time I saw the movie was a few years back, and last summer I randomly found the book in an old book store while visiting Canada. Of course I bought it, and was eventually quite surprised that the movie adaptation had actually improved so much from the original! The movie switches events in the plot around a bit, making it more comprehensible and easier to follow, and Norton, Pitt and Bonham-Carter brought the characters to life in a way the book couldn't. Especially Marla felt really boring in the book, while movie-Marla was a gritty, quirky and interesting. And also, I thought the book ending was extremely lame.

Watchmen was awesomesauce too, but I thought the book was really sweet as well. They both have their bonuses, so I'm not rating either on top of the other. Get both.

 

[Decabo]

I can't decide if One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest should be on here. It's my favorite book, and it better illustrated Bromden's paranoia, but Jack Nicholson was so good in the movie... I don't know, call it a draw.

 

[michiehoward]

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.

MEDIC!!!

 

[C117]

Count of Monte Christo.

But that might be because I read that book about ten years ago, maybe it's less dreary nowadays...

 

[HK_01]

Lord of the Rings
Jurassic Park(book was pretty damn good too, but not quite as good as the movie)

 

[michiehoward]

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.

Then that would be the BBC version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, loved it! But I'll always love the book better, and I stand what I said about teh newest adaptation with Keria Knightly they ripped the plot into shreds and made it overly romantic

I always thought Colin Firth's Darcy was badass cause he was such a dick for the first half of the series lmao

 

[Highlandheadbanger]

Without question The Godfather. The book was so pulpy it was ridiculous. The movie though, found the right balance to turn a great story into the greatest movie of all time.

 

[sailor_960]

How to Train Your Dragon took a pretty average kids book and made a great, thought provoking animated film. Also, the main character wasn't a whiny little kid this time so there's that.

 

[Snork Maiden]

All the Bourne films. Never haver I been more disappointed while reading something.

 

[michiehoward]

I thought of one, Terms of Endearment Larry McMurtry is great I adore the book but Shirley MacLaine made Aurora come to life, made the story come to life.

I also agree with the Last of Mochicans, I did kinda like the book, but the movie fucking awesome epic also one of the best scores for a movie ever made!

 

[Erja_Perttu]

"The Princess Bride" comes to mind, actually. The book is a lot of fun, but lacks the charm of the film.

I am sure there are more, and will post them as I think of them..

I agree with this one. There was way too much exposition in the book, and it got in the way of the story. It was a much better movie.

I'd also have to give my vote to Howl's Moving Castle. I read the book after seeing the movie, and it was a little bit 'meh'. It lacked the magic of the movie... Maybe it was the inclusion of Wales.

 

[Nifarious]

Hitchcock's Psycho
Can't remember the title of the book it's loosely based on or say that I've read it, for that matter. But come on, it's Psycho.

If you're a kid and haven't seen it, make sure that you do. And then make sure that you see it again when you're 20 or so.

 

[Billion Backs]

I can't think of one.

Fight Club, I guess it's about as good as the book, although I certainly find Palahniuk's writing style amusing... But I'd still not say that the movie was better then the book. Different and about equally good, maybe.

Definitely NOT "I am Legend". That's like the perfect example of absolutely raping the original idea of the book (and you see it done to various classic science fiction wonders fairly often) and absolutely twisting the ending into a generic "yay humans!" type. Urgh.

I don't even want to touch Lord of The Rings here. Had awesome soundtrack, epic mountains, well done massive battle scenes... But in my opinion, they changed it far too much. The thing with ghosts was atrocious in comparison to the original, in my opinion. Cutting out the part where Shire gets taken over by Saruman's goons in the end was just lame. And not to speak of Tom Bombadil, wights, druadan, and all the cool things.

Of course, I know, length constraints... In that sense, the movie managed to keep a good portion of the original's essence and popularize it, but otherwise I still found it pretty disappointing.

Hm, I guess I really can't think of a movie that's better then a book it's based upon.
Oh well.

 

[Billion Backs]

LoTR movies better than the books? Really guys? This makes me sad. While I don't hate the movies, Peter Jackson made at least one big thematic change that I don't care for at all. I felt he pandered to the audience in a few places instead of rendering how things actually were. But my dislike could be rooted in that I read just about everything written by J.R.R. (and Christopher) long before the movies came out. Anyways.....

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

I completely disagree with your last statement... I was growing up on that book, dammit.

But I fully support you on what you said about Lord of the Rings and Tolkiens (since Christopher edited and "finished" off some of J.R.R material, and probably had some original stuff too)

I too have read just about anything J.R.R wrote, even the poetry/short stories and various unfinished drafts... And I can't understand why some people in this thread clearly find his work "boring". That makes me sad, I can imagine that some of the lesser known classical science fiction and fantasy also receives the same kind of treatment today. People probably want everything streamlined to "here's the good guy, here's the bad guy, and here's the name of where they are! root for good guy, he kills bad guy! yay!".

Bah, I'm already rambling like an old person despite barely being an adult.

 

[Bob the Average]

i'd say "star ship troopers" was a much better movie than a book. the movie was campy but the book was duller than shit.

 

[BlancoDiablo]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but "Children of Men" easily trumps the book in so many ways. They are really only similar in name and the general plot, after which they proceed to go in separate directions; one up, the other down.

Basically, if Ben Stein kept a diary in a post-apocalyptic world, it would be more exciting than Children of Men, the book.

The movie, on the other hand, has some of the best cinematography and camera work I've yet to see in recent years.

And after watching that 10-15 minute straight (no cuts, one camera, lots of crazy shit going on, very impressive) one-take follow shot at the end, bricks were very much shat.

Watch the flick. Avoid the book.

 

[Moriarty70]

Titus (1999)

from Titus Andronicus by Shakespeare. It was a weird, violent Shakespeare play that somehow worked really well as a movie.

I'm going to cry foul on this. Shakespeare didn't write books, he wrote scripts. This kind of thing is only worthwhile when interpreted through actors and a director. Without that mindset it comes off dry as hell since there's no obvious motives/emotion in the lines.

As for the topic, I'm going to say "Apocalypse Now" as an adaptation of "Heart of Darkness". I just found it worked better as a visual form with the internal elements hinted at.