Movies that are better than the book

[EmilyMiller]

Maybe something to think about as writers.

The one that is always cited is Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. But I have two Kubricks.

The Shining. Tried the book like three times. Never could get into it. I know King hates how Jack is a monster from the start, rather than a man struggling with demons (alcohol in King’s autobiographical case). But I find the movie compelling.

2001 - I know it was just inspired by The Sentinel and also that Clarke was involved in the screenplay. But still the director took it in a whole new (and deeply visual) direction.

What about you?

Em

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Totally disagree with you on the first one and am in lockstep with you on the second. 2001 is literally the only movie I think was better than book.

 

[Tigobitties98]

Jane Eyre, hated the book, but have loved a few of the movie adaptations

 

[EmilyMiller]

Totally disagree with you on the first one and am in lockstep with you on the second. 2001 is literally the only movie I think was better than book.

Do you mean Dick? Or King?

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

Jane Eyre, hated the book, but have loved a few of the movie adaptations

I really liked the adaptation with Mia Wasikowska - but, as ever, if Mia is a plain Jane, then I’m Quasimodo.

Then I like the book as well. But obviously Emily is the best Brontë .

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

I really liked the adaptation with Mia Wasikowska - but, as ever, if Mia is a plain Jane, then I’m Quasimodo.

Then I like the book as well. But obviously Emily is the best Brontë .

Em

I did write a short stroke story once featuring me and my “sister” Anne. I’m not sure my target audience cared that much though . Perhaps if I’d added a Charlie as well.

 

[lovecraft68]

Jaws

The movie was a great blend of horror and adventure with a few laughs thrown in and a great climax.

In the book Hooper was an asshole who fucked Brody's wife, but also dies whereas the cool loveable Hooper in the movie lives. The shark is killed by a piece of meat with an electric wire in it....very dull. All in all the book was dull and depressing.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I really liked the adaptation with Mia Wasikowska - but, as ever, if Mia is a plain Jane, then I’m Quasimodo.

Then I like the book as well. But obviously Emily is the best Brontë .

Em

I mean, would you turn her away on a rainy night? I would be making her a warm beverage and running her an nice bath for two.

Em

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Do you mean Dick? Or King?

Em

I've never read Sheep, so I can't take a stand on Dicks book vs the movie.

 

[Two21B]

L.A. Confidential. To be honest, they're both brilliant, but the movie manages to streamline the story by removing some unnecessary subplots. To be fair, those subplots serve the L.A. Quartet as a whole, but would've made the movie unworkable as a standalone.

 

[Bamagan]

I thought the first Chronicles of Narnia movie was a little better than the book. It was a reasonably faithful adaptation, but in the book the major battle gets mostly glossed over and is barely described, which means Edmund's redemptive bravery happens off-screen in the novel. The movie did a good job of showing rather than telling (or rather, re-telling after the fact). Unfortunately they got progressively worse from there.

 

[MillieDynamite]

From one point of view, the sorry-ass way that the character of Hooper was written, I agree with you. In fact, the book wasn't all that special, and the movie was. But the endless squeals for 15 years were dreadful. Peter Benchley co-wrote the screenplay, making certain he fixed the things that pissed off the readers. Some of his later books were better, but to me, he wasn't all that good of a writer.

AS to Blade Runner, how many different versions are there? Four or five? I've seen all of them, and only the last version (the final version, I think) makes complete sense. The original version cut way too much out of it and left too much of what was going to WTF. I've read Androids but can't remember it, so I don't know wich is bettermuss.

Jaws

The movie was a great blend of horror and adventure with a few laughs thrown in and a great climax.

In the book Hooper was an asshole who fucked Brody's wife, but also dies whereas the cool loveable Hooper in the movie lives. The shark is killed by a piece of meat with an electric wire in it....very dull. All in all the book was dull and depressing.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Maybe something to think about as writers.

The one that is always cited is Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. But I have two Kubricks.

The Shining. Tried the book like three times. Never could get into it. I know King hates how Jack is a monster from the start, rather than a man struggling with demons (alcohol in King’s autobiographical case). But I find the movie compelling.

2001 - I know it was just inspired by The Sentinel and also that Clarke was involved in the screenplay. But still the director took it in a whole new (and deeply visual) direction.

What about you?

Em

The subsidiary question is why?

Was unnecessary verbiage excised?

Were new and compelling elements introduced.

Is it the visuals that make the movie?

Was the plot - or ending - changed?

What made the movie better?

Em

 

[SimonDoom]

The number one example is The Godfather. The book is what I call an "airport book" -- something you buy at the shop near the terminal to read on the plane to stay entertained. It's a fun read, a great yarn, but it's not great prose and it's not especially weighty. Coppola took an airport book and turned it into a great work of art, one of the best movies ever made.

Lovecraft beat me to it, but I agree 100% that Jaws is my second favorite example. The book is a typical slightly sleazy 70s thriller, the shark parts are fun, it's entertaining in a trashy 70s way, but not great art, and Spielberg took out all the crap and false notes and turned it into one of the best-made, tautest film thrillers of all time. The movie adds Robert Shaw's Indianapolis speech, which all by itself is a brilliant touch.

The Shawshank Redemption is a fine Stephen King novella that was turned into a really great movie, so that's another one. I love that movie.

I don't think 2001 counts, because the movie wasn't based upon a preexisting book. Kubrick and Clarke wrote a screenplay based somewhat on Clarke's short story The Sentinel, and then Clarke decided to write a novelization.

Some people might want to punch me for saying this, but I actually thought some of the Harry Potter movies were better than the books. I loved the inventiveness of JK Rowling's wizard world, but I grew weary with certain aspects of the books, including the prose (there were times I wanted to throw the book in the fire after hearing so much about Voldemort's "high clear voice"). I thought the movies were generally well done.

I thought the movie No Country For Old Men was better than Cormac McCarthy's book. I'm a McCarthy fan, but I thought that was one of his lesser books. The villain Chigurh works better in a movie setting because he doesn't have to be explained.

 

[SimonDoom]

L.A. Confidential. To be honest, they're both brilliant, but the movie manages to streamline the story by removing some unnecessary subplots. To be fair, those subplots serve the L.A. Quartet as a whole, but would've made the movie unworkable as a standalone.

I've never read the book but I loved that movie. "Rollo Tomassi." What a great scene.

 

[Kitty_so_frisky]

The Princess Bride. No notes!

 

[EmilyMiller]

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (the actors brought hose characters to life in such a great way ) and Jurassic Park (fluff turned to visually beautiful fluff!)

Jurassic Park is a good one. Then I’m just going on Grisham’s general rep.

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

I've never read the book but I loved that movie. "Rollo Tomassi." What a great scene.

Same as you. The cast was perfect as well.

Kinda pleased that Spacey was acquitted. That’s probably hypocritical of me. Then the “evidence” against him seemed full of more gaping holes than a Jules Jordan vid.

Em

 

[Bamagan]

I liked the Jurassic Park book more than the film, but both were great.
I'll add Watchmen to the list. The graphic novel is among the best of its genre, but the weak ending is improved in the movie, which otherwise is very faithful to the source.

 

[Djmac1031]

I gotta admit the first time I saw 2001, I didn't get it at all.

But in all fairness, I was a 12 year old kid and my moms friend took me to a screening because I loved Star Wars so she figured I was into Sci fi.

I don't remember exactly when I discovered the book, but reading it opened up my mind, filling in gaps in the storytelling that the film only told visually.

Eventually i watched it again with fresh eyes and loved it.

But to me the book will always be entwined with the film, because without the book I don't think I'd have given the film a second chance.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I gotta admit the first time I saw 2001, I didn't get it at all.

But in all fairness, I was a 12 year old kid and my moms friend took me to a screening because I loved Star Wars so she figured I was into Sci fi.

I don't remember exactly when I discovered the book, but reading it opened up my mind, filling in gaps in the storytelling that the film only told visually.

Was it The Sentinel, or the book of the movie that Clarke wrote afterwards?

Eventually i watched it again with fresh eyes and loved it.

But to me the book will always be entwined with the film, because without the book I don't think I'd have given the film a second chance.

I’m suddenly thinking of Barbie for some reason .

Em

 

[Djmac1031]

Was it The Sentinel, or the book of the movie that Clarke wrote afterwards?

The book of the movie.

Oh and there were several great sequels.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I assume we're not including novelisations written after the film was made, that'd be like shooting fish in a barrel. [edit: I'll make an exception for 2001, since Clarke's involvement was a lot more than just being hired to write a spinoff to somebody else's film.]

Anthony Minghella's "The Talented Mr. Ripley", from Patricia Highsmith's novel. Highsmith's Ripley just feels kind of emotionally dead; he'd be scary to know in real life, but it's hard to care about what happens to him in fiction. Minghella's Ripley is more human, and he has a character arc. (Not a healthy one, but a compelling one.) The film also made great use of music, and there's a beautiful visual metaphor:

Ken Russell's "Lair of the White Worm": Bram Stoker's original is one of the worst books I've ever read, Russell made it into something that's not high art but is at least cheesy fun with an extremely sexy villainess.

 

[EroticCupcake]

The movie Bram Striker's Dracula. The added love story as a motivating factor was good.

 

[SimonDoom]

Jurassic Park is a good one. Then I’m just going on Grisham’s general rep.

Em

I think you mean Crichton, not Grisham. Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park.

That's another example of a popular book getting the Spielberg treatment. I thought that one was a mixed bag. The movie was more fun than the book, but it was pretty light. It was one of Spielberg's popcorn efforts. The book went heavy on the chaos theory stuff, because Crichton typically likes to weave a "serious" theme into the plot of his story, and in this case I sometimes thought the chaos stuff interesting and sometimes thought it was overdone. The movie just barely touched on it and went for simple thrills.

But speaking of Grisham: I can think of several Grisham books that were better as movies: The Firm, A Time To Kill, and The Runaway Jury. Grisham is really great at coming up with ideas for stories, but I find his style to be a bit preachy, caricaturish, and tedious. I thought all three of those movies were a lot of fun and well-made.

Silence of the Lambs: A fine thriller book, but one of the very best thriller movies ever made. The only horror thriller ever to win the Academy Award for best picture.