Can anyone name.......?

[SnoopDog]

Well, while talking about movies I'm getting tired of the sentence, 'Yeah, ok-movie but the book was better' !

I mean, even though my most favoruite medium is film I still have to admit that literature and books is the superior medium. It just gives anything more depth plus you have to imagine and form things in your own mind hence you'll never think, 'Well, that looks stupid or silly'. So yeah, the book is always better than the movie.

But can anyone here name a case of the oppsoite ?

C'mon, that's the challenge for today....name a movie that was superior to the book it was written after !

Snoopy

 

[Seattle Zack]

There are a few that come to mind ... still, it's difficult to compare them, when the book (the source material) is interpreted by the director.

One is "Blade Runner," one of my favorite movies of all time. It was based loosely on Dick's "Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep," which was a short story. Is it better? I don't know. It's certainly more complete.

Another is "The Godfather." I read the book before seeing the movie, and I thought Puzo's prose and florid descriptions were difficult to get through, sometimes. But Coppola's version was a masterpiece, even though he left out so much from the book. But that's what a director has to do sometimes, I imagine, adapt the story for his or her own particular medium.

"Jaws" is another example. I loved the book, but watching Spielburg's raw direction, those epic scenes on the open ocean, are thrilling. Benchley hated the ending. Spielburg told him, "If I don't have them after two hours, then the best ending in the world will make no difference." And it's true. I remember the crowd in that theater the first time I saw it on premiere weekend. The audience went nuts when that damn shark exploded.

And that's the beauty of film, giving an interpretation of a writer's vision.

 

[TheEarl]

I'll get yelled at for this one but IMHO the Lord of the Rings films were far superior to the books. Well cast, well written, well directed and most importantly, all of that jolly hockey-sticks, twee crap excised completely. Tom Bombadil, I ask you! Refugee from an Enid Blyton book. I'd say the normal films are better than the books and the extended versions are nearing perfection.

The only other one which I can think of is High Fidelity. Good book and good film, but John Cusack and Jack Black did good jobs. One of my favourite films.

The major films/book dichotomy in my mind is actually the early Bond films vs the Fleming books. Even Connery's Bond is glib and ultimately a heartwarming character, whereas Fleming's Bond is more like that shown by Brosnan - a cold, professional bastard who takes pleasure in every moment, but doesn't let that interfere with his job. Fleming's Bond opens up in Casino Royale and gets utterly betrayed by the woman he loves. Then he opens up again, reluctantly and against his better judgement, in Thunderball and she is brutally taken away from him. Excellent writing and IMHO should be remembered more than the early films.

The Earl

 

[Sabledrake]

Off the top of my head:

Silence of the Lambs

and

The Lost World -- Jurassic Park II (which isn't saying much except that the book really, really sucked)

Sabledrake

 

[shereads]

"The Black Stallion," a sparkling treasure of a movie, based on the standard-formula children's adventure book by Walter Farley.

Drop-dead-beautiful cinematography. A refreshingly un-precious performance by an unknown child actor nearly as charming as Scout in "To Kill A Mockingbird." Also notable as the only known instance of acting by Mickey Rooney (director Carroll Ballard must have used horse tranquilizers on the old ham to keep him from chewing the scenery.)

If you aren't on the edge of your seat and on the verge of tears during the climactic horse race - so what if you know the ending; who doesn't? - you're a cold-hearted Nazi thug and you should be ashamed of yourself.



Beware: sequel is so bad it's an insult to the horse.

 

[patricia51]

"Jaws" without a doubt. The book was good, but its not what made America's beaches deserted for a year.

http://english.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=204232

 

[impressive]

But can anyone here name a case of the oppsoite ?

I think "Ghost Story" (the movie) was better than Peter Straub's book.

Also, "Dead Zone" (the movie) was better than the Stephen King book.

 

[impressive]

One is "Blade Runner," one of my favorite movies of all time. It was based loosely on Dick's "Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep," which was a short story. Is it better? I don't know. It's certainly more complete.

That reminds me of the flick with Ahh-nold that was based upon a sci-fi short story. The movie was better. Damn! I can't remember the title of EITHER.

Ah, yes -- movie was "Total Recall"

I think the short story had a different title, but my recall (ha ha!) is not up to snuff this morning.

 

[TheEarl]

Short story was by Piers Anthony (of Xanth fame in case you're struggling to place the name) and was in fact called Total Recall. I liked the story quite well myself, but I've never seen the film.

 

[gauchecritic]

That reminds me of the flick with Ahh-nold that was based upon a sci-fi short story. The movie was better. Damn! I can't remember the title of EITHER.

Ah, yes -- movie was "Total Recall"

I think the short story had a different title, but my recall (ha ha!) is not up to snuff this morning.

"We can remember it for you wholesale"

The movie was complete shite mainly because there was very little sci-fi 'truth' to it. Slo-mo explosive decompression? yeah.



and they forgot about the aliens coming to destroy the earth too.

 

[Alex De Kok]

"We can remember it for you wholesale"

Another one, like 'Do Androids dream of electric sheep' (Blade Runner) by Philip K. Dick.

Alex

 

[Quiet_Cool]

"The Shawshank Redemption"

Beauty on film, but kind of... well, too condensed in the telling in the Different Seasons collection, where it was called "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption."

I know of at least one more that's trying to get into my head, but for now... I can't think of it.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I know of at least one more that's trying to get into my head, but for now... I can't think of it.

"Fight Club." That was it

Q_C

 

[Boota]

The novel Forrest Gump pretty much outright sucks. The screenwriter saved that story and made it a good movie.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

The novel Forrest Gump pretty much outright sucks. The screenwriter saved that story and made it a good movie.

Ahhh...

I can't say I knew that, since I made it to page two and returned it to the librabry. lol

Good call.

Q_C

 

[shereads]

The novel Forrest Gump pretty much outright sucks. The screenwriter saved that story and made it a good movie.

You're one of the few people I know who admit it was a good movie. I loved it. Like another poster, I tried to read the book and couldn't get through the first chapter. (There are too many unread books to waste time with one I have to work to like.)

I've smiled my way through some godawful situations by remembering Lieutenant Dan, shaking his fist at God and screaming, "You call this a storm?"

~ ~ ~

Agree about Shawshank Redemption; but I think that one, and The Green Mile aren't so much examples of "better than the book" as they are of a screenwriter, producer and director doing justice to some excellent work by Stephen King (obviously ignoring his ham-handed efforts to influence films of his books.)

Another Stephen King short story that was made into a rich little movie, directed by Rob Reiner: "Stand By Me."

 

[kbate]

Everything based on Tom Clancy books ...

Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and Sum of All Fears......

At least with the movie you are finished in 2 hours.. the books take weeks to struggle through his phony-technical military worship jargon.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Gone With the Wind.

The movie was much more vivid and memorable than the book. The book really didn't do anything for me, and I'd never read it again, but I'll watch the movie over and over.

 

[Lovepotion69]

I agree with "Gone with the wind". The movie is great, the book just didn't do it for me.

"Stand by me" is also a good example.

I kinda found "Bridget Jones Diary" better than the book. I read the book first and never understood why "everyone" loved it. The first movie was good though.

Lord of the Rings is definitely great as a movie and I think I prefer the movies to the books.

When it comes to the Hannibal Lecter movies it's a tie. I loved the books and the movies.

/LP

 

[haldir]

One of the problems here is that we are talking about two different media.

For my money one of the reasons the the LOTR films worked sooo well was that Peter Jackson understands this to perfection and made a great MOVIE which reatined the essence of the book. There is a mountain of detail in the book and this does sometimes obscure or at least side-track from the plot. Jackson keeps his focus tight and I would almost agree that the films are better than the book, but I can't.

2001 - A Space Odessey falls into a similar category for my money.

Dances with Wolves is a film that springs to mind as being superior to the book, but then I dont know which came first.

 

[SnoopDog]

Wow, you guys came up with quite some good answers. After all it seems there really ARE some movies better than the books.

But what I'm missing is somebody who finally admits that I created a clever thread for once.

Snoopy

 

[Kassiana]

Oh, heck, yes. The movie version of Princess Bride was infinitely better than the William Goldman book, refreshingly free of his cynical and unnecessary asides and snide attitude toward his characters.

 

[LadyJeanne]

But what I'm missing is somebody who finally admits that I created a clever thread for once.

Snoopy

Great thread, Snoops!

*pet pet pet*

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I don't know if I really thought the movie was better, but I rather liked Aimee and Jaguar.

 

[SnoopDog]

Great thread, Snoops!

*pet pet pet*