Badmovies.org Forum

For me I liked Kubrick's shining better than the book. Before you start a mob let me explain.

I liked the idea that the ghost aspect was more ambiguous while int he book it's very point blank, IMO it makes the film scarier when your unsure if what your seeing is a haunting or 3 people coming face to face with their own personal psychosis.

Also Of Mice and Men the Malkovich version, Both him and Gary Sinise really put forth such a great job tat I connect more with their characters than in the book.

For me Apocalypse Now is light years ahead of Heart of Darkness. I found the book incredibly dull and boring where as Apocalypse Now is fantastic!

JAWS - there's a shark in the book....somewhere...

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - the book is actually very good but the film is even better imo

Warm Bodies

It moved faster, and actually had a decent ending.

 Willie Wonka-the original book was pretty depressing in spots but both movies were better

Jaws-I read the book several times and the movie was better,especially when they left out the affair between Hooper and the sheriff's wife

I'll back you on the Shinning. 

Not to mention that some of the hauntings in the book came across as a bit over the top.  In the movie, there's just enough strangeness to let you know something isn't right, but it never clarifies exactly what is really going on. 

And the made for TV movie that King did that was supposedly much more faithful to the book, that was simply horrible. 

I think I liked The Guns of Navarone movie as much as I liked the book but not better.

Lord of the Rings is another one.  I really enjoyed the movies, but reading the books was a chore. 

+1 on Lord Of The Rings.  I found the books interminably boring, what with Tolkein's many irrelevant digressions.  "And as they walked, they sang a hobbit marching song" - cue two pages of idiotic crud that does nothing to advance the plot.

But the movies are magnificent.  It's as if Jackson decided to strip out every last hobbit marching song and make LOTR the way it should have been.

I've always maintained the opinion that the book called The Bible is about a million times better than the John Huston movie version.  :wink:

GODFATHER and GODFATHER II (the flashback scenes) are both better than Mario Puzo's novel.

The movie of David Morrell's First Blood is IMO better than the book in some ways - the book was OTT violent, Rambo destroys almost the entire town and kills many people (including the sheriff) while in the film, Rambo doesn't kill anyone (at least, not intentionally) and only one person dies.

I liked the book, though.

I agree with THE SHINING.  I liked the movie better.  There are topiary animals in the book, not a maze (if I recall correctly). 
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is also based on a STEPHEN KING story (a novella, RITA HAYWORTH AND THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION).  I reread the original after looking at the film for the umpteenth time, and I was amazed at the wonderful details added to the movie that aren't in the book. 

Another one, ... the Hunchback of Notre Dame. 

I've watched a few different movie versions (although not the Disney one) and enjoyed them all, but the book is written in such an antiquated style that I felt like I was translating it as much as I was trying to read it. 

Stand By Me also suffered from a fairly horrible ending in the book that thankfully, the movie omitted.  Stephen King does that sometimes.  I just don't think he knows where to end his stories sometimes. 

THE GRAPES OF WRATH
THE GODFATHER

I must say that the books get a bit better after Fellowship of the Ring.  Sure, there are still long descriptive passages, but Tolkien stopped writing chapters that could be summed up as "[Characters] moved from [point A] to [point b], where they rested and sang a song."

I have owned those books... I probably still do!  But, I never read any of them.  I tried. 
I loved the first movie... the second was half good... I hated the last one. 

I knew I finally had to sit down and read The Fellowship of the Ring before the movie came out. As a kid, I loved The Hobbit, but could never make it through the first Lord of the Rings book. Mostly this was because every ten pages or so I'd have to sit through another lecture on Elvish poetry. But I did sit down and finish the book right before the movie was released--I didn't like it. It was also the only book I had on the plane with me, so that was doubly troubly.

Then I watched the movie and loved it. Seriously, I was not expecting anything nearly that good.

So I read the next two books in short succession, and loved those as well. Was it the movie or are the second two books just better? I vote for the latter.

Kind of in the same vein, the first three Harry Potter books are basically hogwash for kids. They do get better and more complex right around the fourth book, and I'm pretty sure they're designed to be that way. However, the first three books are pretty much repeats of themselves and not that interesting. That being said, Prisoner of Azkaban is an artfully made movie. I'm guessing this is mostly due to Alfonso Cuaron, who is an excellent director. His movie is much better than the source material.

The Wizard of Oz. I love the Oz books and always will, but they are simply kid's books. The movie, while appealing to children, is one of the best movies ever made. I know many who will disagree, but it has a story structure and depth that most overlook because it is a musical fantasy. Dorothy, a young woman unsure of herself or her place in the world, sees traits she admires in those around her. When she is knocked unconscious, she retreats into herself, unable to return to the "real" world until she discovers those traits in herself, along with the strength to confront her nemesis.

Jurassic Park. Even the author wrote the sequel more in line with the movie than the first book. The book was interminable. The movie was loads of fun.

The example I always raise, when this topic comes up is "Lair of the White Worm." (Reviewed at this site.) Or, how to make a good film from a bad book.

(1) Take title from book cover.
(2) Throw away everything else in book.

And let me give this some thought, and see if I can come up with anymore examples.

"Lair of the White Worm" is an example of a book I've read, and a film I've seen. On the other hand . . .

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (Victor Hugo)
Film: ne'er one I disliked, including the animated one.
Book: unreadable

"The 3 Musketeers" (Alexandre Dumas)
Film: ne'er one I disliked.
Book: unreadable

"Les Miserables" (Victor Hugo)
Film: ne'er one I disliked.
Book: unreadable

"Count of Monte Cristo" (Alexandre Dumas, pere)
Film: ne'er one I disliked.
Book: unreadable.

I think I am seeing a trend here.

Harry Potter Series

I just always found the films more fun. I grew up with Harry Potter; I read the books but with every book I read I just thought "I hope this'll be in the next movie!"

When I saw the ending to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in the theater I leaned back in my chair took a deep breath and said "Ten years and now it's done. Wow..."

Case and Point Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

The Deathly Hallows book was garbage. It was a checklist of characters who had to die ending with Harry and Voldemort having a two spell long battle. At least in Dumbledore Vs. Voldemort the books described and epic fight scene (which was wonderfully re-created in the films) but Harry Vs. Voldemort the director had basically been forced to go against the book to satisfy fans.

You can bark at me how books are always better but when you say "Harry Potter" Daniel Radcliff comes to my mind.

Agreed: the book seems a little nihilistic while the film was a wonderful adventure ride. That film's ending always makes me blub like a kid.  :smile:

One thing to consider in LotR books, whenever hobbits travel together, it is a long and boring affair. Note in the first book, they set out from the Shire. Thirty pages later, after many sit down meals and pipe-smoking breaks and all kinds of nonsense--after they waited past the day Gandulf said to leave even if he doesn't show up--they traveled to Bree, which was only half way to Rivendell. Took them over a month or something in the book I think to cross safe country.

They meet up with Strider, and two days and two pages later, they are at Weathertop, almost to Rivendell. As soon as hobbits aren't alone, everything picks up--the pace of the book matches the speed of their travel.

Same happens with Sam and Frodo. As soon as they are traveling alone, them going two days into Mordor takes 50 pages.

I think it was done to show the leisurely pace at which they moved (in Fellowship) and the arduous path they took (in Return).

Course, hobbits being slow-walking, Gandulf-waiting cowards brought the whole of middle earth down to the brink. Had Frodo just left immediately when told, he'd have been in Rivendell months before the Black Riders even left Mordor, and the fellowship would have made it to Mount Doom before Sauran knew what was up.

I just thought of another example.

P.L. Travers apparently hated the film version of Mary Poppins based upon her book series. Which is why we never got a "Mary Poppins II," but after and/or before seeing the film, I tried to read the original series of books. One of the few things I have ever found that is absolutely unreadable, which is why I much prefer the movie to the book. And people agreed. The novelization of the screenplay outselling by a wide margin the original books.

I dunno, I kinda liked that version of "The Shining." If nothing else, Rebecca De Mornay was a hell of a lot easier on the eyes than Shelley Duvall.  :teddyr:

I read the Schindler's List book (I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head at the moment) and found the movie to be much better. The book was great, but it was a work of fiction written to look like a documentary; "based on a true story", that sort of thing. Which p**sed me off a little when I discovered that fact; if you're gonna make a documentary then make a documentary, otherwise you end up with a work-of-fiction mockumentary like one of Michael Moore's films.

Spielberg's movie was simply based off the book, not the actual story itself. So the liberties that Spielberg took with his movie weren't nearly as offensive as the liberties that the book had taken with the true story.

I'm currently reading the book "Argo" after seeing the movie and so far I liked the movie better. The book is very dry.

The 13th Warrior is vastly superior to Eaters of the Dead. In the book, only the narrator, Ahmed, has any personality, and he's a colossal a***ole.

In the movie, all of the characters are much more rounded, and Ahmed is quite likeable.

Movies that I liked better than the book?  Every movie based on a book that has ever been made.

The Princess Bride, although only slightly.  The book is really great too, but the performances in the movie give it that slight edge. 

Also, replacing the author's notes with the grandpa scenes worked better. 

Blade Runner was another one. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was rather ho-hum for my tastes.

For one I liked Frank Darabont's The Mist more than the Shortstory by Stephen King it was based on. Especially the ending was better and King even approved of it.

And how about Comics? Do they count? I would throw Watchmen in there. The movie was very close to the sourcematerial, but changed the one thing I hated about the comic...the Alien Invasion. Also the normal version didn't have the Black Freighter-sidestory which I always skipped while reading the comic. On the other hand the sidestory was included in the Ultimate Cut, where I really loved it due to the visual style.

Wanted to revive this thread to say, I thought Alive was waaay better than the book it was based, which is surprising considering how much the story itself should have lended itself to a really powerful book.  I think the author just didn't do enough research or have the ability to really convey the survivors as people, their inner thoughts and feelings.  The book itself just comes off as a really dry experience.

The one I always cite is Sophia Coppola's film version of The Virgin Suicides. At times the book absolutely ran off-track into grossness and lost its internal thread but the hypnotic sense within the movie stayed on course and had one of the best soundtracks of all time.

I'll agree with some that JAWS is much better than the book.
I also agree with Hallows on the SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION-

others-
.FRANKENSTEIN (1931) the book is a total bore.
.DRACULA (1931) The book's journalistic style with all the letters and such- what was that all about?
.the HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939)- gimme a break.
.the RAVEN (1934 and 1963)- I mean-you can't translate a poem into a good movie. Watching a guy p**s and moan in his room at a raven about his dead girlfriend is not very cinematic.
.the EXORCIST (1973) I like the book-but the movie is much tighter and suspenseful.

I have to disagree with the SHINING (1980)- I don't think one is better than the other. Both worked for me in their respective mediums.

Shangani Patrol (1970): the book was a boring textbook while the film was a rip-roaring adventure.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AUKoIh0iLkg/hqdefault.jpg)

The pacing and flow of the story in American psycho was far better in the book than in the movie, although we did miss on a few good scenes. 

The closing narration from the movie actually happens several chapters from the end of the book and the book just keeps going. 

Haven't read it, but I'm told the movie version of Forrest Gump is far better than the book it's based on.

Agreed: I found the book tedious and the character of Ellen Brody in the book is an awful one.



My opinion on that film is if you've read the book, the film is bad and if you haven't read the book, the film is great. Now I am confused.  :question: