Movies better than the books

[raj]

A Clockwork Orange is a tie.  I can't remember whether I saw the movie first, or the book.  The movie was a faithful adaptation, which actually understood the theme of the book, without going overboard and being heavy-handed.

I also think the LOTR set is a tie, and while Peter Jackson does change somethings around, he needed to in order to make the movie fit into a 3 hour time frame, but he keeps the spirit of the books.

Are we including comic books?  I think the Swamp Thing movie was pretty good.  (I keep kicking myself over throwing out issue #1, it was my only #1).

[StatCat]

Potrait of Jenny comes to mind right away. Then going into horror (no relations here) the return of the living dead movie was much better than Russo's book.

[AndyC]

Evan3 wrote:
>
> Also, I thought that Jurassic Park was much better than the
> book. I am not a fan of Crichton.

That one, for me, was a tie. The book gives so much more information, explores everything so much more deeply, and avoids the simplifying, sugarcoating and (some) clichees of the movie. On the other hand, I disagreed with anyone at the time who said that book was better than the movie, because I think it was very well adapted to the screen. It's not an especially faithful adaptation, but it's a good movie.

Same with the Shining. The movie doesn't have everything the book has, and it does some things differently, but I like it.

I usually consider book-movie comparisons to be an apples-and-oranges thing.  They have different requirements and offer different possibilities. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Whether we like one or the other better is often a matter of taste, unless somebody really did a crappy job.

[yaddo42]

The Ridley Scott film "The Duellists" is much better than the Joseph Conrad novella it is based on, "The Duel". Certainly a better ending; and also more compelling because the main characters are fleshed out more.

"The Professionals" starring Lee Marvin and Burt Lancaster is much better than the source novel, "A Mule for the Marquesa" by Frank O'Rourke. The novel is a bland western adventure with forgettable characters and a cookie cutter ending. The film merges several characters together and gives a couple of them a history with each other and the area where they are operating. It also turns the book's ending on its head, but gives great reasons for doing so. Much more effective overall.

The book and film of "The Manchurian Candidate" would have to be a tie, both are excellent. The film is a fairly accurate translation of the novel. I'd probably say the same for the book and the original movie of "The Day of the Jackal".

I would have to agree with "Psycho" being a better film than book.

[samantha]

what are some books that are better than the movies that are based on that certain book?

[The Burgomaster]

The book THE SHINING was FAR better than the movie (I am a Kubrick fan, but THE SHINING is not one of my favorites).

THE GODFATHER was also better than the book. The book is a great story, but it is actually poorly written. The dialogue in the movie is much better. I think Puzo was a better screenwriter than he was a novelist.

*
*
*
*

[Chadzilla]

Jaws is my choice as well.

As far as The Shining?  Sorry, while the movie is an excellent ride, it is clearly style over any kind of substance.  Kubrick took the concept, but left out the characters and motivations.  When I saw it in June of 1980 (it opened the same weekend as Michael Ritchie's horrid adaptation of Benchley's The Island) my parents were shocked.  My dad immediately reread King's book to remind himself how good the story was and how badly Kubrick messed it up.  When watching it once on video, my dad quipped, in utter deadpan, "I'd better read the book again, this movie is starting to look good to me."  As nice looking as it is, I agree with the title that Mad Magazine gave it in its satire, The Shiner.

[JohnL]

I like King's books, but he has a tendancy to take a point and beat the readers over the head with it over and over and over.

The Day the Earth Stood Still was much better than the short story. Also, the 80's Twilight Zone episode The Cold Equations was better than the short story of the same name. The SciFi channel movie sucked.

[trollificus]

I loved the LOTR books when I was a kid, but I think that was because, at age 12, I really liked the veneer of historical, geneological and philogical intellectualism that Tolkein invested in my beloved and much-belittled field of fantasy fiction.

But I like the movies better, so far. I may have a pedestrian visual imagination, but the movies very much look like what I visualized when I read them. Can't beat that.

The Shining was a good movie, as good as the book (King's best?), but totally different.

Blade Runner...yeah, better than Dick's story. And I mean THE STUDIO VERSION, with it's 40's film noir narration and old school happy ending, not Scott's 'darker vision' of the director's cut. I am SOOOO tired of 'darker visions'!!