Eveyone agrees that the vast majority of novels are better than their filmed versions, but there are a few exceptions to the rule. My picks would be (not including novelizations):
Stanley Kubrik's The Shining (probably most of Kubrick's films for that matter)
A Simple Plan (The film's a lot more dramatic than the book, with a huge difference in the mid-point)
Trainspotting (Amazing book, but I love what they did with the movie)
The Ninth Configuration (A lot more straightforward than the novel, but people still find it strange)
The Pledge (Nicholsan's performance was better than anything my imagination could come up with reading it)
Midnight Cowboy (Not as gritty as the novel, but the movie is just so damned well done, and the performances are great)
Is there any others?
The Shinig? No way. They ruined it. I HATE that movie.
I may get pilloried for this (ironic because I was a Dr. Seuss fanatic as a kid) but I think the Chuck Jones "Grinch" outdoes the book -- somehow it's even 'Suessier' than the original. Add in Boris, well, you've got a perfect cartoon....
In some ways, Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER is better than P.K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep--like most of Dick's novels, it wanders off into psycho-religious, drug-induced philosophizing at the end which makes it a VERY difficult read (and I've tried a couple of times).
I have to say, Kubrick's film, in fact all King adaption films except The Shawshank Redemption, don't come close to the intensity of King's writings. That includes The Green Mile and The Shining. However, Firestarter came close.
Also, I thought that Jurassic Park was much better than the book. I am not a fan of Crichton.
Lastly, I think that Omega Man, with Charlton Heston putting in a great performance was much better than the short story it was based on. Im not at home and it has been a long time, but I believe the book was called I Am Life or something. Not as good as the movie.
Evan3 wrote:
>
> Im not at home and it has been a long time,
> but I believe the book was called I Am Life or something. Not
> as good as the movie.
Richard Matheson's I Am Legend
The original Planet of the Apes was at least as good as the book (whose social satire was actually more obvious and heavy-handed than the film).
Bernie wrote:
>
> The original Planet of the Apes was at least as good as the
> book (whose social satire was actually more obvious and
> heavy-handed than the film).
I agree with that.
Jaws is the most obvious example. The central third of the novel revolves around Hooper having an affair with Brody's wife. Cutting that alone made the movie stronger, and it remains a great film while the book was at best indifferent.
Psycho is certainly a contender.
I'll also pillory Kubrick's grossly overrated adaptation of King's much better novel.
Mmm... I really prefer Richard Matheson's "I am legend" over any film version. Anyway, here are two more novels that I think are worst than their film versions:
- The Godfather: Essentially, the plot is the same, but only Coppolla makes it look that tragic.
- The Fight club: There are some major changes in the second half of the movie that make even more surprising and attractive. The original ending is too methaphisichal.
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0039808) was much better than the short story it was based on, in my opinion. Conversly, I sometimes think I'm the only person on the planet who hates "The Wizard of Oz" because I like the book(s) so much better.
Ken Begg wrote:
>
> Jaws is the most obvious example. The central third of the
> novel revolves around Hooper having an affair with Brody's
> wife. Cutting that alone made the movie stronger, and it
> remains a great film while the book was at best indifferent.
I agree with you there, Ken. The ending of the movie is far superior than the ending of the book as well.
You're all going to hate me for this but (so far) I much prefer the Lord of The Rings movies to the books. The books lack alot of the emotion that the films have as Tolkien seemed much happier on describing what the countryside looks like in enourmous detail rather than creating any real characters apart from one or two. And as the book reaches the end the writing style seems to change and it feels more like a history text book than a novel. The films have much more feeling in them and make alot more of all the characters.
regarding "jaws", i agree with ken begg and Gerry:
> Jaws is the most obvious example. The central third of the novel revolves
> around Hooper having an affair with Brody's wife. Cutting that alone made the
> movie stronger, and it remains a great film while the book was at best indifferent.
i just finished reading it this week...the book has deeper character development, but the parts with the shark are weaker than the movie. the movie's ending is also better...
the movie is definitely better than the book.
- mr. henry
Amityville Horror. I have to admit the book didn't quite live up to what I had hoped. I think the Shawshank movie was better than the book. ;-) I'm assuming "Dreamcatcher" will be (the book was total crap!)
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).
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.
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.
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.
what are some books that are better than the movies that are based on that certain book?
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.
*
*
*
*
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.
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.
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'!!