Books vs Movies
Are there any movies based on books that you like better than the book?
I just read a book by Alice Sebold called The Lovely Bones. It’s about a 14 year old girl who is murdered, and the story is told from her point of view, as a dead person. Usually when I read I don’t see the story like a movie in my head. But this book I did. And I kept wondering if it was made into a movie what sort of feel it’d have. There are so many directions you could take it—creepy/scary, fanciful/dreamy.
I enjoyed the book—it really drew me in. But I thought the ending was sort of lame.
I just found out it’s been made into a movie, coming out in December. Directed by Peter Jackson, it looks pretty dang awesome.
I’m hoping they change the ending a bit, but I’m guessing they probably won’t. But this might be a case where I like the movie better than the book.
The book version of The Matrix sucked.
Comment by Supergenius — November 3, 2009 @ 11:54 am
How about The Lord of the Rings trilogy?
Comment by bythelbs — November 3, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
The LOTR trilogy is a great movie experience, but the books are still better. I can’t think of any movie off hand that was better than the book. Maybe Shawshank Redemption?
Comment by meems — November 3, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
I prefer Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451 to Bradbury’s novel. The estranged characters are more vivid, and the whole thing is moody. Maybe that was what comes from a British production based on an American novel with a French director and a German lead actor. I didn’t miss the mechanical hound a bit.
Comment by Mansfield — November 3, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
I think the Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books. I did see the movies before reading the books, so that could have something to do with it, but I thought the movies did a good job of trimming the (considerable) excesses of the books.
Comment by Brian V — November 3, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Harry Potter?
(ducks for cover)
I could never accept that the Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books. I loved the movies but those books are in a special category all their own.
Also, the extended happy ending of the last Lord of the Rings movie – well, it kind of sucked. Too much happy laughter and crinkled eyes.
I would much preferred to have seen the now tough hobbits take on ‘Sharky’ and his minions, rather than that crap.
Comment by danithew — November 3, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
I liked Hunt for Red October better in movie form than book form. Too much minutiae in Clancy’s writing. (I realize, some people enjoy that.)
Susan, is Lovely Bones anything like Dead Like Me? =)
Comment by FHL — November 3, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
In general, as I’ve thought this over – if a great movie is based on a book, it’s hard to knock the book.
Comment by danithew — November 3, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
I’ll second Hunt for Red October. The book uses a clunky sequence of events to “rescue” the October, whereas in the movie it’s more exciting and more clever (which is not to say it’s more believable).
As for another movie that’s better than the book: how about The Ten Commandments?
Comment by BrianJ — November 3, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
The movie Jaws is infinitely better than the book Jaws. Field of Dreams is better than Shoeless Joe.
Comment by kuri — November 3, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Dexter is reportedly far superior to the book. (Albeit I’ve never read the books – and it’s a TV show and not a movie)
I think Kubrick’s The Shining is vastly superior to King’s book.
I’ve not read it but I’ve heard the film of Fight Club is vastly superior to the book as well.
2001: A Space Odyssey is better than the book – although they were both made together.
Comment by Clark — November 3, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
The Godfather.
Comment by Tracy M — November 3, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Clark! What?? Not a chace. The Shining is a scary movie, but the book had me terrified and unable to get off the couch for days. The Shining is King’s masterpiece.
Comment by Tracy M — November 3, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
I think I agree with what Tracy M. is saying about the Shining.
It may be Stephen King’s best book.
Comment by danithew — November 3, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
“Fight Club” is better as a movie.
“A Clockwork Orange” is probably better as a movie.
I agree with Shawshank. Also, “Being There,” because Peter Sellers is awesome.
Comment by lp — November 3, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
On the low brow side of things…The Jane Austen Book Club. TONS better than the book.
Comment by gabby — November 3, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
FHL: Haven’t heard of Dead Like Me. I know the concept is definitely not original—I just saw a movie about a murdered kid called The Invisible on tv the other night. Although that kid isn’t dead—he’s in a coma. But his spirit is running around trying to get people to realize he’s not dead.
I think I’d rate John Grisham’s movies as better than his books, or at least even with. But it’s been awhile since I’ve read or seen any Grisham.
Comment by Susan M — November 3, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Let the Right One In
I picked up the book bc I’d heard such good things about the movie. The story is great but the writing is really bad. A different writer for the movie makes it great!
Comment by amri — November 3, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
The Shawshank movie follows the novella very, very closely.
Comment by danithew — November 3, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
I was pretty underwhelmed by Let the Right One In myself.
I’m sticking with my Kubrick claim. I think The Shining is one of the few great horror films.
An other movie better than the book is Blade Runner which is much better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (But then I always thought most Dick books were great ideas that lacked something in implementation – so they’re ideal for movies)
The Bourne movies are all vastly superior to the novels (although they become less and less connected to the novels that bore their names)
I think the recent Casino Royale was much better than the book. (Honestly the Bond books really aren’t that great – although Casino is one of the better of the bunch)
I never read the short story Shawshank was based upon. How was it?
Most Michael Crichton movies suck, but then the books really suck too by and large. So I’m torn about Jurassic Park. I didn’t like it. But I absolutely hated the book.
Comment by Clark — November 3, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
My understanding is that the musical version of Wicked is superior to the book. I haven’t read the book because people I trust have told me that it is an abomination.
Comment by a random John — November 3, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest. Better as a movie.
And I’ll disagree about Clockwork Orange. Both are very cool in their own way, but ultimately, I found the book better.
Comment by Jeremy — November 3, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
I liked the book Wicked. But I haven’t seen the play, alas. Stupid living in the sticks.
Clark, The Shining was a truly great horor movie. It was. But it’s not better than the book. That’s actually a reflection of the excellence of the book, rather than on the movie.
Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemtion was just a short story in an anthology. It was good, but the movie was better. And now, there is never a time, somewhere, on some channel, that it is not showing on some TV set somewhere.
Comment by Tracy M — November 3, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
Sadly that doesn’t mean much Tracy. I’ve become convinced the past weeks that everyday on some channel Tom Cruise is making an appearance in some movie. (Seriously – it’s weirder than the 5 degrees of Kevin Bacon) Cruise is more consistently “there” (even if unwanted) than Shawshank.
Joking aside I loved Shawshank and even dug The Green Mile.
Comment by Clark — November 4, 2009 @ 12:58 am
Frank Darabont should be the only one allowed to adapt King novels. The Mist was pretty good and I heard King liked it more than his own book.
Comment by Tim J — November 4, 2009 @ 8:35 am
I can’t think of any movies I like better than the book versions. But there are a lot of instances where I’ve read the book but never seen the movie, and vice versa.
Pirates of the Caribbean is a much better movie than ride, however.
Comment by madhousewife — November 4, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
I liked the book a Clockwork Orange better.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is better as a film.
Comment by Tyler — November 4, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
I honestly think I like To Kill a Mockingbird better as a movie than the book (although the book certainly is great.
Here’s one for you. How about Bladerunner over “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”
Comment by Bret — November 4, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Blade Runner is so vastly different from “Do Androids” that the comparison seems unfair–like apples and oranges, frankly.
I felt that it was a remarkable novel with some fascinating ideas, most of which were completely abandoned in the making of the film–which is probably precisely why it is a good movie. When filmmakers aren’t bold enough to shape the material into film material, then you end up with films that are slavishly devoted to the source material that end up bloated, and or incoherent. Most of the Harry Potter films I’ve seen fit this bill, as did Watchmen.
Comment by Brian G. — November 5, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
I was actually surprised how good the film Watchmen was when I finally saw it. And I think the ending in the film is vastly superior to the book. I’m not going to say Watchmen is superior to the book simply because the book was so revolutionary at the time and has so much interesting depth. Plus the violence in the movie felt too stylized and out of place. And I’ll never forgive the director for that Halluluja music. Gah! Other than that though I think the movie was great and in some ways, like the ending, superior to the book.
BladeRunner sure is different. I remember reading the book and being flummoxed at just how different it was. Still, the movie is a masterpiece whereas the book isn’t even remotely one of Dick’s best.
Still, I kind of dig movies that take flawed books and improve them. I’ve mentioned Dexter which does this. It’s a great idea and often better than adapting great books. Ditto with remakes. Why is it Hollywood remakes good or great movies, usually never coming close to the original, while leaves flawed movies that could easily be made better alone?
Comment by Clark — November 5, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
About a Boy by Nick Hornby. The movie ending was way better than the book.
Comment by TStevens — November 6, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
I just recently re-read the Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy, then watched the movies (extended versions) on blu-ray. The movies are great, but the books are much, much better.
BTW, the video game is awesome too.
Comment by MCQ — November 7, 2009 @ 1:29 am
I actually haven’t read “Androids” and only saw Bladerunner recently, so even that I don’t think I’m getting the full experience as those of you who have known it all these years. I’ll take your word for it though:D
Another one I haven’t read but watched and am told the movie is better is The Princess Bride
Clark,
Amen on the remakes! Better to do reboots of good movies rather than remakes even though those can be hit or miss (Star Trek and the Witch Mountain movies come to mind in dichotomy:)
Even though I loved the originals, I’d love to see a reboot of Conan based more truly to Howard’s originals. Also Highlander and get someone who can actually act this time!:D
Comment by Bret — November 7, 2009 @ 2:00 am
The way I remember it, the Shawshank Redemption movie followed the plot/storyline of the novella “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” so closely that I’m not sure how the movie could be considered an improvement. I really like the movie too. But the story provides all the guts and most of the details of that movie.
The only odd/unusual variation was choosing a black actor to portray Red. But of course that worked marvelously.
It’s been a long time since I read the novella – but I read it many times as a teenager. Maybe I should go back and give it another read to see if memory serves correctly.
Comment by danithew — November 7, 2009 @ 3:03 am
I’ve heard that about Princess Bride too. But like you I’ve never read the original.
I’ve also heard Forest Gump is much better than the book. It was on TV last week. I only watched part but I’d forgotten just how good it was.
The Thing is a great little short story but Carpenter’s masterpiece version of it is fantastic. Sadly they are remaking it and I’m sure it’ll be a CGI cheesefest. It’s weird because some movies feel dated. Outside of the Apple//e and its graphics, Carpenter’s The Thing seems like it could have been made yesterday.
An other one I thought of is Mann’s The Last of the Mohicans. If you’ve ever tried to read the original… Well it’s one of those 19th century books that are unreadable in my view.
Of course what is so interesting as I did Google searches for this is how many great adaptations of books come from great books. The rest are books I’ve never read and probably never will. (Seriously – are you going to read the book Die Hard was adapted from?)
Comment by Clark — November 7, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
I LOVED The Princess Bride book. LOVED. So funny. However, the movie is great as well. I’d put them on a different but equal plane.
Comment by gabby — November 7, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
“I LOVED The Princess Bride book. LOVED. So funny. However, the movie is great as well. I’d put them on a different but equal plane.”
Of course, the screenwriter William Goldman is responsible for both, so it may be the most faithful and judicious adaptations ever.
About a Boy really was a good adaptation. Then again, as much as I like Hornby, the guy is much better with set-ups than endings.
The Godfather is an excellent one. The book is pretty poorly written, while the film is a masterpiece.
A couple of the Grisham movies (off the top of my head, The Firm and The Runaway Jury–I think it was) were better than the books. But then, Grisham isn’t a very good writer.
Comment by BTD Greg — November 7, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Any Robin Cook. Not because the movies were great (although Cook is good with plot) but simply because Cook makes Grisom or Brown seem like they deserve Pulitzers for style.
Comment by Clark — November 7, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
I loved the Princess Bride book and read it before seeing the movie. I recently re-read the book to our kids, though, and agree the movie is better.
Comment by Allison — November 8, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Watership Down is a great book, but the animated movie is surprisingly very good as well. Great voice cast and music and a song by Art Garfunkel! I don’t know if it’s better than the book, but it’s probably just as good, which is saying a lot.
Comment by MCQ — November 8, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Been doing a bit of lurking here – always love the great commentary and thoughtful postings.
Has anyone considered Vonnegut’s “Slaughter House 5″ and an absolute great film adaption of the novel – both very good but I thought the film was even more accessible than the novel.
Comment by Allen — November 9, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
I think the novel of Slaughter House is vastly, vastly superior to the movie. The whole determinism vs. free will bit doesn’t come through in the movie. (IMO) I really didn’t like the movie.
Comment by Clark — November 9, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
The book version of The Princess Bride frequently detours into long digressions about the author’s divorce, other aspects of his midlife crisis, and how boring the supposed ancient book from which the story was taken is. While the story the movie depicts is in there, you really get something very different from what you’d expect after seeing the movie.
Comment by a random John — November 10, 2009 @ 12:57 am
And yes the movie is far superior.
Comment by a random John — November 10, 2009 @ 12:58 am
Even though it was one of the great cheesy movie spectacles of all time, the 1956 version of “The Ten Commandments” is vastly superior to the Old Testament. I mean, has anyone completely made it through Numbers and Deuteronomy??
Comment by Mudhead — November 10, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
I like the movie of the Sisterhood of the Traveling pants better. I found the book utterly depressing, but the movie was lighthearted and sweet. It was still sad, but in a good way.
Comment by kimberly — November 12, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
The Blind side the movie is great. Really heartwarming and lovable. The book is boring me to tears. How did this book become so popular? It is 30 percent football stats.
Comment by Tiffany Hernandez — April 1, 2010 @ 2:17 pm