The Book Was Better Than The Movie
When these books were adapted for the screen, they didn't live up to expectations.
Tags:
movies
20
24
34
Lists are re-scored approximately every 500 seconds
comments (showing 1-50 of 154) (154 new)
I'd be curious to see a list of movies that were better than the book, I certainly can't think of any...
I think To Kill a Mockingbird, the movie was actually a really good adaptation of the book - the only one I like, actually. I don't know if I would go so far as to say BETTER than the book.
Though I agree that the book is always better than the movie, but I think Shawshank Redemption, can be made an exception. That is the only one that I can think of.When I read this short story by Stephen King, it didn't feel as gr8 as was the movie. I think Frank Darabont just made something special out of it.
One instance where I thought the movie was better than the book - "The Bridges of Madison County" - after reading it, which only took me about three hours, I couldn't believe this had been on all the best seller lists and was highly touted by the critics. Went to see the movie only because I like Streep and Eastwood, and not really expecting much, but thought it was terrific. Another movie that I liked better than the book was "The Shipping News" but that may be just me; Annie Proulx doesn't do much for me.
I Only voted for The Princess Bride because even though I'm a strong advocate for books over movies, this was the first book turned movie that I thought came anywhere close to representing the text. Since reading it, I've always believed this movie to be superior in execution of a tale that had me laughing out loud every other page. And there wasn't an option (other than here) of saying if you thought that the movie did an accurate or better version of the story
So they changed the Zoo of Death to the Pits of Despair... not that big a difference in the scheme of things, and when you've got the author on set giving his approval for the change, who can complain really?
Taking dialog verbatem from the book was what really sold me on the movie, and the only way I can concieve (heh) a better version being done is if they could have incorporated the background bits without making the movie too much longer than it is.
Then again, I'm young enough that I didn't know there Was a book until after I'd seen the movie.
i have not met a movie that is better than the book...yet. i think the latest adaptation of "Pride & Prejudice" with Keira Knightley was a grand effort that i thoroughly enjoyed and Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy" although skipping alot on the history of Middle Earth (understandably) is my favourite movie adaptation of a book so much so that I have the DVDs as well the book.
Starship Troopers is another tough one. How can you even say that they're the same story?
I liked the movie for how it updated/advanced the already far advanced technology of Heinlen's time, and how they humanized more of the characters. Take away that, and there still isn't enough in common with the book to think that it is okay giving them the same title.
I think that Fight Club was actually a better movie than it was a book. Both very good, though, and of course the movie wouldn't exist without the book.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the few cases of movies that I've loved; and I could never get through the books. And I'd have to agree with the writer who mentioned The Shawshank Redemption. I thought that the movie came closer to the meaning of the story, if that makes any sense. It might have been the script though in that particular case, I really think it was Tim Robbins and MOrgan Freeman.
How about Dr. Zhivago? It was an amazing movie, and although Pasternak's book is great, it just didn't have the visuals or the musical score that the movie did.
Although I saw Holes before I read it, and usually I don't like the movie as well as the book, this was one case where I thought that both were equally emjoyable.
There are quite a few on the list that I've only seen/read one or the other, and even more that I've never seen either. However, I'm flabbergasted that The English Patient isn't on this list. The movie was sentimental schlock that focused on the least interesting relationship. The book was incredible. I saw the movie first, and I'm so glad that it didn't dissuade me from reading the book.
That said, there are a lot of movies on this list that were almost offensively bad-- from Memoirs of a Geisha and The Hours to (shudder) the Dr. Seuss adaptations.
Some of the movies, though, are really good in their own right, even if the book is better. The Lord of the Rings movies and The Great Gatsby are both great, and stick pretty close to their source material.
I also liked the movie version of Everything is Illuminated-- Eugene Hutz was so awesome-- except for the the one twist that really really differed from the book. On the other hand, I was glad that they ditched the whole Trachimbrod literary-Chagall chapters, which were the most annoying parts of the book.
Similarly, both the book and movie High Fidelity had their merits. I'd be hard-pressed to choose one over the other. (And not just because of John Cusack!) I'd say the same about The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; I really enjoyed the movie. In both these cases, though, the filmmakers stuck to the spirit of the book, even if they tweaked the storyline or moved the story to Chicago.
And I can think of a couple examples of movies that did outshine the book. One of these is Empire of the Sun. Not only is it the only Spielberg movie that I really like, it's filmed gorgeously, 13-year-old Christian Bale is amazing, and it captures something that the book is missing. Secretary is about a million times better than the Mary Gaitskill story that it's based on. And, of course it's a cliche to say that the Godfather movies are on a different plane than the books.
I love both the book and movie. One of the best film to capture the mood, culture and characters of the book. One of the all time best reads and films.
Clockwork Orange is also one of the closest book to movie that works -- Kubrick actually did the directing from the book when Burgess the author did the screenplay and they decided to just direct right from the book...
agreed...if you're speaking about Wonder Boys...the book was really good, but it went on a bit too long, and lacked a nice, concise ending. The movie did a great job of fixing the disjointed parts, and improving the overall pace.
Corelli's Mandolin should DEFINITELY be on this list. The book is one of my favorites of all time, and the movie was absolutely horrid.
Agree with all of the above, except for the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Am not the greatest fan of the books, but Tolkien deserved better than those films.Granted, it's not easy to adapt a book in a film, but it's not impossible to do so, witness Pratchett's Hogfather the adaptation of which was both spectacular ant thrilling and utterly adhering to the book.
Strictly speaking, Darkly Dreaming Dexter was made into a TV series, not a movie. Perhaps there should be a seperate list for books made into TV shows. BTW, I think the Dexter series is one of the better programs on television, even though it doesn't completely follow the story line of the book.
Ella Enchanted was the worst movie. The book was excellent, and I read it several times because I was so excited for the movie. Sadly, It was a HUGE dissapointment. The only book I've read where the movie was better is Carrie. The remake of the movie is awesome :}
Absolutely Agree -- they slaughtered the story and miscast the characters with Tom Hanks and Melanie Griffths. Horrible!
I am amazed to see Children of Men on this list! It is a mediocre book at best, and is an absolutely stunning movie.
I think this list is coming from the wrong angle. It should be "This film is better than the book": a much rarer and more noteworthy occurence. Off the top of my head I can only think of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" ...
mmmm. didn't know some of these had been made into movies. Will have to get back to them. Also need to read some of the books on this list (that I have see the movies to)
Ummm have to justify my Harry Potter votes... I love the movies, but the books are way better
I didn't know whether to vote for The Devil Wears Prada or not because the book was great, and so was the movie, but their plots were actually different, so I feel like they almost shouldn't count as one. And not totally different, but for me, different enough.
I hope everybody has a fabulous day.
I would like to add The Great Gatsby, The Sword in the Stone, Captain Horatio Hornblower, The Little Prince, and The Right Stuff.
Ummm...Why is The Dark Knight Returns on this list? If there was a film adaptation of it, I'm pretty sure I'd know. People can't seriously be trying to say that the movie The Dark Knight is an adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns, can they? (Or are they referring to the small little segment of the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Legends of the Dark Knight"? That wouldn't really count, I'd think.) Is there any way to recommend that a book be removed from the list?
I liked the broadway play of this book but I think the book still had more of an opportunity to go into more detail. I love this book. :D
I basically agree that the book is 99.9% of the time better than the movie; however, I didn't care at all for The Shining and loved the movie and I didn't like the book Congo and although I admit the movie was almost just as bad, I was able to get through without nodding off too badly.
There aren't many, but some are based on the book, but end up both good and so different that it's hard to compare.
I'd disagree that the book is always better than the movie, though in most cases that is correct. It is very hard to ever truly satisfy everyone's imagination when a novel is turned into a film. But I think the movie "Holes", wonder of wonders, was actually better than the book, despite being made by Disney.
In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix they missed a lot of detail out of the film which I though spoiled it a bit. I know if they put everything in it would last ages, but still. Better to do it well...or not at all.
Emma Watson was really good though as Hermione.
Books are usually ALWAYS better! However the new adaption of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is almost as good as the book. :D
Out of what I've seen, I'd say Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the worst adaptions. If you happen to really like NEVER watch it with me in the room or you will not hear a word of the movie. >XP I point out every single mistake in that one, even small ones because of how much I hate it.
Helene wrote: "In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix they missed a lot of detail out of the film which I though spoiled it a bit. I know if they put everything in it would last ages, but still. Better to d..."
I agree. People will sit through 5 hours of Lord of the Rings so why not add some more of the story instead of leaving so much detail out. XP I liked it first time around because it is closer than the others, but I can't watch it anymore.
Well, I nominated "Forrest Gump" and I cannot think of a better book in proportion to the film based on it. If you disagree then you haven't read it.
I read Forest Gump and thought the movie was much better. I liked his character more in the movie - they made him more of a wide-eyed-innocent. I found him much less likable in the book.
reply
|