The Lord of the Rings
discussion
Is there a film that is better than the book?
message 1:
by
James
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Oct 11, 2012 02:52AM

reply
|
flag

Bridget Jones's Diary (both parts)
Bridges of Madison County
The Horse Whisperer
(They seem all to fall in the same category, Romance/Chick flick - hmm, have to look for some others...)
Oh, Soylent Green; it's not better than the book, but I did like the changes they made, especially re Soylent Green, a lot.
Desert Hearts - definitively better than the book!
The Werewolf of Paris and Logan’s Run are both much better executed in the movies than in the novel.


Minority Report, Bladerunner, Imposter, and A Scanner Darkly are all great modernizations of Philip K. Dick's works and when I watch them, I can imagine him being thrilled with the technology represented. (Yes, even Paycheck remains one of my faves.)
On the classical front: Emma and Sense & Sensibility by Jane Austen are great movies. As You Like It is my favorite Shakespeare interpretation along with Midsummer's Night Dream.



Got this still to read, but still delaying it having watched the film. True, JB was chilling, so worried the words might not capture that.

I'm with you on that one.

i thought another redford movie "the natural" was also better than the book of the same name, by bernard malamud.

I LOVED Tom Bombadil!!!! While the movies were wonderful, they just are not as good as the books.

Never knew that No Country was based on a book. I take back what I said about the genius of the Coen brothers!
Yeah, I'm a heretic.

I would add Princess Bride and Clockwork Orange.



Count of Monte Cristo: I LOVED the movie with Jim Caviezel as the Count. What a great story of love, revenge and redemption.
I was devastated when this one did NOT have the happy ending the movie did. Was SO not ready for the "get thee to a nunnery" ending! What were you thinking, Dumas?



Evening with Claire Danes based on the book by Susan Minot. I hated the book and the writing style.

I agree

I totally agree, LOTR movies were far better than the movie. Sure, they left some stuff out, but it was all stuff that could be left out and not damage the integrity of the story. IMHO I found the books to be a little dull.

I agree with you. I don't see what people have against Tom Bombadil. However, I was ok with his removal from the movie, as it made the story flow better. What I found unforgivable, though, is the removal of The Scouring of the Shire. IMO, removing that was like removing the entire point of the book.


Forest Gump is much better than the book.
X Men are much better than the comic.



TrumanCoyote wrote: "Of course! There are many films that are better than the books. To suggest otherwise is mere snobbery."
The general rule of thumb has always been: Good book, bad movie; bad book, good movie.
Jaws is the perennial example of a pretty bad book turned into a really great movie.
Full Metal Jacket is a superb movie based on a trio of short stories (found in
The Short-Timers), the first two of which were mediocre and the third seemed written under the influence of LSD and god knows what else. Kubrick did a similar thing with the book Red Alert which he turned into Dr. Strangelove.


Fightclub (Chuck Palahniuk) - Hated the book, loved the film.

Yes, I'd agree.

Lord of the Rings is an excellent read, and I liked it better than the movie because I could skip over any songs (in the book) I wanted, and in the movie version, that whole trek with Frodo seemed interminable.

I think the inverse is also true, if the book is bad but the cast and the director want to do justice to the core of the work then the quality of the filming has the chance to overcome the lack of quality in the book. If, once again, it is all about trying to make something that us a blockbuster and nobody cares about the source material, then the odds of it being horrid go up.
In both cases, I think the attitude of the cast and crew in regards to the book determines how good the movie can be.

Hunger Games makes BY FAR a better movie than a book. Hated the book, liked the movie (not love, but I enjoyed it well enough).
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer was a wonderful book.I think the movie was even better with all the cinematography and specially Ben's character as Jean Baptiste Grenouille.

I would add Princess Bride and Clockwork Orange."
Agreed.


(I strongly disagree about Lord of the Rings and Bridget Jones, though.)


Also, Contact - starring Jodi Foster.

The Count of Monte Cristo
The Man in the Iron Mask
The Three Musketeers
We Were Soldiers Once And Young
The Call of the Wild
Master and Commander (so far...)

Couldn't agree more. Jackson skipped all the sections I skip on a re-read. Love LOTR but enough elf song already!
In most cases, does it not depend which you experienced first? If you love a film then read the book you'll be disappointed with the book and vice versa?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
We Were Soldiers Once... and Young: Ia Drang - The Battle that Changed the War in Vietnam (other topics)
The Man in the Iron Mask (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
The Three Musketeers (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Call of the Wild (other topics)We Were Soldiers Once... and Young: Ia Drang - The Battle that Changed the War in Vietnam (other topics)
The Man in the Iron Mask (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
The Three Musketeers (other topics)
More...