Can you think of any movie adaptation that is good/better than the book?

[Audrey]

Lord of the Rings and the Princess Bride both had movies that followed the book pretty closely.

[Jennifer]

Narnia! They're all such great movies!

[Olivia]

I think the Lord of the Rings movies are as good as the books, and even better in some aspects (like the really epic battles). There were a couple things that were changed or left out in the movies that irked me (Faramir was NOT tempted by the ring in the books!), but all in all, I enjoy the movies quite a lot.

Also, many of my friends disagree, but I think The Hunger Games was a GREAT movie adaptation. Again, there were a couple disappointments (no Madge), but I loved how true to the book the movie was. The movie was even able to show the reactions of the people in the districts that we never got to see in the book due to being stuck in Katniss' head. I was immensely impressed!

[whoufflestories]

The Collector.
Does a tv show count? Cause in that case Gossip Girl.
Great Gabsy (I think is how it's spelled).
Pretty Little Liars tv show

[Karen]

Forrest Gump.

[Abby]

No. Never have, and I doubt that I ever will. It's just not very likely!

[Ruth]

The Princess Bride.

[SarahO]

Even though there are many differences, I enjoy the movie Stardust better than the book (by Neil Gaiman). It's probably because I watched it first.

[Juliaty]

Sara wrote: "THE LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, I can't believe only one person mentioned that!!!!!!! They were just as good as the books!!!!!"

agree with that. LOTR is awesome. book n movie.

[Chesarina]

Julia wrote: "The Vampire Diaries. I think the adaption is much better than the books."

You're absolutely right!

[Kat]

The Love Letter is the only movie I've ever seen (and I've seen almost all the movies listed above) that was better than the original story, probably because it was based on a short story and the movie expanded on it rather than leaving anything out.

[Jenny]

The Help was sooo good, pretty much just as good as the book, and the casting was done perfectly! I also really loved Julie and Julia, which was a million times better than the novel. Meryl Streep was phenomenal! The actual work was incredibly anti-climactic, a bit dragged out, and boring after the first few chapters.

[Ira]

I realy liked the secret garden. Although at some points different from the book, I concider it to be a realy good film adaptation, equal to the book.The direction and the photography are good.
Lord of the rings was also good because it stayed true to the spirit of the books. The Hobbit seem to stay in the same spirit.
The two first Harry Potter books stay true to the books, but after that they changed around too much. The movies kind of lacked the magic the books had.On the positive side I liked most of the actors playing the characters. Too sad about the guy playing Dumbledore in the beginning :( . It took me three movies to get used to the new one.
I only mentioned movies that I have read the book that it is based upon.

[anthea]

I agree! The original Dumbledore was much softer and looked kinder than the newer one, it's a shame he died!

[Emma]

I do think that the last Twilight movie was way better than the book. Now, I'm a fan of the books and everything. But I dislike Breaking Dawn... a lot. Especially the second part of it.

I hate Bella in the book, I hate Jacob in the book, I even hate Edward in the book. And I love that dude.
But they were all so much better in the movie. (They did not include all of the annoying please stop talking - scenes.)

Also, the non existing fight scene. It was wonderfully done in the movie. So that's one.

As someone said before, Warm Bodies. I was amazed on how much alike they were. But I found the movie a bit funnier so I think it's better.

But it's a completely different experience to read a book and watch a movie. Some changes are necessarily. But with Percy Jackson, I'm convinced that they've only read the summary on the back of the books before writing the script. Way too much is missing.

[Amy]

Honestly, the Lord of The Rings Adaptions were amazing. They didnt quite pass the book but they were definitely an equal!

[D.e.]

I felt the [2002] Count of Monte Cristo adaptation starring Jim Caviezel was very well done. The reason for my being bold enough to state it in this forum is because the story held the same as the book, for the larger part than most Hollywood films, and actually used the Dumas source materials and character development to make conjectural leaps based on the text that Dumas never even bothered to suggest. Such as: The likelihood that Albert is Edmond's son, and the screenwriter has Fernand muse over the likelihood that he may not be the father by recollecting an unknown discussion with Mercedes where he utters the word "...premature..." I thought this was just as nice a bit of story evolution based on solid text as the psychic vision Aro has, thanks to the unspoken prediction made by Alice, in the movie: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2. So let's just sum it up as two movies with nice leaps and surprises for both book fan and movie fan alike.

[Becci]

Potter I'd say was as good as the books. LOTR was way better than the books - the story was great but I can't stand his writing. Princess Bride was also good like the book.
Lightning Thief would have been ok/passable as a movie - IF you haven't read the books.
And I love Narnia - the movies, the tv/movies and the books - only annoyed they've never made the last three (LastBattle/MagNephew/HorseBoy) as those were my favs.
As for the Dick novels - they're always better, though the movies are quite good. Like Pratchett (LOVE!)they're hard to translate to screen.
Oh, and Hitchhiker movie was also a fail.

[Isabel]

I have to say the Lightning Thief disappointed me. I thought they should have treated them like HP. Have kids younger and not herd of to be the actors. Percy looks sixteen when he's supposed to be twelve. so when its the Last Olympian will he be twenty-one?

I also expected them to ATALY FOLOW THE PLOT OF THE REAL STORY!!!! I also agree that the movie would have been better had I not been obsessed with the books but... if I want to see a movie that is base of a book I should expect it to run in the same way as the book.

ever since Lightning Thief came out I've been scared to go and see any other move that's base off of one of my favorite books in fear that it will end up the same way. But City of Bones turned our rely good and now I'm hopping Divergent and Vampire Academy do to.

[Ebony]

I've heard that LOTR is better than or just as good as the books, but I've only ever read The Hobbit and I still haven't seen that movie.

[Harley]

The Secret of Roan Inish, movie adaptation of The Secret of the Ron Mor Skerry by Rosalie K. Fry. The book is good, but the movie is better.
Also, Whale Rider and The Seeker are both better than the book.

[Courtney]

Jvanhaute wrote: "Perks of Being a Wallflower. I can't choose which is better the book or the movie."

Book was better but the movie was REALLY good so I understand your dilemma

[Ravenna]

The Twilight movies are better than the books. The books were so bad I wouldn't even wipe my self with the pages. The movies were tolerable at the very least.

[Tejus]

The Godfather (Parts 1 and 2) were better than the original book.
What's Eating Gilbert Grape was better than the book.

[Maddie]

I personally thought the Twilight movies were better than the books
but I also hated the movies
i just hated the books more

I mean, at least you were done with a movie in a couple hours
you're stuck on a horribly written book for much longer than that

[Skyler]

How to Train your Dragon.

[Nej]

The Vampire Diaries. It actually a series, not a movie, but the storyline is much better developed then in the books.(i liked the books but i love the series)