The book was NOT better!

[Danger^Cart]

So many times we've heard someone say, "meh, the book was better," and the majority of the time they could be right, but this argument is certainly not infallible.

Which screenplays do you feel went above and beyond the quality of storytelling found in the original material? Keep in mind we're talking about the relationship between books/short stories and movies, not magazine articles and the like.

Danger's picks:

Major: The Shining
Moderate: Fight Club
Minor: Man on Fire

[teenkiller]

I agree with The Shining but the other few book to movie conversions that I have both read and seen I preferred the book each time. ESPECIALLY in the cases of IT and The Exorcist. So much had to be left out that the movies just couldn't compete. And that's really saying something because The Exorcist was pretty good as a movie. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

[Derek237]

The Shining is definitely a film that a feel was supremely superior to the book. The more faithful ABC miniseries with Steven Weber is proof enough.

Technically not a book, but I felt the film A History of Violence was much better than the graphic novel. They are each extremely different, but the film is better because it develops the initial concept much better and explores ideas which are more profound and chilling.

And I liked Apocalpyse Now better than Heart of Darkness.


Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe an adaptation can only truly be better if it makes really drastic changes. If it's kind of the same as the book, but leaves some stuff out, switches things around, then the most you can really say is that it's as good as the book, or maybe not quite as good and detailed.

But then again, a great book makes a great movie. Gone With The Wind, The Godfather, Lord of the Rings, etc., no matter how different or the same the movie may be.

[LaRock]

Jaws. I was not impressed with the novel. Protagonists were not sympathetic and the shark wasn't as scary on paper.

[cuckoo2]

the godfather
the verdict
election
about schmidt
sideways
children of men

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I also agree with The Shining. Kubrick's vision was a much darker and chilling one. The book was a stupid and unmoving piece of shit.

[Buck Turgidson]

Actually, I quite like The Shining as a novel. I also quite like Stan's take on the material, as different as it is.

The foremost example of this, to me, is The Natural. Barry Levinson crafted a modern masterpiece from Malamud's novel, which is, to borrow a phrase, an unmoving piece of shit.

[Drewza89]

I'm not sure if I liked the novel better, but the movie Jurassic Park was about as perfect as possible.

I haven't read it, but I'm sure The Lost World novel is better than the movie.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
Actually, I quite like The Shining as a novel. I also quite like Stan's take on the material, as different as it is.

The foremost example of this, to me, is The Natural. Barry Levinson crafted a modern masterpiece from Malamud's novel, which is, to borrow a phrase, an unmoving piece of shit.


Well, if it helps, I saw the movie before I read the book. Still, the book was just not effective. The giant hedgemonsters? Puhleeeze. Two dead little girls holding hands? Genius.

[Buck Turgidson]

No fair hitting me with the scariest, creepiest and simply coolest single image in the whole movie :p

On the other hand, we have a compelling portrait of a good guy who is slowly driven to madness by forces he can't possibly deal with and...Jack, looking like he's about to take the throat out of the guy interviewing him for the job in the first 3 minutes of the film.

See? That's not fair, either :D

[LaRock]

Originally posted by cuckoo2
children of men

One of my favorite films in recent years, but I liked the novel very much. In fact, there were a couple of plot points I preferred in the book:

SPOILERS FOR NOVEL:

I preferred that Theo had killed his child in an accident instead of the child dying from illness. It made his fight to save the unborn baby even stronger and made him a more sympathetic character.

I also preferred that it was Julian herself who was pregnant, although they still addressed the issue of an "outsider" being the hope for the future (Handicapped in book, refugee in film).

END SPOILERS

Still, one of my favorite films. I just love the novel as well.:)

[KyleG]

Last of the Mohicans
Blade Runner

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
No fair hitting me with the scariest, creepiest and simply coolest single image in the whole movie :p

On the other hand, we have a compelling portrait of a good guy who is slowly driven to madness by forces he can't possibly deal with and...Jack, looking like he's about to take the throat out of the guy interviewing him for the job in the first 3 minutes of the film.

See? That's not fair, either :D


Criticizing the film because Jack Nicholson looks insane is like criticizing Apocalypse Now because Marlon Brando looks fat. Jack doesn't mean to look crazy, he just is.

Plus, I suppose your definition of "compelling" differs from mine. Why I loved the movie version more is because they don't feel the need to explain absolutely everything. Most of the questions were unanswered while, in the book, we knew about every ghost and how they got there. Plus, the book had a more Hollywood ending than the movie did.

[Badbird]

Jaws - awful book.

Blade Runner - depressing, boring book.

The Relic - bet you're surprised it was a book. Yeah, it was terrible.

Narnia: The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe - pretty much the exact same, only the movie is far more interesting.

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by Drewza89
I'm not sure if I liked the novel better, but the movie Jurassic Park was about as perfect as possible.

I haven't read it, but I'm sure The Lost World novel is better than the movie.

A fine example, if only because Chrichton is such a horrible, horrible writer. He should employ an actual writer to scribe his ideas, because premise is about the only thing he does well.

[sarah1980]

The Natural the movie was 753489758943758347 times better then the book if you've read the book you know why

[RandalGraves]

Lord of the Rings

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Criticizing the film because Jack Nicholson looks insane is like criticizing Apocalypse Now because Marlon Brando looks fat. Jack doesn't mean to look crazy, he just is. So maybe Stanley should have cast someone else.

I love them both (much like I love Stanley's take on A Clockwork Orange as well as Burgess' novel.) I don't see it as a zero sum situation.

[Le_Big_Mac]

A Clockwork Orange. As great as the book is, it was better without the random redemption ending. So, for that reason, we can be glad, in the U.S., it was published incompletely.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
So maybe Stanley should have cast someone else.

I love them both (much like I love Stanley's take on A Clockwork Orange as well as Burgess' novel.) I don't see it as a zero sum situation.


Very well, agree to disagree.


Still, though. You don't like the movie at least a teeny weeny bit more?

[Briare Rabbit]

Jaws, and I'd throw in the Godfather.

I'd also daringly say To Kill a Mockingbird. I do love the book, but the film does so much more with certain themes, and the absence of the supremely irritating Aunt Alexandra was noticed.

[X-Nightcrawler]

I haven't read "Children of Men", and I really don't want to (it's one of my all time favorite movies).

But "Battle Royale" is definitely better a film than a book.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Still, though. You don't like the movie at least a teeny weeny bit more? A Clockwork Orange? Yes. Probably 10% more.

[LaRock]

Seeing the Die Hard poll in this forum reminded me that the original Die Hard film is so much better than the novel it's based on, Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorpe.

[floydtheater07]

The Godfather
Zodiac


No way is "The Shining" film better than the book. The book actually shows the transformation of this character and is more metaphorical. Kubrick simplifies everything. Genius as he is, he did the same thing with A Clockwork Orange.


"Fight Club" the novel is far better than the movie.

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by floydtheater07
No way is "The Shining" film better than the book. The book actually shows the transformation of this character and is more metaphorical. Kubrick simplifies everything....


Including stripping away the emotional core of the father/son relationship. "The Shining" remains the scariest book I've ever read. It also includes an extremely touching moment right in the middle of terror. Kubrick got all of King's scares in, including the scary topiary and dead children, but failed to bring to the screen the emotion essence of the novel. Which is why I don't the movie.

[QUENTIN]

The Godfather is the ultimate example of this. That's actually a BAD novel. It's got a great story, but Puzo's prose is terribly lurid and sensationalistic. Coppola transformed what was essentially a poorly-written pulp novel with some larger-than-life characters and powerful plotting and turned it into one of the greatest movies ever made.

[mutesaint]

Originally posted by X-Nightcrawler
I haven't read "Children of Men", and I really don't want to (it's one of my all time favorite movies).

But "Battle Royale" is definitely better a film than a book.

I actually much prefer the novel to the movie(not that I dont like the movie, I love it). Sure the translation(to english anyways) leads to odd rythms occasionally, but I just got more of an emotional resonance from the book. Maybe because it appeared less exploitationy due to its novelistic form.