# Good Book, BETTER Movie ?



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

Usually the phrase "but the book was better" applies to all movies based on books, however on a ver very rare occasion the movie can surpass the book.

My prime example is "The Shawshank Redemption" based on the Stephen King short story "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption".  The story this is based on is a good Stephen King story. The characters, plot, and story are all well written, however the movie was amazing.  I'll admit I saw the movie, and re-watched it many many times before getting around to actually reading the story, and perhaps this skewed my opinion a bit.

Another example is True Blood / The Sookie Stackhouse Southern Vampire series.   I love the TV show and can't wait for the next season, however I found the books utterly unreadable and stopped reading the 2nd book about 50 pages in and never picked it back up.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

Maybe Vampire Diaries? I love the tv show, but admittedly have never read the books so they may also be great.

On another Steven King note, how about Green Mile? Probably also put Stand By Me (from the story 'The Body') in this category too.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2010)

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS


----------



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

TheRiddler said:


> Maybe Vampire Diaries? I love the tv show, but admittedly have never read the books so they may also be great.
> 
> On another Steven King note, how about Green Mile? Probably also put Stand By Me (from the story 'The Body') in this category too.


I haven't read The Body so I don't really have an opinion on that one, but I will say I think Stand by Me is one of the top 5 Stephen King movies.

Green Mile however... I love this movie it's amazing, superbly cats, written and directed, I can watch it anytime and be happy doing it. The book however was all the movie is and a bit more. Excellent story that I just ripped through drinking it in great gobs. If you remember, Green mile was published as a series of short chapter books spread out over a period of 6 months, and for me this memory helps add to my enjoyment of the books. I was working in a retail book store at the time and I remember the half serious frustration of customers having to wait an entire month before the next chapter was released. I however was smart enough to not start the series until the 5th volume was released and had the 6th volume in my hands 4 days before the "legal" release date.


----------



## Cardinal (Feb 24, 2010)

Dexter.  The show deals with the psychology of both Dexter and Deb, and is mostly ignored in the books (that I have read).


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Bertolucci's 'The Conformist' is much better than the Moravia novel on which it's based. Also, 'The Last Tycoon,' directed by Elia Kazan from a screenplay by Harold Pinter, is a great adaptation because the novel is unfinished. Pinter found a way to finish it.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Related threads:

Book to Movie/TV--and it Worked!
Best Book to Movie
Books that became Movies--- Your Fav?


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I think _Forrest Gump_ would also be a good example.

_2001_ is better than the short story it's based on, but not as good as its own novelization. So that simultaneously qualifies and doesn't qualify.

I think that the Charlton Heston version of _Planet of the Apes_ is better than the Pierre Boulle novel. They're so different that it's almost hard to make a direct comparison, though.

I have to disagree about _Shawshank_. _Shawshank_ is a beautiful film, but it basically is shot-for-shot and word-for-word right out of the novella. To me that means that the film can't be "better" than the book, since Darabont really didn't have to do a lot but execute what King painstakingly laid out in the text. That story, more than any other, proved to me that King can _write_, and not just come up with story ideas that pop. It's a technically flawless piece of work, and the movie really just brought that out.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

Ahh that was one of the things I didn't like about the Green Mile: the serialisation (for want of a better word). I was one of those who bought each 'book' on release, and gave up after the 3rd one as I could never remember who all the characters were and what had happened.

Possible mentions for Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), and Total Recall (We Sell Memories Wholesale), even if the second one did 'Hollywood-ise' it a bit.

And a massive thumbs down and big raspberry to the film of the Running Man, where they completely ruined the excellent novella, but I guess that's a whole different thread


----------



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

Liked the book,but thought the movie for "Let The Right One In" was better.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Some really good thoughts here.

I would suggest _Inkheart_.


----------



## mattposner (Oct 28, 2010)

Interesting topic.

The Princess Bride is a better movie than book.

Planet of the Apes (196 is better than the Pierre Boulle book.

Speaking of Stephen King, I prefer The Running Man movie to his Richard Bachman novella of the same name.


----------



## Pinworms (Oct 20, 2010)

Fight Club- Brad Pitt and Edward Norton were fantastic in it.  I didn't like the book.

Although they are pretty different, I liked Blade Runner more than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.  The book was still good, but the movie was amazing.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

mattposner said:


> Speaking of Stephen King, I prefer The Running Man movie to his Richard Bachman novella of the same name.


I'm shocked. I read the book first and loved the whole thing.

Then I watched the movie and my only thought was "why did they have to Hollywood the whole thing and make it such a generic action movie.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Better than the book: Most of the Tom Clancy-based movies (exception: _Sum of All Fears_, which was unreadable as a book and unwatchable as a movie; and _The Hunt for Red October_, the one example where the book was better).

At least as good as the book: _On Her Majesty's Secret Service_; _Casino Royale_ (2006 version); _Jaws_; _The Exorcist_.

Close, but no cigar: _Rosemary's Baby_; _To Kill a Mockingbird_; _Fail Safe_; _Seven Days in May_; _From Russia With Love_.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> Better than the book: Most of the Tom Clancy-based movies (exception: _Sum of All Fears_, which was unreadable as a book and unwatchable as a movie; and _The Hunt for Red October_, the one example where the book was better).
> 
> At least as good as the book: _On Her Majesty's Secret Service_; _Casino Royale_ (2006 version); _Jaws_; _The Exorcist_.
> 
> Close, but no cigar: _Rosemary's Baby_; _To Kill a Mockingbird_; _Fail Safe_; _Seven Days in May_; _From Russia With Love_.


Again, why opinions are so fun to have. THFRO was my favorite of the movies. I liked the book okay, but really liked the movie. I did not like Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan, but thought Ben Affleck did an okay job. That book was about impossible to turn into a movie, so it's hard to compare.


----------



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

Martel47 said:


> Again, why opinions are so fun to have. THFRO was my favorite of the movies. I liked the book okay, but really liked the movie. I did not like Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan, but thought Ben Affleck did an okay job. That book was about impossible to turn into a movie, so it's hard to compare.


It's probably blasphemous to say this, but I think Alec Baldwin is THE superior Jack Ryan.


----------



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

mattposner said:


> Interesting topic.
> 
> The Princess Bride is a better movie than book.


You are correct sir. I read Princess Bride expecting to love it as much as I did the movie, and just felt nothing while reading it. I barely laughed, the action left me bored, and the characters made no connection and I didn't care if they lived or died.

The movie on the other hand has become a treasured classic. I don't know anyone in my social circle who hasn't seen it, and cannot quote lines from it. I gave it to my niece for her 9th birthday, and again when the anniversary edition came out, I have a female friend who watches it every year on her birthday, I've been to viewing parties for it, and whenever I see Carey Elwes in any role other than Westley, I think, "hey that's Westley, what's he doing in that basement chained to a pipe".


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

The blind side


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

R. Doug said:


> Better than the book: Most of the Tom Clancy-based movies (exception: _Sum of All Fears_, which was unreadable as a book and unwatchable as a movie; and _The Hunt for Red October_, the one example where the book was better).
> 
> At least as good as the book: _On Her Majesty's Secret Service_; _Casino Royale_ (2006 version); _Jaws_; _The Exorcist_.
> 
> Close, but no cigar: _Rosemary's Baby_; _To Kill a Mockingbird_; _Fail Safe_; _Seven Days in May_; _From Russia With Love_.


_Seven Days in May_ must be a darn good book then!


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

OK, here's a good one:

_Spartacus_.

Oh, and also _A Clockwork Orange_.

I guess Kubrick just knows how to improve material as he adapts it.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I think Jaws the movie is vastly superior to the book! Ditto The Godfather.

Robert Bloch's Psycho is pretty good, but I think the movie is better.


----------



## JackNolte (Oct 28, 2010)

Dances with Wolves is one I'd add.  I agree with some of the others people have mentioned.  Doesn't mean the book was bad, just that the movie executed the story a bit better. 

As much as I love King -- and he's one of my favorite writers -- I do think I'd rank the movie THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION a little higher than the novella.  But it may just be one of those stories that was better suited for the screen.  I think that's a point that hasn't been mentioned.  Some stories, like Blade Runner, just lend themselves to a cinematic experience more than the written word.  Stories that deal with a lot of internal monologue, like, say, THE LOVELY BONES, don't often translate that well to the screen.


----------



## 13500 (Apr 22, 2010)

I would like to propose "Bridget Jones' Diary." The book was cute, but the movie is a classic. Hugh Grant and Colin Firth's fight scene is priceless.


----------



## Manley (Nov 14, 2010)

I'll vote for Shrek.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Thayerphotos said:


> It's probably blasphemous to say this, but I think Alec Baldwin is THE superior Jack Ryan.


Agreed. Bring on the fire and brimstone!

Baldwin's Ryan doing Connery's Ramius saying, "Some things in here don't react well to bullets!" is hilarious.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Thayerphotos said:


> It's probably blasphemous to say this, but I think Alec Baldwin is THE superior Jack Ryan.


Yep -- he's the only one of the three that felt right to me.

PS: While I won't call it a great movie, I liked "Stardust" a lot more than I did Gaiman's novel, which I never even finished -- just couldn't get into it, but the movie moved along much more briskly and overall was more entertaining for me.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

JackNolte said:


> Dances with Wolves is one I'd add.


hmmm ... it started as a screenplay, costner asked blake to turn it into a novel in order to better sell it as a movie; so really it's less of a 'book' and more of a novelization of a screenplay. i thought i'd remembered it that way, but i checked before i posted this. it's under the "production" heading here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dances_with_Wolves


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Gonna second Dexter.


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

Being There by Jerzy Korzinski. It's a short novel that's good but the movie with Peter Sellers is better. The added material for the movie all worked. For example, in the movie, when Chance the gardener is forced from the only home he's ever known, the neighborhood has changed drastically from an upper-class neighborhood to a slum. His life in his home was the garden and the televisions. Out on the street he's surrounded by a gang of teenagers and he pulls out his remote control and desperately tries to change channels.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Dexter is a toss up for me.  There are things I love about the books better than the movies and the other way around.  I strongly dislike the married Dexter in both the books and the show.  The CIA killer in the books was amazing, loved it.  And John Lithgow was great in the show.

True Blood for me is so much better, totally hard core (which I like).  But the books are cute fluff and I enjoy them.

Lovely Bones, hated the movie so much I never got around to reading the book.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I think "The Godfather" is definitely near the top of the list!

About "The Green Mile." I actually managed to read it. I hated it. For some reason the following line from a review from the late movie critic Joel Siegel about the film version has always stuck with me. Siegel said: "If only watching _The Green Mile_ didn't feel like running it." I concur.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

patrickt said:


> Being There by Jerzy Korzinski. It's a short novel that's good but the movie with Peter Sellers is better. The added material for the movie all worked. For example, in the movie, when Chance the gardener is forced from the only home he's ever known, the neighborhood has changed drastically from an upper-class neighborhood to a slum. His life in his home was the garden and the televisions. Out on the street he's surrounded by a gang of teenagers and he pulls out his remote control and desperately tries to change channels.


I agree. The book is charming, but you pretty much _need_ Peter Sellers to make the central joke convincing.

Sellers' performance allowed me to say, Yeah, OK, people might accidentally mistake this guy for profound. It's just something about the way Sellers looks in a 1920's vintage suit.


----------



## fancynancy (Aug 9, 2009)

Brokeback Mountain.  It's just a short story, and though it's very well-written, the movie goes far beyond.  (Also, Heath Ledger was an extraordinary actor, and arguably his work in the movie was his best.)


----------



## Mark Adair (Dec 4, 2010)

I could read Nick Hornsby all day long, and this may be a tie for me, but I really liked John Cusack in High Fidelity. I also really liked Hugh Grant in About a Boy.


----------



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

fancynancy said:


> Brokeback Mountain. It's just a short story, and though it's very well-written, the movie goes far beyond. (Also, Heath Ledger was an extraordinary actor, and arguably his work in the movie was his best.)


I've never read the short story, nor seen the movie, but you're not the first person I've heard say this. Do you really think Heath was better in Brokeback than as the Joker ?


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

fancynancy said:


> Brokeback Mountain. It's just a short story, and though it's very well-written, the movie goes far beyond. (Also, Heath Ledger was an extraordinary actor, and arguably his work in the movie was his best.)


I know what you mean. The short-story, though, was much more intimate and only tells the story of Ennis and Jack. The movie opened things up quite a bit to include their wives and children.


----------



## fancynancy (Aug 9, 2009)

Thayerphotos said:


> I've never read the short story, nor seen the movie, but you're not the first person I've heard say this. Do you really think Heath was better in Brokeback than as the Joker ?


He was brilliant as the Joker. He was also at least as brilliant as Ennis Del Mar, a complicated man at war with himself, who was not used to expressing emotion or anything else. His inner turbulence had to be displayed very quietly and subtly. I loved both performances, and think it's a shame Ledger didn't live to do more.


----------



## fancynancy (Aug 9, 2009)

DYB said:


> I know what you mean. The short-story, though, was much more intimate and only tells the story of Ennis and Jack. The movie opened things up quite a bit to include their wives and children.


You're right. It's probably not that fair to compare the short story to the film. The author presented a perfect little nugget. Ang Lee took the nugget, planted it and grew a big, beautiful tree.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

fancynancy said:


> He was brilliant as the Joker. He was also at least as brilliant as Ennis Del Mar, a complicated man at war with himself, who was not used to expressing emotion or anything else. His inner turbulence had to be displayed very quietly and subtly. I loved both performances, and think it's a shame Ledger didn't live to do more.


To my mind, _Brokeback Mountain_ was the point he first showed that he had all the potential to be a brilliant actor. _The Dark Knight_ showed that the brilliance wasn't a fluke.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Stardust. Lousy book, wonderful movie.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

fancynancy said:


> You're right. It's probably not that fair to compare the short story to the film. The author presented a perfect little nugget. Ang Lee took the nugget, planted it and grew a big, beautiful tree.


With a special nod to Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana!


----------



## BoomerSoonerOKU (Nov 22, 2009)

As I've said in a previous thread about this, I'd have to give my vote to M*A*S*H.


----------



## Vianka Van Bokkem (Aug 26, 2010)

mistyd107 said:


> The blind side


I second "The Blind Side"   

Vianka Van Bokkem


----------



## pierceminor (Dec 25, 2010)

You know guys, I actually enjoyed the NEW MOON movie (of the Twilight Series) better than the book.

Pierce


----------



## Glen Krisch (Dec 21, 2010)

While I love Stephen King's novella, The Mist, the movie is a classic.  Some people hate the ending, but I thought it was daring and well-done.


----------



## CathyQuinn (Dec 9, 2010)

Harry Potter -- I liked the movies more than the books.


----------



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

CathyQuinn said:


> Harry Potter -- I liked the movies more than the books.


I'd like to agree with you, the movies are excellent, but I think I'm in the .027% of the population who hasn't actually read the books so I can't really compare.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Thayerphotos said:


> . . . but I think I'm in the .027% of the population who hasn't actually read the books . . .


Hey, how about that-I'm the _other_ guy who hasn't read one. Nice to meet you.


----------



## Gthater (Mar 27, 2009)

The 13th Warrior is better than the Eaters of the Dead, upon which it's based.

The Wizard of Oz (the original movie) is better than the book, as is Willy Wonka (the original) better than Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

glenn g. thater
author of the harbinger of doom saga


----------



## KatieKlein (Dec 19, 2010)

I think Nicholas Sparks' movies translate really well to screen. I usually like the movie as much or more than the book. 

To those who've confessed that they haven't read the Harry Potter books: neither have I. I haven't seen the movies, either. *am disgraceful*


----------



## Moi_Ici (Dec 27, 2010)

Martel47 said:


> Agreed. Bring on the fire and brimstone!
> 
> Baldwin's Ryan doing Connery's Ramius saying, "Some things in here don't react well to bullets!" is hilarious.


I also agree - (and brought protective gear)


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

I will totally second Stardust.  I love that movie.

Master and Commander.  Thoroughly enjoyable movie, possibly the driest book I have ever read.

Scarlet Pimpernel.  I actually enjoyed the book.  But the Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour movie is fantastic.  Ironically, it is BECAUSE the movie branches away from the book on certain points that makes it so good, IMHO.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

One more comes to mind.... please don't mob me fans but....

Lord of the Rings.  I have tried SO hard to get through that trilogy on multiple occasions and I just couldn't do it.  Movies were good though.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

Re: Lord of the Rings

To me it makes sense - Tolkein couldn't write battle scenes, so I also enjoyed the movies more then the books. 

However, the books have a special place in my heart to - they pretty much spawned the fantasy genre as we know it


----------



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

Alain Gomez said:


> One more comes to mind.... please don't mob me fans but....
> 
> Lord of the Rings. I have tried SO hard to get through that trilogy on multiple occasions and I just couldn't do it. Movies were good though.


I agree, I tried to read LOTR twice, and just couldn't get past it's horribly slow pace. Love the movies though, loved them so much I saw Return of the King 11 times in the theatre.


----------



## Lambert (Nov 12, 2010)

The Time Machine

I enjoyed the book but it seemed a lot shorter than the movie. The movie seem to have more to it.

Lambert


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

TheRiddler said:


> Re: Lord of the Rings
> 
> To me it makes sense - Tolkein couldn't write battle scenes, so I also enjoyed the movies more then the books.
> 
> However, the books have a special place in my heart to - they pretty much spawned the fantasy genre as we know it


I totally respect his place in literary history. The scope and depth of his story is quite amazing.

But it doesn't change the fact that the first half of his first book reads like the Old Testament: Mordrid, son of Alf, son of Kavik talked three evenings past to Jarrel, son of Kirk, son of Spock.

That's why I liked the movies. Since my brain obviously doesn't function in a way that could assimilate his descriptions, it was fun to see it played out the way Tolkien probably imagined it.


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

Alain Gomez said:


> One more comes to mind.... please don't mob me fans but....
> 
> Lord of the Rings. I have tried SO hard to get through that trilogy on multiple occasions and I just couldn't do it. Movies were good though.


Yep, I made it a little farther each time I picked up _The Fellowship of the Rings_ but I have never made it past the halfway mark. My cousin who loves the LotR trilogy has told me that I will like it if I can get past the first 60% of the book but I no longer see the point in wasting my time when more than half the book is boring.

Really liked the movies though.


----------



## Thayerphotos (Dec 19, 2010)

Alain Gomez said:


> I totally respect his place in literary history. The scope and depth of his story is quite amazing.
> 
> But it doesn't change the fact that the first half of his first book reads like the Old Testament: Mordrid, son of Alf, son of Kavik talked three evenings past to Jarrel, son of Kirk, son of Spock.
> 
> That's why I liked the movies. Since my brain obviously doesn't function in a way that could assimilate his descriptions, it was fun to see it played out the way Tolkien probably imagined it.


Upon accepting Gandalf's decree that the ring must leave the shire, it took Frodo six months to sellhis home, here follows an account of each day of those six months.

day the first..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## windyrdg (Sep 20, 2010)

I'd add Chocolat to the list. The movie added the character of the town mayor, who was not in the book without changing the general focus and direction of the story. Definitely made it more enjoyable.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

mattposner said:


> Interesting topic.
> 
> The Princess Bride is a better movie than book.


Bite your tongue man! 

Really, though, I don't think you can compare the book to the movie. They're so very different from each other, not the least in that the book is for adults and the movie for kids. I'd tell you the book does a lovely job exploring how things never quite live up to their promise, and how adulthood robs life of the magic of childhood. The movie is all about the magic of childhood.

It's kind of like saying milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate. It's not better, just different.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Alain Gomez said:


> I will totally second Stardust. I love that movie.
> 
> Scarlet Pimpernel. I actually enjoyed the book. But the Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour movie is fantastic. Ironically, it is BECAUSE the movie branches away from the book on certain points that makes it so good, IMHO.


_Scarlet Pimpernel _ and _Stardust_ -- couldn't agree more.

I would add _Room with a View_--one of my all time favorite movies, but I couldn't get into the book.


----------



## pomlover2586 (Feb 14, 2009)

KarenW.B. said:


> I would like to propose "Bridget Jones' Diary." The book was cute, but the movie is a classic. Hugh Grant and Colin Firth's fight scene is priceless.


Totally agree.......the fight scene is priceless......and hot!!


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

Alain Gomez said:


> One more comes to mind.... please don't mob me fans but....
> 
> Lord of the Rings. I have tried SO hard to get through that trilogy on multiple occasions and I just couldn't do it. Movies were good though.


I am so with you on that. I cannot get past page 115. His writing style grates on me. Love the movies though.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

Thayerphotos said:


> Upon accepting Gandalf's decree that the ring must leave the shire, it took Frodo six months to sellhis home, here follows an account of each day of those six months.
> 
> day the first..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


LOL.

And then you start hosing off the book to see if you could maybe make it less dry.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

purplepen79 said:


> _Scarlet Pimpernel _ and _Stardust_ -- couldn't agree more.
> 
> I would add _Room with a View_--one of my all time favorite movies, but I couldn't get into the book.


Ah ha! Another Pimpernel fan. We are so few and far between. So many people miss out on that hidden gem. Sink me!


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

pomlover2586 said:


> Totally agree.......the fight scene is priceless......and hot!!


I just re-watched this the other day . . . love that scene, especially when they end up in the restaurant and are apologizing for smashing people's tables and sing happy birthday to a complete stranger like the polite British gentlemen they are, only to charge after each other again. I bet they had fun doing that scene!

And I don't know why _The Scarlet Pimpernel _ isn't more well-known--such a great adventure/love story, with a little something for just about everyone's tastes.


----------



## Michael Blake (Feb 2, 2011)

Steve Silkin said:


> hmmm ... it started as a screenplay, costner asked blake to turn it into a novel in order to better sell it as a movie; so really it's less of a 'book' and more of a novelization of a screenplay. i thought i'd remembered it that way, but i checked before i posted this. it's under the "production" heading here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dances_with_Wolves


I don't quite remember it that way!

MB


----------



## KMA (Mar 11, 2009)

I had the most difficult time thinking of one, but _The Scarlet Pimpernel_ might just fit the bill. That is, if we are talking about the version with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour (and Ian McKellen). I don't know what it says about me that my first star crush was on Anthony Andrews in that film (I was 9, what can I say?).


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

How about Silence of the Lambs?

Decent book, but what a movie


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

TheRiddler said:


> I'm shocked. I read the book first and loved the whole thing.
> 
> Then I watched the movie and my only thought was "why did they have to Hollywood the whole thing and make it such a generic action movie.


I was shocked at this too. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Running Man is one of my favorite reads but I can't even get through five minutes of the movie. So many layers of the story were completely pitched.


----------



## Chris Barraclough (Jan 25, 2011)

daveconifer said:


> I was shocked at this too. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Running Man is one of my favorite reads but I can't even get through five minutes of the movie. So many layers of the story were completely pitched.


I love both Total Recall and Running Man the films, but they did take a massively different approach to the books. I guess they're classic examples where the premise of the book has been used to create a cheese-filled action-packed Hollywood movie, with a very different heart and tempo to the original source.

The original pieces were fantastic reads, but you can't beat the sight of Arnie handing a bunch of guys their arses. "Consider that a divorce."


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

Oh I agree (well about Running Man, never read 'We Sell Memories Wholesale')

I mean as a film it was fine - but why call it the Running Man?

Aside from the initial setup (convict, game show, etc), it had NOTHING to do with the book.

I was so surprised (and pleased) when I read the book - so deep, and moving, not at all what I expected.

Don't get me wrong, you can't be Arnie doing his thing, but don't base it on a book it has nothing to do with!!

/rant off


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

I know I'm in the minority here:  Jurassic Park series. 

I found the books a little too weighed down with science jargon.  Not that they weren't good...just dull in parts. At least for me.  

Also, I agree with everyone about Running Man.  

Silence of the Lambs too!


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

KerylR said:


> Bite your tongue man!
> 
> Really, though, I don't think you can compare the book to the movie. They're so very different from each other, not the least in that the book is for adults and the movie for kids. I'd tell you the book does a lovely job exploring how things never quite live up to their promise, and how adulthood robs life of the magic of childhood. The movie is all about the magic of childhood.
> 
> It's kind of like saying milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate. It's not better, just different.


I agree! And to be fair, the book is an abridgement of a much older, much dryer book!

Of course I know that Goldman wrote the book, but he also wrote the screenplay and is known as a screen writer, so perhaps it's understandable.


----------



## Chris Barraclough (Jan 25, 2011)

TheRiddler said:


> Don't get me wrong, you can't be Arnie doing his thing, but don't base it on a book it has nothing to do with!!
> 
> /rant off


Yep, very good point - I nearly didn't read Running Man the book because I figured it would be very similar to the film. My dad was the one who convinced me to give it a shot.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I absolutely loved Wes Anderson's adaptation of Fantastic Mr Fox. Damn that was a funny film.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

TheRiddler said:


> Oh I agree (well about Running Man, never read 'We Sell Memories Wholesale')
> 
> I mean as a film it was fine - but why call it the Running Man?
> 
> ...


How true!

But I think the prize for most puzzling remake of a King story has to go to "The Lawnmower Man". The movie and short story have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other. It was so, so strange...


----------



## HRDoubleU (Jan 7, 2011)

I really liked _Jurassic Park_ as a book, but the movie was still better because actually getting to see the dinosaurs on screen was just so cool.


----------



## KarenLeeField (Feb 6, 2011)

I couldn't get through the first book of The Lord of the Rings.  It drove me totally insane with boredom.  Yet the movies were fantastic.  I loved them and would watch them again easily.  The books, however, have long gone!


----------



## dixiehellcat (Jan 23, 2011)

Hm. The one that comes to mind immediately is The Witches of Eastwick. The book was a struggle I eventually gave up on. The movie? Terrific.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

KerylR said:


> Bite your tongue man!
> 
> Really, though, I don't think you can compare the book to the movie. They're so very different from each other, not the least in that the book is for adults and the movie for kids. I'd tell you the book does a lovely job exploring how things never quite live up to their promise, and how adulthood robs life of the magic of childhood. The movie is all about the magic of childhood.
> 
> It's kind of like saying milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate. It's not better, just different.


Completely agree. I thought the book was fantastic and the film was great. The book, to me, is comedy gold! How can you not love a book that mentions editing out chapters about trees and competing with Stephen King to do the adaptation.

I actually think that _American Psycho_ was a better film than a book. Both were good, but I thought the movie captured the essence of the book without being as graphic and deliberately horrific. There was one part in the book when I was almost compelled to put it down and never touch it again for fear of soiling my soul.


----------



## Chris Barraclough (Jan 25, 2011)

tim290280 said:


> Completely agree. I thought the book was fantastic and the film was great. The book, to me, is comedy gold! How can you not love a book that mentions editing out chapters about trees and competing with Stephen King to do the adaptation.
> 
> I actually think that _American Psycho_ was a better film than a book. Both were good, but I thought the movie captured the essence of the book without being as graphic and deliberately horrific. There was one part in the book when I was almost compelled to put it down and never touch it again for fear of soiling my soul.


I think I know the bit you mean! Yeah, that book did go overboard at times. I was just a kid when I read it so still quite immature, and I usually love gory books and films, but there were some bits in that book that were WTF x 10.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

KarenLeeField said:


> I couldn't get through the first book of The Lord of the Rings. It drove me totally insane with boredom. Yet the movies were fantastic. I loved them and would watch them again easily. The books, however, have long gone!


I think I actually read them each more than once as a teenager. Today I don't think I'd have the time/patience. They are not light reads, by any means. But the movies... I totally agree with you. They are so visually stunning that you almost believe you are there in Middle Earth as Frodo straggles toward Mount Doom.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

The Road.

Book was ok, but I didn't like the writing style much.  A found the movie got the emotional impact of the destroyed world and the father/son relationship across a lot better for me.


----------



## KarenLeeField (Feb 6, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> The Road.
> 
> Book was ok, but I didn't like the writing style much. A found the movie got the emotional impact of the destroyed world and the father/son relationship across a lot better for me.


I didn't like the movie. It was so depressing. I considered reading the book as I thought it might be better but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'll give it a miss.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

KarenLeeField said:


> I didn't like the movie. It was so depressing. I considered reading the book as I thought it might be better but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'll give it a miss.


Yeah, the movie is a fairly spot on adaptation of the book. So the book is just as depressing.


----------



## strether (Dec 15, 2008)

Fried Green Tomatoes.  Book was good, but movie assembled a stellar cast that really added an additional dimension.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

I generally like a book better than its movie, and if I really liked a book, I won't see the movie, to avoid _smudging_ the book. But some books, like, oh, say, the vampire books by Stephenie Meyer, are sort of "first drafts" that no one had the courage to edit. The movie gives license to take another crack at it, and make it _move._ I think some authors don't even really know what story they're telling, and it takes a moviemaker to find the story and tell it right. IMHO.


----------



## Keith Blenman (May 31, 2009)

I don't know if you guys are including graphic novels, but _The Crow_. The book has plenty of merit, and some spectacular art (particularly from a man who never once took an art class), but the movie feels more whole. The narrative is smoother. Eric is a more developed character. All and all, it's the movie by leaps and bounds.


----------



## George Hamilton (Dec 14, 2010)

I vote: No Country For Old Men - Cormac McCarthy
I enjoyed the novel, but I think the film was better, mainly because whilst a film can be carried by plot and action, I think a novel needs to be carried by a stronger theme throughout. The theme which links Moss’ actions to actions taken by Sheriff Bell when he was younger feels tagged on near the end. A week after finishing this book I wasn't still thinking about the theme in the way I did when I read The Road by the same author.


----------



## Tris (Oct 30, 2008)

I would like to add "Anne of Green Gables" to this discussion.  I could not make it past a few lines or even the first page before it completely knocks me out...

I picked it up free on my Kindle recently to try it again...but only made it past page one, before I started to nod off.

I've seen the movie/TV productions of this book and it's off shoots just fine.  The book...it's just not for me.

Tris


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

The Firm by Grisham; as an attorney, I found the movie's ending more satisfying than the book's. That was the first Grisham novel I ever read & since reading more since then, I realize that abandoning the legal profession is a strong theme of his. Nevertheless, of all of the Grisham's I've read, I definitely prefer the movie version of The Firm


----------



## SCPennington (Sep 29, 2010)

I love special effects, and one of my all-time favorite "monster" movies is Relic based on the Douglas Preston-Lincoln Child novel. Last summer I went on a Preston-Child reading spree and found the novel to be quite different from the movie due to the transplant of a lesser character in the novel - sort of a sidekick - to the position of hero in the movie. Hope that makes sense. But both were done well, and I find myself hard-pressed to choose which is better. 

Sharon


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Keith Blenman said:


> I don't know if you guys are including graphic novels, but _The Crow_. The book has plenty of merit, and some spectacular art (particularly from a man who never once took an art class), but the movie feels more whole. The narrative is smoother. Eric is a more developed character. All and all, it's the movie by leaps and bounds.


^^
Complete agreeance.


----------



## JD Rhoades (Feb 18, 2011)

Thayerphotos said:


> It's probably blasphemous to say this, but I think Alec Baldwin is THE superior Jack Ryan.


I agree.

My pick for movie better than the book: The Godfather.


----------



## JD Rhoades (Feb 18, 2011)

Martel47 said:


> Agreed. Bring on the fire and brimstone!
> 
> Baldwin's Ryan doing Connery's Ramius saying, "Some things in here don't react well to bullets!" is hilarious.


I once described the plot of "Hunt For Red October" as: "Sean Connery plays a Russian sub captain who defects with his ship because the other Russian sub captains were making fun of his accent."


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

"Stardust." It was a good book, but an excellent movie. One of my all-time faves, actually.


----------



## evrose (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but I thought "Blade Runner" was significantly better than the Philip K. Dick "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep."

Actually, the book sort of sucked, but I never could get in to PKD, despite numerous attempts.

Also, the movie "Deliverance" was better than the book. The book was good, but not that spectacular.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Admittedly I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if someone has already mentioned Lord of the Rings. I know this is practically blasphemy but...I didn't enjoy the books nearly as much as the movies. There, I've said it. *Ducks flying tomatoes.*


----------



## bee78 (Apr 11, 2011)

fancynancy said:


> Brokeback Mountain. It's just a short story, and though it's very well-written, the movie goes far beyond. (Also, Heath Ledger was an extraordinary actor, and arguably his work in the movie was his best.)


Brokeback mountain was a beautiful move. I read the story afterwards and it moved me to tears but in retrospect maybe I wouldn't have loved it as much had I not been so in love with the movie. The end still makes me well up when I think of it...heartbreaking...


----------



## Alexandra Sokoloff (Sep 21, 2009)

JAWS, for sure!!!

I almost agree about THE GODFATHER, Dusty.  Maybe I actually do agree.  And whoever said ROOM WITH A VIEW - I feel traitorous, but yes!


----------



## jherrick (Apr 1, 2011)

A tough call for me would be _Breakfast at Tiffany's_. Both the book and movie were terrific. But they are so different from each other, including the beginning and end. I'd probably give the edge to the movie, but the book provides more insight into Holly Golightly's psyche.


----------



## JD Rhoades (Feb 18, 2011)

Alexandra Sokoloff said:


> JAWS, for sure!!!
> 
> I almost agree about THE GODFATHER, Dusty. Maybe I actually do agree. And whoever said ROOM WITH A VIEW - I feel traitorous, but yes!


ALEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MaryKingsley (Mar 26, 2011)

_Jaws_ No question. Whoever wrote the screenplay did a great job in adapting the book, especially in leaving out a subplot that did nothing for the book but add some sex scenes.


----------



## Mo (Mar 25, 2011)

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned. However, I think that Blade Runner was actually better than Philip K. Dick's original book, _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_.

Blade Runner was one of the movies that I grew up with. I recently read the book, and although it certainly wasn't bad, I felt that the movie found a better balance between the action/milieu/philosophy.


----------



## Michelle Muto (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm going to ditto the vote for The Green Mile. It was an extraordinary book, but the actors in the movie just hit it out of the ballpark. Tom Hanks was amazing, of course, but so was Michael Clark Duncan as John Coffey. Well, the whole cast was brilliant, actually. I bought the video as soon as it became available, and later on DVD.


----------



## David M. Baum (Apr 21, 2011)

I've scanned through all the replies, and don't know if anyone mentioned this, but usually I have a preference to whichever media I'm exposed to first: if I've read the book first, the movie is a disappointment because my own imagination of characters and places is wrecked by authors. And if I've seen the movie first, it's images keep intruding while reading the book, and lessen my enjoyment of the book. 

But maybe I'm silly that way.  

For me, the movie Green Mile stands out. Of course, I've seen the movie before reading the book.


----------



## JD Rhoades (Feb 18, 2011)

Mo said:


> I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned. However, I think that Blade Runner was actually better than Philip K. Dick's original book, _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_.
> 
> Blade Runner was one of the movies that I grew up with. I recently read the book, and although it certainly wasn't bad, I felt that the movie found a better balance between the action/milieu/philosophy.


speaking of sacrilege:

Phillip K. Dick had the most amazing ideas and concepts in all of science fiction, ever. Bar none.

But he wasn't very good at writing them. At his very best, he was merely competent; at his worst, he was nearly unreadable.

There. I said it.


----------



## Carson Wilder (Apr 20, 2011)

_The Hustler_ by Walter Tevis. The book was great, the movie even better. One of my all-time favorites.


----------

