# A Rare Occurrence: Films that are better than the Book



## RLC (Mar 19, 2013)

Hi All,

Which films are better than the Book? Here's my list:

Notes On A Scandal
Perfume
The Prestige
The English Patient
The Shining
Jaws
Carrie
Misery
Let the Right One In

Anyone agree/disagree?

Richard


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Which The Shining? The Kubrick one? Which had little to do with the bok, disowned by King and was generally bad, with Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson and a host of substandard acting? OR the made of TV series, overseen by King, which was generally excellent and far more worthy of the treatment?

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Todd Young (May 2, 2011)

I couldn't agree with you about "The Prestige." I read the book first, and it was a great movie, but what absolutely made the book for me was the ending, which totally creeped me out. But one of my favourite writers, actually, Christopher Priest. I love a novel he wrote called "The Inverted World." It was written in the 70s and is absolutely bizarre.

I didn't know they'd made a movie of "Let the Right One In" so I'll have to check that out.

I wouldn't say it was a better movie than the book, but "The Talented Mr Ripley" is an excellent adaptation of a novel. In reality, the movie alters the protagonist and his motivations, as well as placing an altogether new character into the plot, played by Cate Blanchett. The result is a great movie, but better than the book? I'm not sure they can be compared.


----------



## jeffaaronmiller (Jul 17, 2012)

Forrest Gump!

The book was brief, terse and humorous but didn't have the emotional resonance of the movie


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

2001: A Space Odyssey?
I thought the book was little dull, but the cinematics of the movie were great


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Defining "better" as "I enjoyed it more", I'd nominate _Three Days of the Condor_. James Grady's novel _Six Days of the Condor_ was entertaining, but the movie was outstanding.

Mike


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

The Bridges of Madison County


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

I actually prefer the first two Godfather movies to the original novel, though I do think Coppola ignored some thematic points to the story. In some ways, the novel is much darker.


----------



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

Don't anybody throw tomatoes at me but I consider the _Lord of the Rings_ movies a thousand times better than the books. Peter Jackson really teased out the best parts - even when he had to make some of them up - while cutting the dry stuff.


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

How about Les Miserables?
I love, love, love the movie and yet find the book impenetrable (although to be fair, there are issues of language and style to overcome with regards to the book)


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Dara England said:


> Don't anybody throw tomatoes at me but I consider the _Lord of the Rings_ movies a thousand times better than the books. Peter Jackson really teased out the best parts - even when he had to make some of them up - while cutting the dry stuff.


I won't throw tomatoes. I feel much the same way.

Mike


----------



## northtexas (May 16, 2010)

The Shawshank Redemption adapted from the Stephen King novella.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2013)

I wouldn't say it was better than the book. But I think they did a really good job with Hunger Games.


----------



## RLC (Mar 19, 2013)

I'd have to agree with 2001, The Shawshank Redemption and The Talented Mr Ripley.

Could not agree with the Lord of the Rings films and The Shining TV adaptation. All of them were just terrible.

How about: The Exorcist, The Exorcist 3 (Based on Blatty's Legion) - these I would consider as good as the book, rather than better. Same with A Clockwork Orange and David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.


----------



## Lucy O (Mar 11, 2013)

Much as I love Louis Sachar's children's books, I enjoyed the movie Holes even more than the book. The plot twists, coincidences and links of past and present were portrayed more cleanly in the movie.

And just about any version of Treasure Island is more enjoyable than the book. A perfect plot dragged down by clunky writing. Sacrilege? I just can't enjoy reading RLS, though his stories themselves are so compelling...


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

northtexas said:


> The Shawshank Redemption adapted from the Stephen King novella.


That was going to be my addition to the thread. I think Morgan Freeman's voiceover made that movie so great. Also, the main character in the book was kind of a little dweeb. 

Thinking about it, Stand By Me, also a King novella, was also a better movie.


----------



## CarlSinclair (Apr 7, 2013)

I agree on Prestige and Shining.

In my opinion Lord of the Rings films are better. Mainly because those books are filled with so much pointless filler the storyline gets lost at times. I love those books. I have read them several times. I honestly believe the films did a better job than Tolkien at storytelling. There is no doubt Tolkien was a genius world & character builder. I just don't think he was a great writer, but what do I know. He is one of the most successful authors of all time. 

The other one for me is "The Princess Bride". I like the book, but I think the film had a better ending & narration form.


----------



## John C (Mar 23, 2013)

I would agree with Jaws being a better movie.

Also, and I know I'll probably get strung up for this, I enjoyed V for Vendetta more as a movie than the graphic novel *ducks rotten tomatoes flying at him*


----------



## BoomerSoonerOKU (Nov 22, 2009)

I'll throw in M*A*S*H.  Not that the book wasn't a good read, but I can read the book in a smaller amount of time than it takes to watch the movie!


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

jmiked said:


> I won't throw tomatoes. I feel much the same way.
> 
> Mike


I wont throw tomatoes but I have to disagree. The ending of the film trilogy was a total cop out. In the novel the Shire is described as something akin to a nucleur waste and Frodo's heart is broken (from memory - it's a while since I read the book and I'm remembering the impression it made on me) Whilst in the movie he gets in a boat and sails off into the sunset. Yuck!


----------



## ramsey_isler (Jul 11, 2011)

Another vote for The Prestige. The movie just had much more of an impact on me.


----------



## RLC (Mar 19, 2013)

I agree with V for Vendetta as well!


----------



## RhondaRN (Dec 27, 2009)

Fried Green Tomatoes!!  I loved the ending to the movie better than the book.  They changed it up a little, which made a difference to me.


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

The Field of Dreams


----------



## jhendereson (Oct 22, 2010)

My opinion, of course, but I thought the movie Shawshank Redemption was a travesty. The overdrawn scene showing where the protag escaped added nothing whatsoever to the narrative. We all knew he'd escaped, so what was the point of showing what route he took. The film There Will Be Blood was based on Upton Sinclair's novel Oil. Again, my opinion, but no finer film has ever been based on a novel. The novel was basically a rally for socialism. The film, however, presented a complex character and a tight plot deftly weaved with several subplots. Daniel Day Lewis' performance here, as always, was phenomenal. Rare do you see conflict so subtle but so intriguing.


----------



## MG_London (Oct 21, 2010)

"The Passion of the Christ" ?


----------



## nightdreamer (Oct 8, 2012)

_Dune_, based on the 1984 film. But I must confess this is a tainted comparison because I have never been able to finish the book. I tried, sincerely, three times, and for me, it reads like molasses. I really should give it a fourth try. You never know.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

nightdreamer said:


> _Dune_, based on the 1984 film. But I must confess this is a tainted comparison because I have never been able to finish the book. I tried, sincerely, three times, and for me, it reads like molasses. I really should give it a fourth try. You never know.


I agree. Molasses, definitely  I did finish the book but it was dull.

My top choice would be _Being There_. I hated the book, the movie is outstanding.

I consider the book and the movie Lord of the Rings kind of complementary to each other. Jackson created a wonderful film illustration to selected portions of the book. I haven't formed any opinion about The Hobbit, because the book and the film don't seem to have much in common.


----------



## donSatalic (Jan 25, 2013)

The Godfather

Coppola created a world so rich, so genuine you thought you were part of it. For example, he used slightly yellow filters on the lenses for the early scenes to enhance the romance of the wedding. He purposefully shot the interiors dark and murky. Incidentally, Mario Puzzo adapted the screenplay and won an Academy Award. The cinematography, editing, and music overshadow the book.


----------



## brianjanuary (Oct 18, 2011)

I think the James Bond movies are better than the books, probably since the books seem so dated now.


----------



## LovelynBettison (Aug 12, 2012)

The Shining - I didn't much care for the book but Kubrick's movie terrified me. It still does to this day.


----------



## RichardBrown (May 16, 2011)

The Devil's Advocate
Fight Club
American Psycho

Just my opinion.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Good Topic

My short list

Which films are better than the Book? Here's my list:

Shawshank Redemption
Stand By Me
Forrest Gump
Dolores Claiborne
Green Mile (on the fence with that as both were good)
The Shining (newer one, not original)
Field of Dreams


----------



## Nigel Mitchell (Jan 21, 2013)

Are we counting graphic novels? If so, "V for Vendetta" was much better than the book. I found the graphic novel unfocused, meandering, and full of characters and storylines that went nowhere.

If we don't count graphic novels, then I will go with "Who Censored Roger Rabbit," the novel that inspired "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." The book was about comic strip characters, not cartoon characters, which feels more relevant. The movie was also much more fun, while the novel was extremely dark.


----------



## MG_London (Oct 21, 2010)

"KICK-ASS" !

Great comic book - brilliant movie...


----------



## legion (Mar 1, 2013)

Schindler's List.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

In my opinion _Blade Runner_ (without the pasted-on happy end, though), is way better than _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Seleya said:


> In my opinion _Blade Runner_ (without the pasted-on happy end, though), is way better than _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_


Agreed


----------



## Roberto Scarlato (Nov 14, 2009)

The only one that comes to mind is The Shawshank Redemption.


----------



## Nicholas Andrews (Sep 8, 2011)

The one that comes to mind immediately is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It was my least favorite of the books; way too bloated, and I felt the "big plan" from Voldemort's side leading to the twist was underwhelming. But the movie cut out the unnecessary characters and bloat (Dobby, Winky, Ludo Bagman, Hermione's obsession with freeing house elves) and focused the plot a lot better than the book did. Plus the director was obviously a fan of the Weasley Twins, which I loved all their scenes and felt it was about time due to them being short changed in the previous movies. Mad Eye Moody was great, and every scene he was in was gold. From the look to the designs, effects, casting, atmosphere and transitions, I enjoyed the technical filmmaking aspects a lot too.

My only two gripes were the lack of seeing any of the Quidditch World Cup being played and cutting the scene with Snape at the Yule Ball going around being a wet blanket to everyone.


----------



## Nigel Mitchell (Jan 21, 2013)

Seleya said:


> In my opinion _Blade Runner_ (without the pasted-on happy end, though), is way better than _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_


It was a very different story from the movie. The literal electric sheep that Decker keeps on his roof threw me off-like why would anyone even want robotic sheep?


----------



## rjspears (Sep 25, 2011)

I would have to say that I think these two movies were better than there books:

Jaws
Red Dragon (Manhunter was the film version)

I would say that while I greatly enjoyed the books, I liked the changes the filmmakers made with them.  

There have been a couple movies I've found better than the movies basically because the movie took me less than two hours to watch while the book took me 4-6 hours to read.  Yes, I'll be kind, but I've read some pretty awful books that I hoped the filmmakers improved.  

R.J Spears


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2013)

Yeah! Jaws is indeed a great film. I have never read the book of it though. But just by thinking of it, I can't imagine the thrill of a shark attack reading in a book. 

I would suggest, Dracula. The film was great than the book because it was starred by Keanu Reeves and Anthony Hopkins. Just awesome!


----------



## Raquel Lyon (Mar 3, 2012)

NicholasAndrews said:


> The one that comes to mind immediately is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It was my least favorite of the books; way too bloated, and I felt the "big plan" from Voldemort's side leading to the twist was underwhelming. But the movie cut out the unnecessary characters and bloat (Dobby, Winky, Ludo Bagman, Hermione's obsession with freeing house elves) and focused the plot a lot better than the book did. Plus the director was obviously a fan of the Weasley Twins, which I loved all their scenes and felt it was about time due to them being short changed in the previous movies. Mad Eye Moody was great, and every scene he was in was gold. From the look to the designs, effects, casting, atmosphere and transitions, I enjoyed the technical filmmaking aspects a lot too.
> 
> My only two gripes were the lack of seeing any of the Quidditch World Cup being played and cutting the scene with Snape at the Yule Ball going around being a wet blanket to everyone.


I have to disagree here. The Goblet of Fire is my least favourite film of the series BECAUSE it cut so much of the story out. The first time I went to watch it at the cinema I was like, no...just...NO!


----------



## Susan Alison (Jul 1, 2011)

Lord of the Rings - except the the very end of the last film went onnnnnnnnnnnn toooooooooo longggggggggggg...

Bridget Jones' Diary

Harry Potter.

I know there are more. My main thing about film/book-book/film is that I do tend to view them differently - I don't necessarily expect the film to faithfully follow the book - they are two different things.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2013)

> Another vote for The Prestige. The movie just had much more of an impact on me. by ramsey_isler


This is so true, "The Prestige" in film is just epic.


----------



## Robena (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm interested in comparing the novel _The Great Gatsby_, with the film that releases on May 10th. We're re-reading the book for book club then will go as a group to see the movie, then discuss. It should be fun.


----------



## David Clarkson (Apr 20, 2013)

A lot of people have mentioned Lord of the Rings, but I found these to be far too pretentious and self important. The more obvious choice is the Hobbit. Peter Jackson took a very average (and ridiculous) children's book and turned it into a much more mature and vastly more entertaining movie than both the book and his other Tolkien trilogy.  Another recent one that I would say is Life of Pi. Amazing story, but the book contained far too much padding and back story that offered little apart from tedium.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I have to very strongly disagree about "The English Patient," "Misery," and "The Red Dragon."  Superb novels.  And adaptation of "Patient" and "Misery" were excellent in their own right.  I did not care for "Manhunter" at all.  I also think Michael Mann is an extremely overrated filmmaker.  

I completely agree about "The Lord of the Rings."  The book put me to sleep.  The movies I love.  "The Hobbit" novel I enjoyed a lot.  The first movie is ridiculously bloated and dull.

While I did enjoy the novel "The Princess Bride," I do think the movie works better.


----------



## Nigel Mitchell (Jan 21, 2013)

Robena said:


> I'm interested in comparing the novel _The Great Gatsby_, with the film that releases on May 10th. We're re-reading the book for book club then will go as a group to see the movie, then discuss. It should be fun.


I'm interested as well. I heard Robert Redford in an interview with Kermode say that he considers his film version in 1974 a failure. He believes the book is unfilmable, because all the interior dialogue and wonderful prose that make the novel great can't be translated to film. I wonder if he'll be proven wrong.


----------



## Anotherdreamer (Jan 21, 2013)

Lord of the Rings
Fight Club

I'd like to add a series. I think True Blood the series is much better than the books.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2013)

Which lord of the rings are you guys referring to? Because the 1978 Lord of the Rings was just to so lame and I preferred reading the book. But even with the new film in 2000, I still prefer reading the original book of J.R.R. Tolkien.


----------



## LGOULD (Jul 5, 2011)

"Sophie's Choice." A great movie adapted from William Styron's bloated, overwritten mess.

I must admit, I prefer Hollywood's happy-ending take on "The Natural" to Bernard Malamud's absorbing but depressing baseball story.


----------



## jasonzc (Dec 23, 2011)

I found that I didn't enjoy Lemony Snicket's books as much as I could have, but I loved the film.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

jasonzc said:


> I found that I didn't enjoy Lemony Snicket's books as much as I could have, but I loved the film.


I agree about Lemony Snicket. I think it was true for me because I actually found the books to be extremely disturbing. Almost "Girl Next Door" disturbing. The movie had a lighter tone, which I preferred.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

margretink said:


> Which lord of the rings are you guys referring to? Because the 1978 Lord of the Rings was just to so lame and I preferred reading the book. But even with the new film in 2000, I still prefer reading the original book of J.R.R. Tolkien.


I can't imagine anybody has give the 1978 version even half a thought!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

2001
Gone With The Wind
The Postman Always Rings Twice
Psycho
Andromeda Strain
Schindler's List
The Princess Bride
Dances With Wolves
Jaws
The Godfather
Goodfellas
Jurassic Park
Lord of the Rings
The Bridges of Madison County
Sophie's Choice


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

DYB said:


> I have to very strongly disagree about "The English Patient," "Misery," and "The Red Dragon." Superb novels. And adaptation of "Patient" and "Misery" were excellent in their own right. I did not care for "Manhunter" at all. I also think Michael Mann is an extremely overrated filmmaker.
> 
> I completely agree about "The Lord of the Rings." The book put me to sleep. The movies I love. "The Hobbit" novel I enjoyed a lot. The first movie is ridiculously bloated and dull.
> 
> While I did enjoy the novel "The Princess Bride," I do think the movie works better.


Wow. I agree with all of this. Now I need to stalk your Goodreads profile or something to see what books you like, so I can read them too. 

I think the movie "The Hunt for Red October" was much less boring than the book, even if Sean Connery's accent was atrocious.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

AuthorDianaBaron said:


> The Hunt for Red October is one of my favorite movies. I've probably watched it 10 times in the last 10 years.


I think I need to stalk your profile, too!


----------



## Erik P Harlow (May 10, 2013)

Misery.  I actually felt some relief in the movie when she produced a sledge hammer instead of a saw.


----------



## joanne29 (Jun 30, 2009)

bridges of madison county


----------



## macduff1 (May 14, 2013)

The Talented Mr. Ripley.


----------



## oooranje (Apr 20, 2013)

margretink said:


> Which lord of the rings are you guys referring to? Because the 1978 Lord of the Rings was just to so lame and I preferred reading the book. But even with the new film in 2000, I still prefer reading the original book of J.R.R. Tolkien.


Agree strongly with this - the movies were excellent work but included too much without including everything, so they didn't get the benefit of cutting in terms of pacing but managed to leave out bits that I really liked (e.g. Tom Bombadil).

I would say Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but that is actually something even rarer - a movie that IS the book it's based on. Almost word for word.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

oooranje said:


> Agree strongly with this - the movies were excellent work but included too much without including everything, so they didn't get the benefit of cutting in terms of pacing but managed to leave out bits that I really liked (e.g. Tom Bombadil).
> 
> I would say Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but that is actually something even rarer - a movie that IS the book it's based on. Almost word for word.


I liked Jackson's movies, but better than the book? No. I understand some of the cuts he made, like Bombadil. Unnecessary to the film. Jackson's problem is taking an anti-war novel that questions unchecked industrialism while examining a loss of innocence and turning it into a Liv Tyler filled environmentalist love fest. I'm all for saving trees, especially talking ones, but that second film just lost me. Despite having the coolest non-book scene when the elves arrive at Helm's Deep.

I was going to put The Princess Bride in the list, but at least one person has already done that.


----------



## Tgreyhair (Apr 17, 2013)

As the person who started the topic was saying misery the actual film I thought was a lot better than the book.  Anyone who has not seen misery it is a must see, there is a violent scene in it which might give you nightmares for life no it should be okay.


----------



## Nancy Beck (Jul 1, 2011)

Grace Elliot said:


> I wont throw tomatoes but I have to disagree. The ending of the film trilogy was a total cop out. In the novel the Shire is described as something akin to a nucleur waste and Frodo's heart is broken (from memory - it's a while since I read the book and I'm remembering the impression it made on me) Whilst in the movie he gets in a boat and sails off into the sunset. Yuck!


Actually, in the book, Frodo goes Over Sea, to be with the elves, because he wore the One Ring for such a long time - he needed to have his heart and soul healed by them.

The Order of the Phoenix was waaaay better than the book. I skipped a lot in that book because J.K. Rowling used too many exclamation points to get across that Harry was angsty. Duh! Being a teenager necessarily means you're angsty, lol! 

I like all 3 of the LOTR movies came out. I consider them separately from the books (which I still enjoy reading), because you can't perfectly transfer what's on the page to a movie. But I think Peter Jackson came close to the spirit and the feel of the books.


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Todd Young said:


> I wouldn't say it was a better movie than the book, but "The Talented Mr Ripley" is an excellent adaptation of a novel. In reality, the movie alters the protagonist and his motivations, as well as placing an altogether new character into the plot, played by Cate Blanchett. The result is a great movie, but better than the book? I'm not sure they can be compared.


I'm completely with you on this point...I don't think Highsmith's cool treatment lends itself well to the breathtaking beauty of some of the locales. The books feel claustrophobic in the extreme as we track Ripley's internal scripting. Following him in the book is wicked fun, but I think it would be very hard to translate some of that to the screen. The movie was quite different, I think, because it _had_ to be different in that respect.


----------



## Robena (Jan 19, 2013)

I thought the new The Great Gatsby film was as good or better than the book. The ending was tighter. A few scenes were not included like Gatsby's father coming for the funeral. My only comment was that Myrtle didn't look like the Myrtle I had envisioned. : )


----------



## Josie Gerard (May 20, 2013)

There's a famous saying in Hollywood, "Good books make bad movies and bad books make good movies." My experience bears that out. I can't remember ever loving a book AND the movie made from it. It's usually one or the other.


----------



## LectorsBooks (Apr 30, 2013)

Grace Elliot said:


> I wont throw tomatoes but I have to disagree. The ending of the film trilogy was a total cop out. In the novel the Shire is described as something akin to a nucleur waste and Frodo's heart is broken (from memory - it's a while since I read the book and I'm remembering the impression it made on me) Whilst in the movie he gets in a boat and sails off into the sunset. Yuck!


+1

Also, they pretty much screwed up the entire character of Faramir, who has always been one of my favourite supporting characters of all time.

Funnily enough, I stepped in to nominate The Hobbit - book Bilbo is pretty lame and has very few redeeming qualities, and it's actually a bit slow. And this is coming from a huge LOTR nerd (see above).


----------



## LectorsBooks (Apr 30, 2013)

Nancy Beck said:


> Actually, in the book, Frodo goes Over Sea, to be with the elves, because he wore the One Ring for such a long time - he needed to have his heart and soul healed by them.


True, but for all of the hobbits to come back to their home - the thought of which was what kept them going for the most part - and see it a place of violence and misery was a pretty big deal in the books, lots of foreshadowing building up to that and so on.

For the most part, I thought it was one of the better adaptations of book to movie that I've seen, but I certainly wouldn't say it's better than the books.


----------



## BelindaPepper (May 19, 2013)

Children of Men. 

Perhaps it's bad that I saw the movie before I read the book, and the two are VERY different. I felt the book was largely aimless, and lacked heart. Total opposite to the film.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

I liked the film version of *Inkheart* much better than the book. I made a serious effort to read the *Inkheart * trilogy last summer, having already seen the movie. I had to force myself to finish book one and never bothered to try the other two. None of the characters in the book are likeable, in fact, Meggie comes across as a precocious little brat and Dustfinger is just awful, being self-centered to the core without an ounce of humanity. And how many times did they escape Capricorn and his men only to be caught AGAIN?! I lost track. In the end I decided there were better things I could do with my life than to invest any more of it in this book with characters I didn't like and therefore really didn't care what happened to them.

I liked *Jaws* better than the book simply because I didn't like the way Mrs. Brody was portrayed in the book. She was much more concerned with getting her former social standing back with the snobby summer crowd and didn't appreciate what a great guy her husband was. It's true that there was more tension in the book because of Brody's suspicions regarding Hooper and his wife, but I loved the way the Brody family was portrayed in the movie. The scene where Brody and his son are making faces at each other at the dinner table, right after he has been confronted by the mother of the little boy (about the same age as his son) who died from a shark that Brody knew was out there and didn't close the beach to protect swimmers (although under the mayor's orders to keep it open) and he suddenly realizes how precious his son is to him? Deeply moving.

As for *The Lord of the Rings * and the varying opinions on this thread, I have mixed feelings regarding the films. While I love much of them, I hate what they did to Faramir in *The Two Towers*. In the book, he was the PURE character, a kind of Sir Galahad who could not be tempted. The Ring had absolutely no power to tempt him because of that. The writers interpreted the Ring as being "all-powerful" when they were interviewed and said that is why they had Faramir attempt to take it because they couldn't have a character say (as he did in the book) "I wouldn't touch that thing if it were lying in the road.", but that is a misinterpretation of the power of the Ring. The Ring was _not _ all-powerful; if it was it would never have let itself be cut from the hand of Sauron and would have forced at least one of the owners to take it back to him because the Ring and Sauron were one. The Ring simply brought out what was in your heart and could tempt you to seize power only if the desire to do so was already there. And for Faramir, it just wasn't. I loved more of the films than I disliked so I would give them an overall positive review, but not say they were better than the book. They are just two different mediums and the films were able to bring out things that the book could not, such as the lighting of the beacons that was mentioned in just a sentence or two in *Return of the King*, and the film skipped over some stuff like the Scouring of the Shire for the sake of time and so that the audience wasn't subjected to a downer after the high point of Aragorn's coronation. Especially when we knew that Frodo leaving Middle Earth to go to Valinor to heal his wounds and the leaving of Gandalf and the Elves from the shores of Middle Earth forever would be downer enough.


----------



## Dina (May 24, 2013)

I remember liking both forms of Misery equally well but the movie images are definitely stronger in my memory. Great production. In general, I thing Stephen King movies always fall a little short except for The Green Mile. That was so beautifully done.

Other movies better than the books? The one that stands out for me is Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont. I liked the book; I loved the movie.

Dina


----------



## Benjamin (Dec 26, 2008)

I walked out on the first 2 LoTR movies, never bothered with the 3rd. Thought they were terrible.


----------



## EvilTwinBrian (Jun 20, 2013)

Since all the obvious choices are taken, I'm going to pick some off the list items.

The Running Man
They Live (based off of a short story "Eight O'Clock in the Morning").


----------



## LectorsBooks (Apr 30, 2013)

lmroth12 said:


> As for *The Lord of the Rings * and the varying opinions on this thread, I have mixed feelings regarding the films. While I love much of them, I hate what they did to Faramir in *The Two Towers*. In the book, he was the PURE character, a kind of Sir Galahad who could not be tempted. The Ring had absolutely no power to tempt him because of that. The writers interpreted the Ring as being "all-powerful" when they were interviewed and said that is why they had Faramir attempt to take it because they couldn't have a character say (as he did in the book) "I wouldn't touch that thing if it were lying in the road.", but that is a misinterpretation of the power of the Ring. The Ring was _not _ all-powerful; if it was it would never have let itself be cut from the hand of Sauron and would have forced at least one of the owners to take it back to him because the Ring and Sauron were one. The Ring simply brought out what was in your heart and could tempt you to seize power only if the desire to do so was already there. And for Faramir, it just wasn't. I loved more of the films than I disliked so I would give them an overall positive review, but not say they were better than the book. They are just two different mediums and the films were able to bring out things that the book could not, such as the lighting of the beacons that was mentioned in just a sentence or two in *Return of the King*, and the film skipped over some stuff like the Scouring of the Shire for the sake of time and so that the audience wasn't subjected to a downer after the high point of Aragorn's coronation. Especially when we knew that Frodo leaving Middle Earth to go to Valinor to heal his wounds and the leaving of Gandalf and the Elves from the shores of Middle Earth forever would be downer enough.


YES! This exactly! I actually said out loud in the theater to my husband "HE DIDN'T DO THAT!" when Faramir said he was going to take the ring. I hadn't heard about why they did it, so it's good to know, but it still makes me angry every time I watch it. But, as you said, the positives outweigh the negatives, which is why I keep watching them. Faramir was one of my favorite characters in the books and they just ruined him in the movies.


----------



## EvilTwinBrian (Jun 20, 2013)

More love for Faramir!!

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
-Faramir, _The Two Towers_


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Kurt Vonnegut considered the movie of "Slughterhouse Five" better than his book, and said he was one of the luckiest authors on Earth for it. I love his novel, which has different devices that the movie, yet George Roy Hill's movie is brilliant, too. It's one of my all-time favorites.

The LA Times recently announced that the movie may be remade with Charlie Kaufman writing the script. See it here: http://www.latimes.com/features/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-charlie-kaufman-to-adapt-kurt-vonnegut-slaughterhouse-five-20130708,0,7236693.story


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Near the top of my (short) list of movies I thought were better than the books is the Millennium Trilogy, the three Swedish movies made from Steig Larsson's books (_The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_, etc.).

The movies benefited greatly from editing out all the 'fat' from the novels. IMHO. 

Mike


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Not a film, but I think this also qualifies. I found the writing and character development in the Dexter TV series to be stronger than in the novels.

Not to take away from the novels...they also worked, but in a different way. The writing in the novels tended towards the clever (with occasional alliterative overkill), whereas the television series made better use of the tensions between the various characters, in my opinion.


----------



## nigel p bird (Feb 4, 2011)

Having recently read a couple of books which spawned films I love (Rumblefish and The Outsiders, for example), I thought I’d give Cool Hand Luke a go.
My first impressions were very positive, the lean prose telling of the harsh routines and lives of prisoners on the Hard Road (or chain gang).  As well as its raw quality, there’s something poetic in the simplicity. 
Take this, a description of then the gang are being driven back to their cells after another tough day and are taking in some of the sights:
‘The fruit of the orange trees goes speeding by like the globes of distant planets dangling in outer-space.’
Eventually the plot gravitates to the Cool Hand Luke of the title. 
He’s a tough bird and a war hero who has seen too much of what human beings are capable of during his time in Europe to ever care about much again. He soon becomes the leader of the pack and the stories of his escapes are retold by those who were there, sometimes to inspire and mostly to help pass the time.
What you get here is a story that’s woven inside a tapestry of prison life. To me, the passages became a little repetitive, like the routines they reflect, which might have a lot to offer many but left me feeling a little stir-crazy. I wanted to burst out and break back into the narrative of Luke’s life on more than one occasion.
I was reminded of a reading event I attended  a good while ago when Ed Bunker brought to life his prison stories with colour and humour; I’d definitely have liked a little of the Bunker spirit in this one.
I did find myself rooting for Luke and holding my breath while I was holding out for news of his progress on the run and there was enough in this to bring me pleasure.
In truth, and the question is always going to be there, I enjoyed the film version so much more.
Once I’d finished, I slipped back to the beginning as I usually do when there’s an introduction. I was quite taken by the author’s life and would like to find out more about him. It made me wish that I’d liked the novel a little bit more.
What I will say is that it has enough about it to make it worth reading. Give it a try and take from it what you can – you just might love it.


----------



## dkrauss (Oct 13, 2012)

No Country for Old Men
The Road

What is it about Cormac McCarthy that he translates well to film? I guess because his books are, face it, difficult, but dang are they good! As were the movies. Bardeem. Man.

But, now I'm going to jump up on my soapbox and declare you can't compare books and movies. Just can't. Two completely different mediums, completely foreign to each other, requiring employment of completely separate skills. Took me a while to figure that out, and I used to walk out of movies-based-on-books mad if they were just one shade off the novel. But if a director can take the idea of the book and remain true to that within the logic of the movie itself, then, no matter how far it deviates from the book, it's good. Sometimes, it may be a better treatment than the book itself. _Disclosure_ comes to mind. Even if the director changes the velocity of the book, like in _The Mist_, then I can't complain if it remains consistent.

In that regard, _Dr. Zhivago_, the Omar Sharif one. Stunning. Just stunning.


----------



## Daniel Harvell (Jun 21, 2013)

I agree with The Lord of the Rings movies. The books are classics, but certain parts are a little painful to get through. The Hobbit, on the other hand ...


----------



## rmbooks (Sep 19, 2011)

For me, Silver Linings Playbook was a much better movie than novel. I just couldn't get my head around the main character's unbelievable innocence in the book.  I think they modified that in the film and made the character a bit more realistic.  

I can't say much about LoTR because I never read the books, but I did love the movies. Sorry, I know that flies in the face of what many of you have said.


----------



## authorjea (Sep 14, 2013)

_They Live_ is already taken (its all about those Ray Bans and Rowdy Roddy's glorious mane of a mullet).

I don't *think* I've seen _Psycho_ or _Blade Runner_ mentioned yet. Apologies if I just missed them.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

authorjea said:


> _They Live_ is already taken (its all about those Ray Bans and Rowdy Roddy's glorious mane of a mullet).
> 
> I don't *think* I've seen _Psycho_ or _Blade Runner_ mentioned yet. Apologies if I just missed them.


Can't quite say I though Blade Runner was better than Do Androids Dream', they are far too different to be compared. I'm a fan of both for different reasons.

I'm stunned to see Dune on this informal list. The movie was a shambolic mess of dumbness imho. I liked the book a good deal. Just goes to show how subjective these things can be.

Stardust is my candidate. I picked up the book and just couldn't be bothered to finish it. Pretty rare for me. Good story, obviously, but the movie works very well and I saw the movie first - I think that's a determining factor in most people preferences. See my opinion of Dune, above.


----------



## Vivienne Mathews (May 7, 2013)

John C said:


> Also, and I know I'll probably get strung up for this, I enjoyed V for Vendetta more as a movie than the graphic novel *ducks rotten tomatoes flying at him*


No rotten tomatoes coming from my direction; I wholeheartedly agree with you. Andy and Lana Wachowski managed to be respectful, maintaining the most perfect parts of the graphic novel while improving on the areas that were lacking -- the ending, Evey's character, etc. And I was once the assistant manager of a comic book store, so I'm usually pretty harsh about GN adaptations!

Also in agreement with the _Slaughterhouse Five_ and _Inkheart_ suggestions. Great films.


----------

