Is the book always more enjoyable than the movie?

[Herge]

Isn't it a rule that the film won't be as good as the book? I'm a Stephen King fan, and when watching one of the movies of his books (in company) I sometimes find myself saying the old cliche "You should read the book, its sooo much better". :)

Possibly the only movie that was as enjoyable as the book was Pet Cemetery.

The worst conversion of book to films that I have seen was probably American Psycho.

Are there any well known examples of film makers producing a film that was more enjoyable than the book it was based on?

[Murcielago]

The Godfather movie is often cited as an improvement over the book.

[Doomtrain]

The Lord of the Rings movies are way better than the books, IMHO.

[Darwin's Finch]

Jurassic Park: The Lost World was an abysmally bad book, while only a pretty bad movie. I'm quite relieved the movie had little, if any, resemblance to the book, in this case.

[RikWriter]

I agree with the LOTR movies and I would have to add Jaws to that.

[Morbo]

Hannibal. Pretty awful movie, but at least they left out all the stuff from the book that was pure insanity:

That awfully stereotyped body-building lesbian sister and her fate with the silly electric eel, and of course all that nonsense at the end where Hannibal uses a bunch of drugs to turn Clarice into his willing lover and accomplice and they live happily ever after

[RickJay]

Both "The Godfather" and "Jaws" would be really obvious examples. Both were among the finest American movies ever made. The books, though popular, were certainly not great books.

"Goodfellas" was an enjoyable and well made movie - I don't think it's the uber-masterpeice some make it out to be, but it was a terrific flick - that was based on a fairly boring book narrated to a ghostwriter by a half-wit.

Millions will kill me in my sleep for saying this, but I have enjoyed the "The Lord of the Rings" films more than I did the books. The books were great, but Tolkein didn't know when to stop painting. The movies have 80% of what's best about the books and leave out 99% of what's filler.

[Diceman]

I agree that the movie version of Jaws is far superior to the book. Years ago I checked the book out of the library. There are a lot of side plots which, IMO, make the story hard to follow. Two that I remember are:
The mayor is involved with the Mafia, and the mob stong-arms Chief Brodie when he tries to look into the mayor's past dealings.

Chief Brodie's wife cheats on him -- with Hooper (!!!)

However, Hooper gets eaten by the shark at the end.

Also, Brodie doesn't kill the shark. It just kinda leaves after eating Hooper. Not much of an ending.

[Daniel]

The screenplay for "The Princess Bride" was written by the same fellow who wrote the book, and I'd say they're equally spectacular. The book and the movie are pretty much identical, except the book has a few scenes the movie left out. And for the most part, the missing scenes are still pretty darn good.

[Mr2001]

The Great Gatsby was an awful book, but the 1974 movie was at least tolerable.

[lauramarlane]

I thought Silence of the Lambs was fantastic as a book and as a movie--they really stayed true to the novel in that screenplay and Anthony Hopkins was even scarier and more fascinating that I thought Hanibal was in the novel.

[HDS]

The Last Unicorn is wonderful in both formats. I can't really pick one. The writing is like poetry, yet I also love the songs and animation on screen. I'd say experiencing both are best, as you can fill in bits left out.

[mike1dog]

I recently read the book Paper Moon was based on, and the movie was only half of the book. The second half would have been hard to make as a movie, but it was a hilarious book that made a good movie. Generally there have been some awful books that have made good movies. The book psycho by robert bloch for example bears no relation to the movie.

[Khadaji]

Originally posted by Daniel
The screenplay for "The Princess Bride" was written by the same fellow who wrote the book, and I'd say they're equally spectacular. The book and the movie are pretty much identical, except the book has a few scenes the movie left out. And for the most part, the missing scenes are still pretty darn good. I actually liked the movie better than the book, but then, I had seen the movie first. I dunno, the movie just seemed to have more of a sense of fun.

[Miller]

Originally posted by Daniel
The screenplay for "The Princess Bride" was written by the same fellow who wrote the book, and I'd say they're equally spectacular. The book and the movie are pretty much identical, except the book has a few scenes the movie left out. And for the most part, the missing scenes are still pretty darn good.

I agree that the book and the movie are equally good, but the book is an entirely different animal than the movie. The scenes they left out, where "William Goldman" (a fictional character sharing few traits with the author and screenwriter of the same name) talks about his disintegrating marriage and emotional disconnect with his son, make the book a very cynical and post-modern work, whereas the film works entirely on the level of fairy-tale.

Also in the "at least as good as" category is Blade Runner and the P.K. Dick novel it was based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Although the movie is much more accesible, it's hard to say which was better, as the plots are so radically different from each other in so many ways. However, it's also the best example of how a movie can be completely faithful to the novel it was based on while still making enourmous, fundamental changes to the plot. Critics of the Lord of the Rings movies please take note.

Jurassic Park the movie was a good popcorn movie, but the novel was written by Michael Crichton. Although the book The Andromeda Strain suffered from exactly the same flaw, the movie of was actually really good. Also, the movie Congo had one (1) cool scene, which was one more than the book had.

As a rule of thumb, good books make bad movies, but bad books often make great movies.

[Palo Verde]

Lonesome Dove at least comes close.

I love both the book and movie version. The book is better, but given the difficulty of making the movie work at all, I amazed at how well the movie works.

[Enright3]

Originally posted by Murcielago
The Godfather movie is often cited as an improvement over the book.

I know that a lot of people agree with you on that, but I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie. It's one of my top five of all time. What I thought the book brought out, that the movie didn't as well, was how Michael was just like his father. He was cold and calculating, knew how to keep his emotions to himself. You knew in the beginning of the book that he was the right man to succeed his father. The other part I didn't like was when the modernized the movie in regards to Michael's wife. I'm a couple of years out on reading the book, but I believe that they pretty much left it at his wife going to mass and praying for his soul as his mother regularly went to mass to pray for Vito's soul. That's my most favorite book of all time. I'm trying to get my son interested in reading it. He's 20 years old. I'm sure I had already read it half a dozen times by the time I was 20. ~sigh~

E3

[Enright3]

Mystic River is an Excellent example of this. Mystic River is the only book I have ever started and not been able to finish. It just got too boring for me. I like the movie much better than the book. The first half was pretty good. After that, it just died. Ugh!

E3

[Murcielago]

E3, I've never read the book, that's just a common view I thought was relevant to the OP. Maybe I'll put that one back on my "need to read" list.

[Kaitlyn]

As for King's books, King himself has said that Carrie was an improvement over the book, and The Shawshank Redemption, while a very good novella, just doesn't carry the same emotional punch as the movie. Stand By Me is also an improvement on the pretty good novella "The Body".

W. P. Kinsella's comments on the dustcover of the laserdisc for Field of Dreams, based on his book Shoeless Joe, indicate that the wholesale changes made to his story in putting it on screen were nearly all improvements.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a good book that nevertheless pales in comparison to the masterpiece that is the movie version.

Schindler's List is one of the most emotionally powerful movies ever made. The book is intellectually fascinating, and emotionally satisfying, but doesn't carry the emotional weight that the movie does.

Nobody ever improves on Elmore Leonard, and most miss the mark by a wide margin, but Out of Sight, Get Shorty, and Jackie Brown (based on Rum Punch), come pretty close to being their equals.

And I'll add one more vote for the LOTR movies being more satisfying than the books.

[The Long Road]

The book Independence Day, based on the movie of the same name, was a horrid pile of stinking garbage. It was obviously written in about a week to capitalize on the movie's publicity.

[Earl of the CC]

I must personally track down everyone who says The Godfather movie is better than the book and administer a test to see if they actually read the book. I bet most of them haven't. It's not even close. The book demolishes the movie.

But that's just my opinion.

[Bob55]

Well definitely NOT Starship Troopers (best book ever worst movie ever).

[Jadis]

The Color Purple was a much better movie than a book, IMO. Also, I haven't read it, but I've heard that the book version of Forrest Gump was downright awful, and it was turned into a fairly acclaimed movie.

[Miller]

Originally posted by Jadis
Also, I haven't read it, but I've heard that the book version of Forrest Gump was downright awful, and it was turned into a fairly acclaimed movie.

I haven't read it either, but I've mostly heard that the book is about as good as the movie. Of course, I felt the movie was downright awful, so that's not strong praise. But most of the people I know who really, really liked the movie also really, really liked the book.

[Avalonian]

Fearless is one of my all-time favorite movies, perhaps my favorite one. It has an emotional center that is rare in any medium, pareticularly in film. The novel has only a passing shadow of the power of the film.

Strangely, the author and screenwriter are one and the same: Rafael Yglesias. Credit must go to Peter Weir for avoiding much of the dross of the novel and finding a great story.

Also, I'm no big fan of the movie Forrest Gump, but I can say at least that it was definitely better than the book, which was at best a muddle.

[HPL]

Originally posted by Enright3
I know that a lot of people agree with you on that, but I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie. It's one of my top five of all time. What I thought the book brought out, that the movie didn't as well, was how Michael was just like his father. He was cold and calculating, knew how to keep his emotions to himself. You knew in the beginning of the book that he was the right man to succeed his father. The other part I didn't like was when the modernized the movie in regards to Michael's wife. I'm a couple of years out on reading the book, but I believe that they pretty much left it at his wife going to mass and praying for his soul as his mother regularly went to mass to pray for Vito's soul. That's my most favorite book of all time. I'm trying to get my son interested in reading it. He's 20 years old. I'm sure I had already read it half a dozen times by the time I was 20. ~sigh~

E3

I liked the book a lot, but I felt the book lost points because it had that entire section about Johnny Fontaine and his buddy in Hollywood that doesn't really seem related to the story at hand.

That and the movie had visual flair working in it's favor, most notably the famous Baptism sequence. That's not a comment on the book, but that the movie can do things that the book can't really pull off.

[HPL]

I felt "Apocolypse Now" was a hell of a lot better then "Heart of Darkness".

[Duderdude2]

[i]2001: A Space Odyssey[/b] was better than the book (though they were equal up to the ending, at which point, thr book fell apart).

[Duderdude2]

What? Why the hell can't I close an italic command with a cease bold one? Makes no sense I tell ya

[Odinoneeye]

I usually find whichever comes first is the better product (usually). Novelizations of movies tend to be worse than the movie their based on (Funhouse by Dean Koontz is one exception) and the reverse is true for movies made of books.

As for LOTR, I like the book Fellowship better, but liked the movie The Two Towers better, so it's a toss up for me. Have to see ROTK for the winning vote.

[notquitekarpov]

Agree 2001: A Space Odyssey was the book's - well [i]short story[b]'s - equal. Interestingly Stanley Kubrick came out with his take on why books usually make bad movies without seriously radical trimming - he thought it had to do with how many scenes a 110 minute movie had, around 30? Check out how many episodes a book has - five to ten times that - which results in either long-winded pale immitations (whole LOTR film saga, IMHO) or total messes (Dune or Catch-22 anyone?).

2001: A Space Odyseey was based on a short story which was half the reason it filmed so well.

[BlackKnight]

I thought "Fight Club" was a pretty decent book, but a very good movie.

[jovan]

I have not read the book but Russel Banks was apparently very pleased with Atom Egoyan's rendition of The Sweet Hereafter.

[Caprese]

I thought that the movie [i]The English Patient[i/] was a distinct improvement on the book. The novel was too stream-of-consciousness for me.

[Caprese]

oops
I meant The English Patient

[SenorBeef]

"Fight club" is much better as a movie than the book that was written - it seemed amateurish to me, the book, that is. Also, the ending, and hence the entire story, really, was a let down in the book.

[Trunk]

Originally posted by Herge

The worst conversion of book to films that I have seen was probably American Psycho.

Are there any well known examples of film makers producing a film that was more enjoyable than the book it was based on?
That's really funny you say this. When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought of American Psycho, because....

that's my fallback example of a movie that blew the book away.

I thought the book was unreadable. On and on and on he rambled about the same stuff over and over. Whoever did the screenplay not only served as an adapter but did what an editor should have done in the first place: removed at least 50% of what's in the book.

How about The Orchid Thief? I never read the book, though.

I read and saw The Godfather. It's a movie that does a good job with good material.

There are lots of movies that do a good job with bad material -- the book Jaws is a mess.

I have enjoyed both formats of LOTR a lot. Still, Peter Jackson isn't doing much creatively except doing a great job of bringing the books to the screen.

The Long Goodbye is one of my favorite movies, and probably better than the source. You could say that about a lot of the old noir stuff based on pulp.

[Agrippina]

Originally posted by Trunk
I thought the book was unreadable. On and on and on he rambled about the same stuff over and over. Whoever did the screenplay not only served as an adapter but did what an editor should have done in the first place: removed at least 50% of what's in the book.

It was supposed to be that way in "American Psycho", although I do agree with you. The point was to paint Patrick Bateman as an extremely shallow guy, more concerned with the different shampoos he used or the Whitney Huston CDs he listened to instead of the people he killed. I think the movie brought that side out far better than the book.

I agree with the "Lord of the Rings" movies. I didn't even like "FOTR" but liked it far more than the book. At least the movie got the point right away instead of going on and on with scenes of them walking and singing.

[Dangerosa]

The Committments is a better movie than novella. Roddy Doyle is a very funny guy, but that book in particular is a difficult read and does much better in a visual/dialogue format (the book is written in a lot of dialogue and lyrics). (Its probably an easier read if you read Irish English.)

[Trunk]

Originally posted by Rabid Child
It was supposed to be that way in "American Psycho", although I do agree with you. The point was to paint Patrick Bateman as an extremely shallow guy, more concerned with the different shampoos he used or the Whitney Huston CDs he listened to instead of the people he killed. I think the movie brought that side out far better than the book.

Yeah, at least far more economically than the book.

I liked the point of it all. But, you don't need to batter the reader over the head with it to the point of boredom and at the cost of narrative.

The movie got the point across just as well, and had a better balance between the plot and the details.

[Caprese]

Originally posted by Trunk

How about The Orchid Thief? I never read the book, though.



I liked both Adaptation as well as its origin, The Orchid Thief.
But both were so different from each other, I am not sure you could judge how well Adaptation was 'adapted' from Susan Orlean's book.

[Zebra]

Originally posted by Number Six

W. P. Kinsella's comments on the dustcover of the laserdisc for Field of Dreams, based on his book Shoeless Joe, indicate that the wholesale changes made to his story in putting it on screen were nearly all improvements.



I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Kinsella.

[unixrat]

IIRC, Chuck Pa-whoozit, author of Fight Club, said that he
thought the movie was better and liked their ending.

I agree with him.


In the book, The Guy doesn't fails to blow up the building (or Tyler Durden doesn't, I guess, since 'he' mixed it with sawdust. He wakes up in a mental institution with the orderlies saying 'Good to see you, sir. Hope to have you back soon.'

[DeadlyAccurate]

I think a lot of times it also depends on which one you experience first. I've read novels and then watched the movie and couldn't believe how they ruined it. My husband, not having read that same novel, enjoyed the movie on its own merits. I've never read the LOTR trilogy, so I'm able to completely enjoy the movies without any preconceived notion of what should happen. I like the idea someone above posted about sometimes bad books make great movies. Some stories are created for the wrong format.

[El Elvis Rojo]

Another Michael Chriton book...Eaters of the Dead was made into The Thirteenth Warrior, and I found the movie to be a hell of a lot better than the book. I like what the book tried to do, but there was really no expanse of the main character...he never grew, never changed, never did anything but come to the conclusion that it's okay to sleep around, whereas in the movie he developes and grows a hell of a lot. It was a great fantasy/action film and a rather mediocre book.

[Sinungaling]

What about Last of the Mohicans? I tried to read the book, I really did, but come on -- how could Hawkeye be called "Natty Bumpo"? What kind of crap name is that, I ask you?

[PoorYorick]

This came up in another thread: I thought that the adaptation to Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff a great adapatation of a great book. I thought that the differences between the movie and book were logical, both leaning to the strengths of their respective media.

[Mal Adroit]

Originally posted by Dooku
(re: Hannibal)
...all that nonsense at the end where Hannibal uses a bunch of drugs to turn Clarice into his willing lover and accomplice and they live happily ever after

Uh, I thought that was brilliant.
And when I read it, I remember thinking, they'll never have the balls to end the movie this way. Surprise, surprise.

[Herge]

Originally posted by Trunk
That's really funny you say this. When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought of American Psycho, because....

that's my fallback example of a movie that blew the book away.

I thought the book was unreadable. On and on and on he rambled about the same stuff over and over. Whoever did the screenplay not only served as an adapter but did what an editor should have done in the first place: removed at least 50% of what's in the book.

I think its debatable that the book was better than the movie, and vice versa. Personally, I didn't mind reading pages and pages about Bateman's excercise routine and what suit hes wearing etc. This banality was set against the psychotic episodes in which he turns into a crazed animal. I would say the movie left out more than 75% of what happens in the book, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. It wasn't a bad movie, but I found the book far more engrossing and disturbing. Its a matter of personal preference, of course.

[SenorBeef]

Originally posted by unixrat
IIRC, Chuck Pa-whoozit, author of Fight Club, said that he
thought the movie was better and liked their ending.

I agree with him.


In the book, The Guy doesn't fails to blow up the building (or Tyler Durden doesn't, I guess, since 'he' mixed it with sawdust. He wakes up in a mental institution with the orderlies saying 'Good to see you, sir. Hope to have you back soon.'


Question regarding the ending



That end was meant to imply the guy was completely nuts and was imagining people calling him sir and being part of his group, right? If so, then is he totally nuts through the whole thing, or what? Or did I misread the ending?

[Jurph]

I'm a big fan of The Hunt for Red October as a movie that's better than the book. IIRC, the novel's "climactic" chase scene lasts something like twenty or thirty pages and then takes a break from the action then resumes for another ten or so, whereas the movie does a great job of compressing the action.

The movie also included the "I... was never here" line from James Earl Jones. Maybe the book did, too, but it's clear which one I remember more clearly.

[lt180ml]

I was never a fan of the Patrick O'Brian books, although I also always felt this was somehow my fault.

IMO, Master and Commander was better, but shouldn't have mainstreamed things quite as much as it did...i.e., the Maturin was allowed to be considerably more quirky in the books. I suppose that's the price an author has to pay to get his books made into movies.

[Treviathan]

While I enjoyed the novel, the film adaptation of High Fidelity is near-perfect. The movie's subtle visual details - like the indie rock posters adorning John Cusack's walls - and the fact that you get to actually hear the music they're talking about makes the movie better, in my opinion.

[Archergal]

I tell people NEVER to read the books the following movies were based on:

The Natural

and

The African Queen

I think the movies were superior in both cases.

[unixrat]

For SenorBeef:

It was my impression that Fight Club had outgrown it's leader and it was unstoppable. Even with the leader committed and their original mission failed, the troops continue to push onward - similar to the movie when Ed Norton tries to tell them to stop.

Your theory is very intriguing, however. I'll have to re-read the ending and take another look.

[The Long Road]

Originally posted by Jurph
I'm a big fan of The Hunt for Red October as a movie that's better than the book. IIRC, the novel's "climactic" chase scene lasts something like twenty or thirty pages and then takes a break from the action then resumes for another ten or so, whereas the movie does a great job of compressing the action.

The movie also included the "I... was never here" line from James Earl Jones. Maybe the book did, too, but it's clear which one I remember more clearly.

The movie was better because it straightened things out. The book has so many subplots and dead ends that it can get painful to keep track of everything. One I remember is the crew of technicians sent out to meet the Red October but their helicopter crashes enroute and Jack Ryan is forced to go out. In the movie, it's much simpler, he is ordered to go out. There is also some very muddled thread in the book about a Polish resistance movement or something similar giving the Red October orders. I can't remember the details but I do remember thinking that it added nothing beyond additional pages to the book

I guess early on I enjoyed Tom Clancy, mainly because of Red Storm Rising but now I find his work far too concerned with minute details to be enjoyable.

Not that the movie Patriot Games was any great piece of work but I tend to think that it is better than the book for the same reasons. This doesn't even begin to cover Tom Clancy trying to write romance into his novel ::shudder::

[LorieSmurf]

The thing about Forrest Gump was that the book was NOTHING like the movie. The only thing the same was the character of Forrest Gump was kinda stupid, and the girl Jenny was his friend. That's about it. Truly.

But i liked both. The movie was sappier, and it had Tom Hanks and was touchy feely, so I preferred it.

[fessie]

The film Ordinary People is much better than the book - some details are left out, and Conrad's life takes a different turn, but it's a very well-made movie, where the book was only reasonably well written.

And the movie Fried Green Tomatoes is better than the book, much livelier and more coherent (although the movie should've been honest and kept the lesbianism the author intended).

I really disagree about Lonesome Dove - Robert Duvall was the only part of the movie that worked for me, I though the remainder was far inferior.

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by Archergal
I tell people NEVER to read the books the following movies were based on:

The Natural

and

The African Queen

I think the movies were superior in both cases.

I have to heartily agree, after making the mistake of picking up The Natural one day in a book store and browsing through it. Yecch.

[Shade]

Do books based on movies count? They pretty much suck IME.