# Instances of the movie actually improving on the book **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 9, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200 "2004-04-09T17:37:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/61 "2004-04-10T20:49:24Z")
Almost every James Michener story has (imo) made a better movie than a book: _South Pacific_, _Hawaii_, _The Hawaiians_, _Centennial_ (a miniseries) & _Space_ (miniseries). While Michener’s research abilities were incredible, his character development was very rare, while the movies fleshed out the characters and cut the volcanoes. ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/62 "2004-04-10T20:54:19Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Almost every James Michener story has (imo) made a better movie than a book: _South Pacific_, _Hawaii_, _The Hawaiians_, _Centennial_ (a miniseries) & _Space_ (miniseries). While Michener’s research abilities were incredible, his character development was very rare, while the movies fleshed out the characters and cut the volcanoes. I strongly disagree on _Hawaii_. The movie was but a pale shadow of the book. Of course, it would have been impossible to capture the full scope on the screen – it would take at least a mini-series. And a number of the “choice” parts of the book would never have made it onto the silver screen back in the day… ---
**Author:** ![infamousmom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d6d6ee/32.png) [@infamousmom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/infamousmom)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/63 "2004-04-10T21:29:06Z")
I think the best example of a movie (actually a TV miniseries, believe it or not) improving on a book is “Once an Eagle.” The scriptwriters did away with several characters who went nowhere in the book, added one character who should have been there (and who added greatly to the plot) and most of all, ended the story where it should have been ended, with the bad guy getting what was coming to him. I wish someone would release that miniseries on DVD. As far as I know, it ran twice on TV circa 1980 and that was that. It starred Sam Elliott and Cliff Potts. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/64 "2004-04-10T23:49:14Z")
One movie that I can pretty much stake all I have on that will **NOT** be better than the book: [Confederacy of Dunces](http://imdb.com/title/tt0340054/). (Will Ferrell as Ignatius- thanks be to the Deity that J.K. Toole is already dead cause this would have killed him.) ---
**Author:** ![Tikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5daacb/32.png) [@Tikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tikki)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/65 "2004-04-11T00:19:12Z")
Compared to the movie, reading the ending of _The African Queen_ was quite disappointing. No improvised torpedo destroying the German ship. No marriage just beforehand. The English officer see Allnutt and Rose as unnecessary burdens and can’t wait to send them on their way and Allnutt and Rose meekly go, leaving the officer and his men to take down the ship. Perhaps it’s more realistic, after all they’d gone through but it just gave me the impression that Forrester had lost interest in his novel or was trying to beat a deadline. The rest of the book was fascinating and made me understand better what suffering Allnutt and Rose went through. ---
**Author:** ![Shoeless](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shoeless/32/7099_2.png) [@Shoeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shoeless)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/66 "2004-04-11T02:35:48Z")
Has anyone mentioned “Last of the Mohicans” yet? Not that the movie was all that great, but reading the book was sheer torture. How it ever got to be a classic is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/67 "2004-04-11T02:43:38Z")
The Jane Austen books \*Pride and Prejudice \* and _Sense and Sensibility_. I don’t know how they got to be “classics.” Tedious, inane, and so on. Movies brought them to life. ---
**Author:** ![Atrael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Atrael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atrael)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/68 "2004-04-12T18:48:23Z")
_The Count of Monte Cristo_, while I liked the book, I thought the movie did a great job of cutting out some of the dozens of subplots, and the countless times the author would spend detailing every penny the main character spent. The movie stayed true to the main focus of the book, and did a wonderful job of making a more coherant storyling. ---
**Author:** ![AboveAverage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@AboveAverage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboveAverage)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/69 "2004-04-12T19:15:59Z")
Hazel-Rah: The Passion??? Wow…that, my friend, takes big ones. HIGH FIDELITY was a decent read but it was made into a fantastic movie. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/70 "2004-04-12T20:14:34Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > One movie that I can pretty much stake all I have on that will **NOT** be better than the book: [Confederacy of Dunces](http://imdb.com/title/tt0340054/). (Will Ferrell as Ignatius- thanks be to the Deity that J.K. Toole is already dead cause this would have killed him.) He probly would’ve killed himself. ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/71 "2004-04-12T20:43:56Z")
I must disagree with the posters who dissed the novels _ **A Prayer for Owen Meany** _ and _ **Contact.** _ Both were excellent novels made into horrible movies, IMHO. John Irving was right to take his name out of the writing credits for _Simon Birch;_ I have a hard time beliving that Carl Sagan gave the OK to _Contact_ the movie, which bastardized much of his original plot. On the other hand, _ **Quick Change** _ (with Bill Murray, Geena Davis, and Randy Quaid) was an excellent movie based on an AWFUL book! Absolutely unreadable. If I ever meet that screenwriter, I’m going to shake his hand and congratulate him on making a silk purse from a sow’s ear. ---
**Author:** ![Kizarvexius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Kizarvexius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kizarvexius)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/72 "2004-04-12T22:17:20Z")
Most of the Tom Clancy novels that have been filmed were more enjoyable as movies than books, IMHO. The screenwriters cut out most of the bloated subplots and the ubiquitous details to produce a coherent plotline. Of course, this is coming from someone who thinks Colleen McCollough’s _Masters of Rome_ series is the greatest work of fiction in the past fifty years, so who am I to complain about bloat, subplots, and details? ---
**Author:** ![CairaJade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@CairaJade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairaJade)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/73 "2004-04-12T22:56:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Posted by Astrael > _The Count of Monte Cristo_… The movie stayed true to the main focus of the book, and did a wonderful job of making a more coherant storyling. I completely disagree. One of the main methods that Edmund employs to exact his revenge is to disguise his identity and to remain in the background. That horrible, horrible balloon scence was hideous, and just one example of the extravagances that are contrary to Edmund’s character. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/74 "2004-04-13T00:16:28Z")
> [@Kizarvexius](#): > > Most of the Tom Clancy novels that have been filmed were more enjoyable as movies than books, IMHO. Patriot Games definitely. The book sucked. Hunt for Red October was about equal. But Clear and Present Danger was a horrible movie and The Sum of All Fears was disappointing and weak as a movie, while enjoyable if bloated as a novel. ---
**Author:** ![ArtistCeleste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArtistCeleste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArtistCeleste)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/75 "2004-04-13T00:37:06Z")
Lets see, I think most movies have a very great difficulty in surpassing their books. I love the Lord of the Rings movies, but the only argument that the movies are better than the books seems to be that the books had more depth. Tolkien is infinately talented, even if he did use other stories and legends for all his material. I loved Chocolat the book, fell asleep during the movie. Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite books. It’s fun, witty, insightful, and it’s a very quick read, for anyone who is interested. “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a fortune must be in want of a wife.” Best first line for a book, that I’ve ever heard. Haven’t seen the movie, but seriously doubt it can rival the ingenuity of Jane Austin. I must concede, however, that I enjoyed the movie Contact, far more than the book. I just think that the characters, except Ellie seemed shallow. All the religions, all the world were one big stereotype. I didn’t see the movie that way. ---
**Author:** ![bagkitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ab992/32.png) [@bagkitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bagkitty)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/76 "2004-04-13T01:10:56Z")
the winner, hands down, has to be the _Unbearable Lightness of Being_ , not that the movie was that good, as the book by Milan Kundera was so god-awful ---
**Author:** ![Atrael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Atrael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atrael)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/77 "2004-04-13T16:50:43Z")
> [@CairaJade](#): > > I completely disagree. One of the main methods that Edmund employs to exact his revenge is to disguise his identity and to remain in the background. That horrible, horrible balloon scence was hideous, and just one example of the extravagances that are contrary to Edmund’s character. Hmmm…ok, I can see your point there, and your totally right. However I still maintain that the book had far far too many sub-revenge plots, and way to much detail about how much every little thing cost. The movie did an excellent job in keeping with the **spirit** of the book, IMHO. While the lead character in the movie was more in the spotlight, there was a good deal of behind the scenes maniplation that he did to make things happen, which was true to his mannerisms in the book. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/78 "2004-04-13T17:18:00Z")
> [@Kyomara](#): > > _Fight Club_ was a shitty book. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was shitty, but it was… okay. I would say this was one of the rare occasions where I liked the movie better. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/79 "2004-04-13T17:28:37Z")
I’m surprised no one has mentioned _The Road to Wellville_. The movie made me laugh, and drew me in, but the book. It is one of three which I put down in the middle and will never pick back up. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200/80 "2004-04-13T17:29:05Z")
> [@Miss Mapp](#): > > _Maurice_, based on E.M. Forster’s novel. Another episodic story gets pulled into a stronger narrative focus on film. The key improvement to me here is in the character of Clive. In the book, he just sort of turns straight and loses interest in Maurice. In the film, he’s terrified when one of his also-gay friends is arrested for picking up a man in a bar and, like Oscar Wilde, sent to prison; after that, Clive dumps Maurice, goes into the closet, and gets married, which seems much more plausible to me than his suddenly having a different sexuality for no reason. Haven’t seen the movie, but the last few paragraphs of the book gave me a different impression of Clive. It seemed to hint that he was going to regret giving up Maurice, that maybe he was still in love with him – that his motives weren’t quite as clearcut as the narrator initially suggests. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/instances-of-the-movie-actually-improving-on-the-book/239200.md?page=5)