I second 2001: A Space Odyssey. Although both were fantastic, the ambiguity of the movie leaves it head and shoulders above the book, which had a ridiculous explanation (blue goo inside the cereal boxes? Come on!).
I do think the book handled the “death” of Hal better though. I cried.
I was 14.
Yes, I know that doesn’t justify it
Well I would strongly disagree that either The Bourne Identity or Dune were better than the books.
Having said that, I think The Virgin Suicides was easily as good as the book. As always YMMV
I thought the ending of the movie BEING THERE was much better than the book, both of which were written by Jerzy Kosinsky.
Two things, Spoil this blue goo please as I didn’t see the movie
Secondly, I though hal dying in the movie was pretty sad, how I guess I should just read the damn book. :smack:
Carrie was one of Stephen King’s first novels, and it shows. I can’t stand the book.
The movie by Brian DePalma, on the other hand, is fantastic. It has an IMDB user rating of 7.3/10 and I think is easily among the best films based on a King novel.
Eh, I thought the **Jurassic Park ** movies were dumbed down from the books.
I’d also disagree on **Silence of the Lambs ** and Hannibal–the characterizations in the books are much richer. and the atention to detail is astounding.
I may be the only one who prefers the movie version of Starship Troopers, mainly because it was one of my least favorite Heinlein novels. At least the movie was entertaining and exciting and had some good satire, rather than being preachy and humorless, like the book.
It’s been a few years since I’ve read the book, but as I recall, the hotel room that Dave sees at the end was manufactured by the aliens, who based their designs on earthly TV shows they picked up via transmission. However, apparently, the TV shows they received only showed the exterior of most objects or something, and such the aliens had no idea what went inside these objects, such as cereal boxes or jars.
As such, when Dave opens up these products, he discovers a blue goo inside all of them…I guess nothing wouldn’t have sufficed, it had to be blue goo.
So very, very lame - I almost found it insultingly ridiculous after having seen the movie.
The Bridges of Madison County. Dreadful book, not a dreadful movie.
You could not possibly be more wrong.
Another vote for Fight Club. The book made the “twist” obvious from about page 20, while the movie kept you guessing until the end. Also, I always felt the movie left a much better ambiguous ending than the book.
Legends of the Fall. I recently read the story and thought that it was a bit flat and too distant from the character to engage you. The movie was much more involving and engaging.
I read the Bourne Identity when I was a kid, back in the 80s, and I thought it was kind of cool. I re-read it after watching the movie and almost couldn’t finish the damn thing. The mental sound effects as Bourne does various moves from some unnamed Southeast Asian martial art are incredibly cheesy. The plot is way more contrived than the movie. The book wasn’t that well written either. I remember some repetitive passages and parts that just plain sucked. They took the bones of the story and fleshed it out in a completely different way for the movie, and the rebuilding helped immensely. I didn’t bother re-reading the Bourne Supremacy since I figured that even though the movie wasn’t as good as its predecessor, it would be better than the book.
Technically, Memento was based on a short story by Nolan’s brother, but is so far removed from the story that it was considered an original script. The core idea is there, but the execution and detail in the movie vastly improved upon the story.
I loved Of Mice and Men, but the Sinise-Malkovich movie is better than the book. It’s the kind of film where I can imagine Steinbeck, had he lived to see it, watching it and thinking “so that’s what I meant!”.
I’ll also agree about Lord of the Rings. The Professor was a superhumanly excellent worldbuilder, not so excellent a story-teller.
Christine, directed by John Carpenter, was not a fantastic movie, but it was decent.
Christine, by Stephen King, is a piece of crap.
In the book, the kid isn’t inside Christine when it comes for them at the end. Instead, he is killed offstage wrestling a frigging ghost for control of his mom’s car. We only hear about it from some other character.
Carpenter’s version cut the ghost entirely, made the car itself a malevolent thing, and had the balls to make the kids kill their former friend when they destroyed Christine.
GOD I hated that book.
I didn’t read the book. Reading an excerpt was enough–fake artiness. And I can deal with real artiness, when I’m in the mood.
But the movie was a well-done adult 3-hanky movie.
“The World According to Garp.” It was very different from the book, but damn good.
Creator with Peter O’Toole was vastly superior as a movie.
I’m with MadPansy64 on this one. Lousy book.
I know there are people who will disagree with me, but: The Shining. King’s book was great, but Kubrick took the story and did amazing things with it.
I liked the book better. Perhaps because of the amusing characters left out of the movie–& Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson, as per usual. And–dropping by the beach at Galveston on the way back to River Oaks after lunching at Brennan’s? (Yes, I live in Houston.)
McMurtrey’s Lonesome Dove was the rare example of a fine film matching a fine book. The mini-series (or film series) is a better way to deal with complex works.
Wow, there are so many!
The Green Mile is another movie based on a Stephen King novel that far surpassed the prose version.
Mystic River, driven by the wonderful performances from all the actors is much better than the book.
etc, etc