Is ANY movie better than the novel it came from?

Cafe Society
121

I am seriously hoping this is an attempt to whoosh people. :stuck_out_tongue:

I am presuming you know the movie came first. :dubious:

I am of the opinion that the thread title disqualifies novels made after the movie. :slight_smile:

Or maybe you are referencing the working plot line Lucas developed before the first script was written… :confused:

I would go with Gone With the Wind. One of the best movies ever, and clearly as good or better than the epic novel it came from.
I would nominate any movie of any Dickens novel, with the exception of A Christmas Carol. Dickens novels are best made into movies, so that all the superfluous verbage can be weeded out.
When judging books and films for this thread, one should keep in mind the considered greatness of the book (which concept I have, of course, just violated myself :smiley: ). Thus, even if you personally don’t like the written Lord of the Rings trilogy, to compare the movies to the books, one should compare the quality of the movies to the generally accepted quality of the books. LotR is considered to be a very well written work; while I still think the movies are disappointing for having strayed from the books in too many unnecessary ways, I do concede that they are generally well-made, entertaining movies. Are they epic classics that will be watched over and over again in 50 or 60 years like the books are read? That, I seriously doubt. :dubious:

122

I have, and it’s awful, but the OP is asking about movies that were based on books. Star Wars wasn’t based on a book, it was novelized after it was made. If we’re including novelizations of movies, the list of movies that are better than books gets about twenty times longer.

123

Its like really good chocolate - the book is an excellent bittersweet chocolate bar - rich, sweet, slightly bitter and satisfying.

The movie is the same chocolate turned into a souffle - different form, perhaps just as good. Missing something - adding something else - that doesn’t make it better or worse - unless you prefer your chocolate in souffle form or in bar form.

The BBC version of Pride and Prejudice is similar - only it isn’t bittersweet chocolate - its more like really good apples turned into excellent apple pie.

124

I can’t decide if this is the best or worst analogy ever. Either way, it’s thought provoking! :wink:

125

Wow! I really thought this thread mught die in about five posts. Obviously, I’m not as well read as I thought I was, and subsequently even I thought of movies that were better than the books they came from.

Mirijeek, I have to diisagree about Jurassic Park. Of course, that’s just my opinion. I was disappointed that the movie did not have the scene where the T-Rex’s head pushed through the back of the waterfall. After treading the book I was looking for that on the screen. Didn’t happen.

Priceguy, I didn’t see the Sinise/Malkovich version of Of Mice And Men, but the earlier Burgess Meredith/Lon Cheney Jr. version. I thought the book was better, but I’ll take your word for the other picture.

It occurs to me that Captain Blood was a much better book than film. Of course, it may just be that Errol Flyn’s insipid acting was the best available at the time they tried that book. I wonder what a modern director and a better actor would do with Sabatini’s excellent novel.

eleanorigby, I think you are right about Gone With The Wind. The book was surely larger (and with more characters), but it wasn’t better. That was Mitchell’s only novel, wasn’t it?

Morfane, if Battlefield Earth was better as a movie, the book must stink on ice! Just my humble, you know.

One classic novel that I think was much better as a movie (both the Gregory Peck and the Patrick Stewart versions) is Moby Dick. I don’t know why that didn’t come to mind when I started the OP. The story was wonderful, of course, but it’s hard to find writing more tedious and florid than Melville’s.

I have simply got to read To Kill A Mockingbird. I’ve seen that wonderful film several times, but never read the book. Some of you seem to like the film better. Gotta go find out for myself.

Thanks, everyone for your responses. I don’t want to kill this thread if there’s more to come, but I’m just grateful and surprised by the response.

126

Actually, the book was published first, about six months earlier, based on an early version of the script (and it seemed to be a lot thicker than most movie novelizations I’ve seen), but I guess I can see where it wouldnt’ count.

On a sidenote, I still say that Alan Dean Foster’s novelization of Return of the Jedi had a much better space battle scene than most books I’ve read, with an entire page of the Battle of Endor described pretty much with expository pilot dialogue “Wedge, bogey on your six!” “Good shooting, Red Two!” “They’re going after the Medical Frigate!” You don’t realize how expository the actual dialogue is in that entire scene until you see it without the awesome visuals and realize that at least for that one scene, the dialogue can carry it.

127

Mmmmm, well, yes, I had forgotten that particular tidbit of timeline, but I guess we can say that the movie was not based upon the novel, and the concept of the movie preceded the concept of the book, soooo.
Look, a dragon!!! <pointing and hoping all turn and look>

128

:dubious: Why? The fact that a bunch of people have placed LOTR undeservedly into the literary canon doesn’t make it any better a book. This is a pointless thread if all we can do is look up some imaginary listing of books that are great.

I also don’t see why the LOTR movies should be judged on its inclusion of various scenes from the book or not. Judge LOTR as a movie, not as the video illustration of words you read on a page.

129

You will note I pointedly did NOT judge the movies on their “correctness.” :rolleyes: That’s a whole different debate.

And a “bunch” of people happens to be so many people that there is an overwhelming feeling that the books are among the great pieces of literature. After all, there’s a reason they made the movies, don’t you know? :stuck_out_tongue:

Personal preferences will always be all over the map. I hate Dickens’ works in general. I am, however, aware that most people consider his works classics, quite good reads, etc. So I would certainly expect a movie of one of his works to meet some pretty high standards, and could certainly judge it on that basis, regardless of my feelings about the books. (which is why I called myself for doing precisely the opposite! :smiley: )

130

And that reason is that Liv Tyler with pointy elf ears and a sword is HOT :smiley:

131

It may have been, tho I saw a bit of that a year ago & it didn’t seem familiar, and I was wondering if I had mixed it up with another film- maybe if I got the chance to see it all the way through, I could be sure.

132

I suspect you’re probably thinking of Fail Safe- effectively a live-filmed TV remake of Dr. Strangelove, without the black humour.

It did, however, have George Clooney and Harvey Keitel in it. I remember seeing it on TV in NZ and being very impressed- it was very well done and quite watchable.

133

Am I the only one who **hates ** Kubrick’s version of The Shining?
The script goes off in all the wrong directions, the director has no idea how to depict realistic mental illness or supernatural evil, and the lead roles are sadly miscast.
IMHO, Kubrick completely missed the point of King’s story, which was the redmption of Jack Torrance. King’s Jack is a man who (at the end) overcomes his personal demons, resists the lure of evil, and dies destroying the Overlook and saving Wendy and Danny from its evil. Kubrick’s Jack is already too far gone to be saved and loses the battle for his soul.
King’s Wendy was a strong woman who stood up for herself and tried to save her husband. Kubrick’s Wendy is ineffectual and only survives through the clumsiness of the screenwriters.
King’s Danny is a bright and caring child who lvoes his parents and does all he can to protect them. Kubrick’s Danny is a (again, badly miscast) dull kid who seems autistic or borderline retarded.

134

I feel quite strongly about this so I have to echo.

[/QUOTE]
Eh, I thought the Jurassic Park movies were dumbed down from the books.

[QUOTE]

You must have the movie was pretty dumb, because the book was trash. I was told by many people how great that book was before the movie came out so I read it. I was never so bored in my life. Too me, at least the movie was exciting and even startling. Nothing surprised me in the book, and I have no respect for Micheal Crichton as a writer because of it. Stephen Speilberg is a god for turning that into entertainment.

135

Um, no argument there. Not with her, either. :smiley:

136

I thought the movie was dull and episodic and generally a mess. But I didn’t sound in about it because I hadn’t read the novel. If it were even a mediocre book, it would be better than the movie.

137

I just got done watching The Devil Wears Prada.

The book was OK, but I really though Miranda should have gotten it in the end. It had this whole “nobody really changed” sort of problem. Yeah, Andy spent nearly a year working for an unreasonable bitch, but in the end, she discovered she like the person she originally was. Wasn’t enough. Probably realistic, but unsatisfying.

The movie fixed that. Miranda becomes human - and in becoming human doesn’t deserve to get shafted in the end. The ending was much more satisfying.

138

I tried to scan every post, and failed to see

                                            PSYCHO

The picture’s a thousand times better, a thousand times scarier than the book.

139

Eh, I thought the Jurassic Park movies were dumbed down from the books.

My feelings exactly. The movie had a couple neat things happen. The book had scenes where Grant, operating on pure guesswork, figures, “Raptors probably ate dinosaur eggs, too, so I’m going to inject these plastic eggs with poison and roll them down the aisle - the raptors will somehow not figure out I’m here and will eat the eggs and die from the poison”.

Yah, Okay.

-Joe

140

Fail Safe was a live TV remake of… Fail Safe, a 1964 movie directed by Sidney Lumet.