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?
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.
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
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.
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:
[spoiler]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.[/spoiler]
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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~
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!
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.
