Jaws. The affair between Hooper and Brody’s wife in the book is ludicrous and by the end I was hoping everyone in the book would be eaten by the shark.
Technically not a movie, but if we were to include all cinematic adaptations of books, I’d say Dexter on Showtime is WAY better than the books that it’s based on.
Starship Troopers
<ducks>
The Road to Wellville. Okay, it wasn’t a great movie. Even so, it was better than the book. The book’s ending, in particular, is just absolutely retarded.
If miniseries count, what about The Stand-?
There are plenty of examples I agree with - Lord of the Rings (standing tall, head held high; Tolkien was a great worldbuilder and creator of mythology, but also a writer in urgent need of an editor), A Clockwork Orange (the book is very good, the movie is fantastic), Silence of the Lambs (found the book just OK while the Hopkins-Foster chemistry made the movie great), Fight Club (while I like the book the movie has a brilliant sense of… timing, I guess is the best word) and Dexter (the book would have had to be ten times as long to fit everything they put into the first season, and I’m betting it would have been much better that way but sold way less).
I’d like to add Of Mice And Men. If Steinbeck had lived to watch the Sinise-Malkovich movie I’m sure his jaw would have dropped and he would have exclaimed “So that’s what I meant!”.
Definitely do not agree about It. Huge chunks of goodness was cut out of that book to turn it into a so-so miniseries.
Mind if I join you? I’m sure Tolkein was a genius, but that doesn’t change the fact that I find the LotR books dreadfully boring. He gets so wrapped up in his worldbuilding that he can’t see the plot for the trees, and the reader is treated to unending streams of scenery description to the point that after a while you forget that there’s a plot at all. I like worldbuilding, but he went way overboard. (Or, what Priceguy said while I was typing)
(Mind you, I didn’t care for the movies either, but at least they spent much less time focusing on the scenery)
The Watcher in the Woods (1980 or 1982… can’t tell from IMDB). Mostly familiar as one of Bette Davis’s later movies, I loved this as a kid. As an adult, well, it’s all right. But the book? Just stupid.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The book was nothing like the film. The film rocked.
Seconded. The cashier at Borders tried to tell me that it was an awful book. But would I listen? Nooooooo…
So I was scrolling down to see if this had come up yet, and here it is! The book was flat, the movie terrific.
Jurrasic Park. The book needed Spielberg’s visuals.
I’d call Silence of the Lambs a draw. I read the book first and it was a creepy page-turner. The movie was suspenseful and well-acted. Liked 'em both.
I think the whole Bourne series is far more entertaining on the screen. Ludlum had his talents but overall the novels are pretty cheesy. If you liked the Ludlum books, stay away from the Eric Van Lustbader versions. God, he is just awful.
2001: A Space Odyssey. Surprised I’m the first to say it.
Also I’d bet it’s safe to say that The Graduate is far better as a movie.
I might put The Godfather into this list. Mostly because the book has that completely needless middle section about Sonny’s mistress and her giant vagina.
I’ve always suspected that the writers for The Sopranos named one of the characters “Big Pussy” as an homage to that subplot from The Godfather novel.
The Dead Zone and Firestarter were better than the books…and most King movies SUUUUUUCCCCKKKKK compared to the books.
The Neverending Story and The Princess Bride.
I dunno. I actually enjoyed the book a lot and don’t recall skipping over much,if any. The mini-series was definitely good but I’m not sure I’d call it better than the book.
I’m with Hazle about The Princess Bride. It’s not that I dislike the book - it’s great. I just like the movie more.
Mister Roberts was an okay collection of wartime vignettes. The movie, with Henry Fonda, William Powell, Jack Lemmon and Bogey is just gold.