Speaking of Stephen King
I’m a big King fan, and I love the book. But Kubrick’s The Shining is the superior work of the two.
Kubrick clearly changed several themes, but it only served to make a better piece of cinema.
I think it’s safe to say (or at least I’ll make the claim) that anything that Stanley Kubrick made equals or exceeds the written material it’s based on. Probably better than anyone, he knew exactly what to do to make a good movie out of a book, and except for Full Metal Jacket and possibly some early films, all his movies were based on books/stories. (Even A.I. had a very short story as inspiration).
IMHO Field of Dreams is far superior to Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa.
The book has this really undeveloped plot of the oldest living Cub and an unnecessary one about a twin brother. Plus the industrial farm land grab plot wasn’t very clear.
Umm… Field of Dreams was based on “Shoeless Joe” by WP Kinsella wasn’t it?
Yes that is the one.
Ok Shoeless Joe Jackson comes to Iowa is the name of the first chapter not the whole book.
OK … thought I was going nutty there for a minute.
A River Runs Through It and Legends Of The Fall were better movies but then they were based on short stories so the movies told a larger story. Also, Message In A Bottle was a better movie, but then the movie had Paul Newman whice the book did not.
i agree… however, quick point… ‘full metal jacket’ was an adaptation of a book called “the shorttimers.” in fact, the last film kubrick made that wasn’t based on a novel or short story was 1955’s “killer’s kiss.” the only exception to this is 1960’s “sparticus” which kubrick hated so much, he disowned it, so i really don’t count it 
Movies WAY better than the books they’re based on:
Catch-22 - Never did finishe reading the danm thing. Too redundant.
Shrek - Yes, there is a children’s book the movie is based on. Its not very long and not nearly as funny as the film.
Patty
Midnight Cowboy by James Leo Herlihy (?sp)
And possibly Being There by Jerzy Kosinski. Although the book was excellent.
Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa is the short story in the collection of the same name which was published in 1980.
Shoeless Joe the novel was published in 1982 and expands on the original short story.
I recall reading years ago that Kinsella did not even know that Field of Dreams was being made until after its completion.
On Blade Runner: the book was far removed from the film, but only because it was an infinitely superior version of the book. There are enough elements of the book in the film to be recognisable as a film adaption.
Patriot Games, as a movie, was not bad, compared to the incredibly bad book.
ah… didn’t he do Dune?
I thought of another whole series- anything James Bond. I actually went back and read a couple books and it’s like the Cliff notes of a book or something.
James goes into the hotel. He has a drink, a massage, and a tumble with the woman who brings him more towels. Then someone shoots her. Totally bland, no description, no hooks.
Hennadancer
Yer thinking of David Lynch, I think Dune was already mentioned as a case where movie is inferior to the book.
tho I like all of Lynch’s Movies too
The Name of the Rose.
Ah, thanks. I was wondering if anyone would mention Being There. I believe there are two reasons that the movie is better tjam the book: 1) Jerry Kosinski wrote the screenplay and (I believe) had improvements to make and 2) Peter Sellers
Several years ago, I found the book Jaws in my local library. I thought, “this should be cool,” and checked it out. It was terrible! It was very slow-paced, and there were several side plots that detracted from the main story.
I didn’t finish the book, but some things that the movie omitted or changed include:*Mayor Vaughn is involved with the mafia
*The mafia tries to strong-arm Chief Brody because he’s investigating the mayor.
*Hooper has an affair with Brody’s wife (!)
*Hooper gets eaten by the shark
*The shark isn’t killed. It just kinda decides that it’s not going to eat Brody and leaves. It’s a very lame ending.
All in all, a very bad book. The movie is much better.
I can’t add anything, but I want to say that I was actually going to post a topic identical to this, and mention the very book the OP posted: The Godfather. Good book, better movie.
I thought so too, though I’m sure the reason they changed it was that the book’s final third is totally dated. (If you haven’t read it, I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that the last third of the book has to do with the death of Kurt Cobain [aka Kirk O’Bane].)
To me, every movie ever made from a James Michener book was better than the original source.
HAWAII
THE HAWAIIANS
(both of the above accomplish more character development in far fewer words than the book, though they have less volcanoes)
SOUTH PACIFIC (even with the annoying dance numbers it’s better)
CENTENNIAL (fantastic miniseries, longer-and-duller-than-the-Congressional-Record as a book)
I also agree with the FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING movie/book dichotomy- I enjoyed the movie much more. I never read TWO TOWERS so I won’t hazard a guess there.
Patty Duke’s CALL ME ANNA, made a better movie than autobio, for it focused far more on her bipolar illness than the book did.
I much preferred JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR to the Gospels, but I wish they hadn’t scrapped some of the sideplots when they converted Genesis 30-45 into JOSEPH AND THE AMAZING TECHNICOLOR DREAMCOAT.
INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE