Movies that were better than books...

Cafe Society
81

I agree with this. I’ll also add that in order to really enjoy a Tom Clancy novel, you don’t need technical expertise as much as you need a good grounding in politics at the national level, knowing the different jobs of the president’s cabinet, how congress and congressmembers actually work, and so on. A couple of years ago, I wrote down that Clear and Present Danger was a better movie than a book and others took me to task over it. I went back and read the book, and they were right. Once you understand what the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor do, as well as how various military units interact, the book makes a lot more sense and gets a lot more interesting.

My entries:

Carlito’s Way: Very different from the book After Hours, which was an unreadable mess about an unrepentant thug who pretty much got exactly what he deserved.

I agree with James Ellroy’s L.A. Confidential and will add Blood on the Moon, another unreadable mess that was chopped up and made into Cop, one of James Woods’ finest performances IMHO. James Ellroy has a great writing style, but his books just spin off into wild, bloody directions that make absolutely no sense. He’s the literary equivalent of Ken Russell, and I don’t envy his shrink.

I’ve seen it mentioned here before, but I’ll add The Short Timers by Gustav Hasford. Gus was a very strange man who wrote a very strange book about Viet Nam. Stanley Kubrick turned it into Full Metal Jacket, which was wayyyy better than the book.

Sharky’s Machine: The book tried to do too much and was unrealistic. The movie was fantastic.

and the winner, as far as I’m concerned:

To Live and Die in L.A.: One of my favorite movies of all time. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the ultimate 80’s movie with a car chase scene that beat Bullitt’s sorry car chase ass. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything in that movie that was any less than “pretty fucking awesome.”

The book sucked. I mean, the book blew donkey dicks. It was about as interesting as reading the Federal Code. For one thing, the chase scene didn’t exist. For another thing, the characters were just . . . flat. The book was written by a secret service agent, and man, it showed! Don’t even bother with the book.

Oh, and gotta disagree with The Shining. As much as I loved the movie, the book was Stephen King’s masterpiece. In the book, Jack Torrance is such a tortured, convoluted character that you almost didn’t need the ghosts. That book is one of the reasons I stay away from alcohol.

82

Planet of the Apes (the one from the '60s). Charlton Heston the misanthrope defending the honor of the human race from the apes, who really hate humans, for excellent reasons, was just awesome. None of that was in the book. I can even forgive that the apes thousands of light years away in space-time conveniently speak English. (Doesn’t everybody? :wink: )

83

I came in to say Twilight. Not because the movie was any good, but because the book was so comparably awful and worthless (a contrast to the No Country for Old Men answers above). At least the movie had the sense to cut down all the whining and angst to only an eighth of what was in the book.

84

I did see the movie first, which could account for it. And I have an affinity for vampires, not weak bitches who always need to be saved.

I felt the same about Watchmen. Because a huge alien landing in the city was one of the stupidest plot devices I have ever seen.

85

Yeah that was one of the best parts about the book. The main character had to spend a while learning their language before finally saying “Mi Zaius” which promptly freaked all the apes out. I would have liked to see more of that (and some of the other science) in the movie.

But “Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape!” is still one of my favorite lines ever, and beats “Mi Zaius” a thousand times over.

86

I’m of the same mind regarding that ending, and have the geek-cred to have bought the initial series at its introduction, wore the bloody smiley-face button in junior high, and still have the cover-art portfolio sitting nearby. I always hated the alien-invasion ending of the comic, feeling it was way out of place and too “oh, crap, we’re out of time, let’s tie up all those loose threads!” The movie’s body sucks compared to the comic’s body, but the movie ending is better compared to the comic ending.

87

Plus Bombadil was neither a sage nor an oracle. He was a clown, the living personification of irresponsibility and possibly brain-damaged. I know that Professor T wanted him to be a wild spirit of nature type thing, but the bit where it turns out that the One Ring has no power whatsoever over him (he’s juggling it, IIRC) but he’s just too big of a flake to take responsibility to hold it for a few months and join the characters to make a beeline for Mordor with him as an undamaged ring-bearer makes him beneath contempt.
That said, I’d say that one of the best book->movie adaptations is Princess Bride–they cut all the really uncomfortable faux-biography shit about the fake-Goldman’s (fake) pathetic life with his (fake) frigid wife and (fake) fat little nothing of a kid and replaced it with a kid and his grandpa-that alone makes it a huge improvement. Plus in the book, Goldman got wordy. The final confrontation between Inego and Rugen was vastly better in the movie. In the book, Inego wouldn’t shut up.

The worst is Starship Troopers.

88

I was coming back to my thread to mention this one. Finding the book to read, BTW, was no small feat.

89

I’m with Little Nemo here - you really didn’t get the book.

90

I generally think that books are far superior to movies because they have so much more content and can take the time to explain things properly.

But two exceptions, though not by a long stretch, are First Blood,IMO an excellent movie though the sequals were utter tripe, and Point Blank.

91

David Lean’s Dr. Zhivago. He cut out the right unimportant boring stuff of the original novel.

92

The novella is excellent, but The Shawshank Redemption is better, IMO. Excellently cast, brilliantly acted, well-shot and edited - it takes King’s already pretty great source and improves on it.

93

I’m glad someone else picked a show. For me, Dexter the TV series is far better than the books upon which it is based.

For films, LOTR, Jaws, 2001 and Blade Runner have alread been mentioned.

I’ll add Silence of the Lambs (and all of Harris’ other books that have been made into films) and anything written by Tom Clancy (even the bad films are better than the books).

94

Damn you Snickers! That was the one example I came in to add to the OP. But yes, as good as the novella was, the movie was far and away much better. The characters were more compelling, and though odd for a movie adaptation, more fleshed out as well. The scenes that werent’ in the story, for instance Brooks’ suicide, the bit with the record player, and the ending on the beach. They were so moving. And yes, perfectly casted as well. I especially love them using Morgan Freeman, if only for the line, “Maybe it’s because I’m irish.” A brilliant, infinitely watchable film. So much so in fact, that I think I’ll go watch it again right now.

95

Yes, this. The book had some other real problems for me, too.

96

Silence of the Lambs - I found the dialogue to be poorly handled in the novel. The performances in the movie were amazing.

97

Put me in the camp that said The Princess Bride. The book was OK, but the movie was much more fun.

98

If you thought Mina was a weak character, you definitely need to reread the book. While Mina had no special powers, she was clearly the strongest character in the book. She was like Batman in the Justice League - she was able to make everyone else do what she wanted even though everyone else was physically stronger than her.

99

A couple of miniseries that i liked better than the good books they were based on:

**Roots

I, Claudius**