# Movies that were BETTER than the book they were based on **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 13, 2018, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515 "2018-01-13T05:36:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/101 "2018-01-18T06:42:17Z")
> [@bibliophage](#): > > I agree with _The Godfather_ suggested above. The book isn’t bad, but the first two movies are better. > > I found the _Hunger Games_ books hard to read despite the interesting story. The writing style is atrocious and the plot holes more obvious. The movies aren’t masterpieces, but they’re at least a lot of fun to watch. I have to disagree. I’ve read “Godfather” several times. I love the book. I have attempted to watch the movies on several occasions, but I just cannot get more than an hour into the first movie before being bored shitless. ---
**Author:** ![Grumbacher\_Red](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Grumbacher\_Red](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumbacher_Red)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/102 "2018-01-18T12:47:52Z")
> [@j666](#): > > I can’t say the movie was **better** than the book, but [the 1940 adaptation of _Pride and Prejudice_](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032943/) was the best and least faithful I have ever seen. > > Greer Garson captured Elizabeth Bennett’s lighthearted irreverence better that any who came after her, and Olivier was, well, hot. Even hotter than Colin Firth. It was totally believable Elizabeth would still fall for the jerk. > > That being said, the movie completely missed most of the themes and conflict in the book. They told different stories, reflective of different times, in very different media, which are enjoyed in very ways. Not to mention the costuming is all wrong, wrong, WRONG! Not an empire waist to be had in the whole thing. I saw an interview with Ann Rutherford, who payed Lydia in that version, and she said that her experiences in P&P and GWTW as Careen inspired her to collect props and try to preserve them because it horrified her seeing beautiful objects butchered. She said that the prop people would come back from Europe with caseloads and crates of fine antiques, and treat them carelessly. She told an anecdote about how in P&P one of the actors (might have been Olivier) was sitting at a mahogany desk and the height of it was too high for the shot, so rather than take time to readjust the gigantic camera, they just sawed the legs off the desk. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/103 "2018-01-18T14:33:34Z")
_Hannibal._ His parting of ways with Clarice was much better than the book’s drawn-out ending. \*The Graduate.\*Charles Webb earnestly believed in Benjamin, while Mike Nichols kind of didn’t. _The Pope of Greenwich Village._ Vincent Patrick wrote both. The principal difference is in a scene where Charlie discovers that Diane, his pregnant fiancee, has absconded with the loot. In the book, Charlie calmly reads her letter explaining why she did this and uses the moment for calm introspection. In the movie, he runs around the apartment screaming while we get a voiceover of Diane reading the letter, a huge improvement. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/104 "2018-01-18T15:56:56Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Maybe, but the movie introduces its own flaw. Goldfinger loves gold (“its brilliance, its divine heaviness”), not the things he can buy with it. He welcomes any enterprise that will increase his stock. Irradiating the gold in Fort Knox will hurt his ambitions. It won’t get him any more gold, and by making gold more valuable it will become harder for him to get more. Well, granted, but (a) it costs him no gold; and (b) he got paid in _something,_ which I’d figure means he acquired _more_ gold before the big day; and (c) unlike the flaw of a heist seeming flatly unworkable as a matter of logistics, it’s a little weird and kind of hilarious to think that _this_ flaw goes away if he takes the time to utter a single quip about, uh, also liking platinum, or something. (The guy does like other stuff, right? He genuinely enjoys, say, mint juleps?) ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/105 "2018-01-18T17:02:50Z")
> [@Sir\_T-Cups](#): > > My vote goes to Jurassic Park. A good read in and of itself, but the movie is just so, so much better. I’ve seen this expressed several times here in the last few days, and I just don’t get it! I find the novel to far surpass the movie, which I also love. _The Lost World_, however… both movie and book are abominations. (“They cut you from the gymnastics team?” or whatever… blecch.) ---
**Author:** ![Yodalicious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yodalicious/32/8195_2.png) [@Yodalicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yodalicious)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/106 "2018-01-18T18:39:52Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Lord of the rings. Come at me. I agree with you. Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2018, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/107 "2018-01-18T19:54:19Z")
If we expand the definition to include graphic novels… Both _Watchmen_ and _The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_. Even with the second film’s flaws, it’s an improvement over the source. Alan Moore comes up with great ideas, but his execution can be sorely lacking. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/108 "2018-01-19T02:16:53Z")
Oh - I almost forgot. \*\*_The Wolf of Wall Street._ \*\* I’ve actually read the original book by Jordan Belfort. He is a _horrible_ writer. So many passages in the book are plagiarized almost word-for-word from Tom Wolfe’s novel _The Bonfire of the Vanities_, which Mr. Belfort would doubtlessly describe as “an homage”, but which is really just blatant copying. When he’s not describing his sexual encounters in pornographic detail, or describing how unbelievably glorious it feels to snort, inject, or shove up his ass various drugs, he’s complaining about how stupid the “WASPs” are and how much he hates them and how much smarter Jews are (I wish I was joking.) It’s like he views his career and that of his accomplices as an epic quest on behalf of the Jews to outsmart the Gentiles. Oh, I forgot, not all of Belfort’s compatriots are Jewish, there’s also one _Chinaman_, as he is repeatedly described. It’s just a terrible book. Terrible. It’s not the content of the book that makes it terrible, or even the character of the narrator (though I would agree that he is a shitty person) - it’s the way the book is written. It’s just not good. The movie, on the other hand, is a fantastic piece of work by Scorsese and the large ensemble cast. The chaos and debauchery comes to life spectacularly on the screen, and the characters are memorable as hell. It’s just a great movie. I think this scenario might apply to a lot of movies that are based on memoirs by people who were not professional writers. ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/109 "2018-01-19T02:37:57Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Lord of the rings. Come at me. Die. Now please. I would say, A Clockwork Orange. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/110 "2018-01-19T08:15:37Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Lord of the rings. Come at me. I can win this argument with a single word: Radagast. : mic drop : ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/111 "2018-01-19T21:40:31Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > The book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by Phillip K. Dick, is excellent. I started reading it at the kitchen table during lunch and didn’t budge for hours because I was that engrossed. It was bizarre, thought-provoking, and kinda emotional. > > The movie based loosely on that book, Bladerunner, is a masterpiece. > > It’s one thing for a film to surpass a shitty book, but when the film surpasses an excellent book, that’s really something. I was going to post this, except, I didn’t much care for the book. There were some interesting notions brought up in the book, almost all of which were covered in the movie, but better. Also, the androids were such jerks! They absolutely needed to be hunted down and killed, they were menaces to society. There’s none of the moral ambiguity you find in ‘Bladerunner’. The book seems a bit shallow after seeing the movie. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/112 "2018-01-19T21:49:18Z")
**The Hunt for Red October.** The book was okay, but really was a huge heap of technobabble masquerading as plot. The characters were thinly drawn, the dialogue was wooden, and Clancy can’t write an action scene for shit. The movie fixed all those flaws and was fantastic. The same’s probably true for all other Clancy movies, even though I haven’t read the books for any of them. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/113 "2018-01-19T21:54:00Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > _The Spy Who Loved Me._ Ian Fleming himself described the book as “a failed experiment”, and when he sold the movie rights, he told them to just use the title and ditch everything else. Yes, when I was young I read every Bond I could get my hands on. This was just a short story, I think, but it was WAAAY TOO LOOOONG. “Octopussy”, the story, on the other hand, was short and sweet, had a bit of melancholy. Absolutely unsuitable for a movie of course. But they had long since abandoned any pretense of nodding to the written works by then. Probably started that with ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![chaika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chaika/32/405_2.png) [@chaika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaika)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/114 "2018-01-19T22:09:02Z")
_The Sweet Hereafter_. The book is pretty good but the film is outstanding. The brilliant Sarah Polley (as a teenager) plays a key role. The script also includes references to the Pied Piper that subtly underscore some important themes. These references don’t appear at all in the novel. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/115 "2018-01-19T22:28:25Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > Let me guess: “The Council of Elrond.” Approximate 1,398 pages of people talking, referencing names, places, and events that will never be mentioned again. Took up like three minutes of screen time in the film, and even that was too much. Interestingly enough I almost threw down Fellowship of the Ring because I was so bored with it UNTIL the Council of Elrond. It was then when I got sucked in and then ingested the rest of the books. It felt like finally something was happening. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/116 "2018-01-19T22:29:35Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > I can win this argument with a single word: Radagast. > > : mic drop : IIRC, Radagast only shows up in the Hobbit movies. He’s not in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/117 "2018-01-19T22:30:09Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > If we expand the definition to include graphic novels… > > Both _Watchmen_ and _The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_. Even with the second film’s flaws, it’s an improvement over the source. Alan Moore comes up with great ideas, but his execution can be sorely lacking. You couldn’t be more wrong! cite: ::sticks fingers in ears:: LALALALALALALALALALLALA ---
**Author:** ![apLundell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aplundell/32/14656_2.png) [@apLundell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/apLundell)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/118 "2018-01-30T23:12:16Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > Likewise, I preferred the movie “Planet of the Apes” to the book, although the book is more of a satire so it’s harder to compare. Maybe it works better in French, but the English translation I read was pretty tedious. Using hypnotism to reveal past lives is a pretty hacky exposition technique. I’m glad we didn’t have to sit through that in the movie. The framing story was fun, though. I’d like to suggest the Made-For-TV version of “The Stand”. It’s a little cheazy in places, but parts of it I really enjoyed, while getting through the King tome was work. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/119 "2018-01-31T00:30:27Z")
> [@apLundell](#): > > Maybe it works better in French, but the English translation I read was pretty tedious. Using hypnotism to reveal past lives is a pretty hacky exposition technique. I’m glad we didn’t have to sit through that in the movie. > The framing story was fun, though. > > I’d like to suggest the Made-For-TV version of “The Stand”. It’s a little cheazy in places, but parts of it I really enjoyed, while getting through the King tome was work. The Stand was an awesome novel and a really good exercise in character creation. The mini series wasn’t bad but it wasn’t anywhere nearly as good as the book. Perhaps the upcoming reboot will change this. ---
**Author:** ![Rough\_Draft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@Rough\_Draft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rough_Draft)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2018, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515/120 "2018-01-31T00:31:15Z")
I liked the movie _Mr. Holmes_ better than the novel it was based on, _A Slight Trick of the Mind_, by Mitch Cullin. The book was good, but I felt that the author wanted to make sure his readers knew he was writing Serious Literature and not a Sherlock Holmes pastiche, so he mostly avoided the detective story structure of a Conan Doyle mystery, created a very downbeat plot and ending, and just generally chose to write a depressing novel that’s mostly a meditation on old age and regret. Well done, but not my cup of tea. The movie, on the other hand, used the same basic plot threads but pulled them all together at the end, solved a mystery, made a real human out of Holmes, and ended on a much happier note than the book. Also, Ian McKellen as a 94-year-old Sherlock is just magnificent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-that-were-better-than-the-book-they-were-based-on/806515.md?page=7)