Paludad, in his thread, Hannibal - Read or Watch?, asked whether the book or the movie that followed was better which prompted me to ask him “when is the movie ever better than the book?”. I meant the question rhetorically but after I posted it, I thought that surely, with as many adaptations as Hollywood has churned out, there has to be some amount of movies that’re indeed superior to their source material.
So, does anyone know of any? If so, just how much better was it? And why?
Any movie that was a movie first, and then they wrote the book afterward.
I read The Godfather years ago and recall thinking it was no masterpiece; the movies (Parts I and II, anyway) are much better.
Well, if I had read a book I liked, I would want to see the movie…which would never quite be just like the book I liked. (For one thing, lots would be cut out.)
If I didn’t like the book, I wouldn’t bother to see the movie just to see if it was better than the book I didn’t like.
If I saw a movie based on a book, then decided to read the book…well, I don’t usually do that, since I know the ending already, having seen the movie.
So I guess I’ll never know.
Love to see what other people come up with, though.
Forrest Gump benefitted from some editing of the novel as far as the screenplay went, and thank god no one got greedy and filmed Gump & Co.
Well, I’d say Schindler’s List and Washington Square both fall into this category (although I’m the first one to admit that Keanally’s style just grates on me, and so does Henry James’ entire personality, so this is strictly IMO).
Dr. Strangelove was based on a novel called Red Alert, which I haven’t read, but I understand it was basically a straight-up-and-down thriller without any satirical elements, and fairly forgettable.
I’ll go way out on a limb here, since I haven’t read the trilogy yet, but…LOTR, perhaps?
Jaws read like a porno with a shark thrown in. The bits about the big fish were alright but Brody’s wife etc. just didn’t do it for me. Movie was much better IMO.
Just wait 10 years. I’m sure that they’ll do it eventually.
That totally skipped my mind but yes. I tried reading Fellowship of the Ring last year and I put it down after forty pages. Tolkien is undoubtedly a genius to have created such a world but he sucks as an author.
No.
I have two movies off the top of my head that I like better than the books they’re based upon.
First is The Princess Bride. In the book Goldman’s a lot more bitter is the only word I really can use. It’s still a wonderful book about family bonding, among other things, don’t mistake my preferences for a slam on the book. But there’s a bitter aftertaste to the book that isn’t there in the movie. I think that part of it is the difference of what the author was looking for, as opposed to what the producer/director of the film was trying to create. Similar plots, and identical characters, just a slightly different view of the world, I think.
The second is Mister Roberts. After the eighth time or so that I stayed up late watching the movie on AMC I decided enough was enough and looked for the book. It took months because the book doesn’t seem to have been reprinted since the 60’s. (And of course I was looking for the original book, not the adaptation based on the movie.) And while the vignettes in the book were the basis of the story in the movie - it just wasn’t as much fun. Again the movie and the book had different foci, and for me, the movie remains more enjoyable.
I guess, for a general rule, I tend to like softer stories, or at least less bitter stories. But I don’t think that’s the only reason to find a movie better than a book.
A good movie adaptation can hone a book down from a mess of sub-plots to the one essential plot or characters, and focus only on that - often to the benefit of the story. I’m not going to say it happens often, but I can imagine it happening that way.
A Few Good Men improved on the play it was based on, because of a plot change director Rob Reiner insisted on. Aaron sorkin liked it so much he went back and changed the play.
I liked Hitchcock’s Rebecca more than I liked DuMaurier’s book. And I liked Jeremy Brett’s TV Sherlock Holmes better than any of Conan Doyle’s stories.
The Shawshank Redemption…the movie was slightly better.
The Godfather is the canonical example here.
Goodfellas is another good example. The book, Wiseguys, is far from bad, but the movie is a masterpiece.
Diggstown. An excellent, fun movie with James Woods, Lou Gossett Jr. and Bruce Dern. I loved it so much I searched for the book for years, because the book is always better than the movie, right? I finally found the book, and I can’t for the life of me figure out how such a cool, clever movie came from such a stupid book.
Seconding The Princess Bride, as well.
I enjoyed Misery better as a movie. Most of King’s books are far better than the screenplays, but that one was an exception.
I also liked The Joy Luck Club the movie better than the book. It was hard keeping up with the characters in the book (Chinese names all look the same :)) but I didn’t have that problem with the movie.
The Color Purple was both an awesome book and movie, but the movie was just a little bit more entertaining (for lack of a better word). I say this even though the movie left out (or sugarcoated) the lesbianism of Celie and Shrug, which was damned critical to the overall story. But the moving church scene towards the end just couldn’t have been created in the book, and that scene is why I continue to watch TCP every time it comes on TV.
I’ve always thought John Grisham’s books were inferior to their movies. The Firm and A Time to Kill being the ones that come to mind first.
In general, I agree with this. I waas at a SF con a few weeks ago anf this subject was brought up. The panal asked if anyone had ever read a movie adaptation. Most of us raised out hands, then she asked if any of those were as good or better than the movie, I was the only one that kept my hand up. The onlyadaptation that comes out well if “The Abyss” written by Orson Scott Card. In my opinion it was better than the movie. I don’t know if the other adaptions just get sucky writers or Card’s methods just made this book exceptional. I listened to him discussing his approach not long after he wrote it, in addition to reading th sctript and watching the filming, he interviewed the actors repeatedly on what they were thinking and how they felt during the scenes. The book was awesome, the movie mediocre. The people there who had read the book agreed with me.
What was the change?