Book to Movie.... (1 Viewer)

[Tyler Gagnon]

Which movie do you think told a better story than the book?

I read Jaws, Thought the movie had a better stroy line. The book was not as exciting, Brody's wife having an affiar with hooper, The mafia and the mayor, Did not like it.

 

[Richard--W]

Day of the Dolphin, The Godfather, The Andromeda Strain (1971), The Stalking Moon, The Professionals, Dr. No, and The Searchers improved on the source novels, I thought.

Also, the made-for-tv movies Frankenstein: the True Story (1973) and The Night Stalker (1972) improved on the original source material, I thought.

I'm trying to think of more current films, but nothing comes to mind.

The novel reads like a soap opera. The film makers dispensed with all the turgid stuff and turned the best part of the book into suspenseful action. Jaws is a perfect movie. Day of the Dolphin, another soap, same thing.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Jaws is probably the most popular choice for a movie that exceeded the book.

I wouldn't necessarily say Psycho is better than the book (the stories are basically the same, as I recall), but the movie is more important relative to film as a medium than the book, which is simply a good horror novel among many good horror novels.

I've read some pretty stupid books that I wish would be turned into movies. Mostly mainstream "beach read" stuff. For instance, as a literary writer Matthew Reilly is beyond laughable, but I read his books and think that a good filmmaker with a big budget could make the most ass-kicking action movies in a long time. And other books are just so overwritten that a movie version that stays faithful to the source would benefit from the basic idea/story but spare the audience all the flabby prose. Matt Stover's Heroes Die made me feel that way.

 

[Lew Crippen]

As much as I respect and revere Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 is a far superior work compared to The Sentinel. Of course, Kubrick had the help of Clarke on the screenplay, besides which that story was not one of his major works.

 

[Richard--W]

Alfred Hitchcock invested Psycho with emotional dimensions and a gravity of suspense that the novel doesn't have. True the novel is cinematic and the film adaptation is faithful, but the novel doesn't engage me the way the film does. I say this as an admirer of Robert Bloch, the author of Psycho.

Reynaldo Villalobos' direction and cast breathed a lot of emotional life into Conagher (1992 made-for-tv) that Louis L'Amour's bland one-note writing doesn't have. The book is monotonous, the film is poignant.

 

[Richard--W]

La Perla (The Pearl, 1947), directed by Emilio Fernandez and co-written by Fernandez and John Steinbeck, expands and enlarges on Steinbeck's short novella. There's a lot more story in the film. A rich and rewarding character piece.

I highly recommend the Alter Films edition (www.alterfilms.com), which has English subtitles. I haven't seen the Lions Gate double-feature.





Two film versions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde find layers of character and meaning that isn't in Stevenson's short novella:



Both versions are the same and yet fundamentally different. Masterpieces.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Hannibal. Both are pretty poor but the movie's ending is slightly more tolerable than the book's.

In keeping with Thomas Harris novels, I'll also go with Red Dragon/Manhunter. The book is great but I think Mann's touch makes it even better.

 

[Don Giro]

Agreed, and from what I've read, the book's ending was the main reason Jodie Foster opted out of the film...

 

[DaveF]

Not a movie, really, but Wicked the play is far superior to Wicked the Book.

Bridge to Terabithia (misleading previews aside) came very close to being as good as the book, which is saying something.

Ok, so I'm no help here. Good topic, though

 

[Brian D H]

I've got one:

Star Wars

If I remember correctly the book came out in 1976 and the movie in 1977. Granted, it's primarily a novelization of the screenplay, but it did come out first. Ok, so maybe that doesn't count.

 

[Arild]

Why, how did the book end?

 

[Radioman970]

I felt that bit was more shocking in the book. But everything else is better in the film. Great film actually. I think Reiner did a better job translating Misery properly than Kubrick did The Shining. Although The Shining is my favorite horror movie of all time.

 

[Brian D H]

How about Dracula?

We can debate which version you like: Nosferatu, Dracula (Lugosi), Dracula 1979, Bram Stoker's Dracula; but I bet most of you can find one that's better than the book.

Bram Stoker's book is a very Victorian collection of letters from every character in the story except Dracula himself. It is extremely dry and almost seems to work at distancing the reader from the otherwise very spooky and atmospheric material. It's no where near as involving as Shelly's Frankenstein which is written in a much more accessible style.

Incidently, there is an unofficial sequel to Bram Stoker's book, by Fred Saberhagen, which IS told first person by Dracula that finally let's the Count have his say. Reading the vampire's journal is much more engrossing than reading the Harkers' (Jonathan and Mina) endless whining in the original book.

 

[Tyler Gagnon]

 

[Tyler Gagnon]

 

[Robert Floto]

Ah, yes. The Dracula Tape was a fun read. I liked Saberhagen's The Holmes/Dracula File even better. I think he topped off with An Old Friend of the Family, but liked his later Dracula novels just the same.

I had heard rumor that the film rights had been bought to An Old Friend of the Family back in the 80's but no movie ever materialized. All of the late Mr. Saberhagen's Dracula novels could be made into a really fun film series...

 

[Radioman970]

@Tyler

I agree. Great actor. And that scene is very shocking...always upsets me a little bit too. The sheriff and deputy/wife scenes are so darn likeable it makes it that much worse.

Oh, and you reminded me about that ultra-violent scene they had in the book that was something out of Maximum Overdrive or The Happening. I was actually disappointed they didn't film that.

Oddly, Bates' performance was exactly as I'd pictured Annie in the book. I was floored by that. Now, I have to admit that the scenes when "the writer" (Caan) is sort of touring the house when Annie is away were a little more suspenseful in the book...to me anyway.

I watch Miserly every October without fail. Such a great film from beginning to end. Bates and Caan are so damn good!

 

[Brook K]

Even though the film follows the book very closely and James Agee's script lifts a good deal of dialogue word-for-word, the film version of The Night of the Hunter is a much deeper experience thanks to the images provided by Charles Laughton and Stanley Cortez and Robert Mitchum's iconic performance.

The novel is a good, quick read written in an evocative style that made it a natural fit for a movie. It also includes additional backstory about the father. The movie chops the first 50-60 pages out of the book and then follows it very closely from there.

 

[Richard--W]

Books and movies are different experiences, but sometimes films can and do improve on a story. Has anyone seen the BBC teleplay COUNT DRACULA (1977) with Louis Jourdan? It is a first and foremost a literate and faithful adaptation. Instead of cutting out what can't be afforded, it allows sufficient time for every part of the novel to be addressed. Every character gets his exposition in relation to the whole. A lot of thought goes into Renfield. This is the only script to find a method in his madness and to show how he relates to Mina Harker (they're both in psychic connection to Dracula). It puts a little more dialog into Dracula's mouth to clarify certain character traits. COUNT DRACULA is ambitious in exploring Stoker's ideas and the only version that is completely, 100% successful in telling his story. Gerald Savory wrote the brilliant script and published a paperback novelization of it in the U.K. Has anyone seen COUNT DRACULA and compared it to the book?

 

[Don Giro]

That's why Foster passed...