Movies better than the book, and vice versa (1 Viewer)

[Bryan^H]

So to start this off I just want to say these movies are all over 20 years old or more, and I am going to discuss freely both book, and the movie it is based on. There will be spoilers for both books and movies in this thread, so if there is a movie or book you have not seen, or read be warned!



Jaws- I wanted to, really wanted to like the book as much as the film, but there are certain things about it that don't do the characters any favors mainly Hooper, and his affair with chief Brody's wife. That didn't sit well with me. The book seems to make all the characters in it much less likeable than in the film. And I want to like them. A well written book for sure, but doesn't come close to the magic of the film.
winner-the movie

The Princess Bride- William Goldman's novel caught me off guard. I read it three years after watching the film and Rob Reiner's great film would be a tough act to follow. I knew the book would be decent, it had to be if it had all the great comedy, and characters. Soon I realized the smart, weird hilarity found in the film is almost doubled in the book. There were many times I laughed out loud reading it, and had to put the book down. That happens so rarely for me, and only duplicated once in a book called "Letters from a Nut".
The main story is a bit more rich in detail, and the character of Inigo Montoya is fleshed out and it is a sad tale to be honest.
His father slaving away for so long to get the perfect weight, and handle of a sword for a six fingered man is an impossible task, something he nearly kills himself over because it is so difficult, but he achieves perfection. The story of Inigo and his quest to become a great swordsman after his fathers death is even better. many funny moments.
His story alone makes the book worth the read. a true fairy tale/comedic masterpiece.
winner-the book

Alien- It has been so long since I read the novel that the most I can remember is the mood, and atmosphere which was tense, and very, very creepy. I recommended it to two friends after reading it, and both thought it was a fantastic read also, so that made my thoughts about it valid. The film is also great, and while I like "Aliens" just bit better, "Alien" is Ridley Scott's crowning achievement in my opinion. Great film, great book
winner-Tie

I will post some more later. Do you have any movies you think are better than the books they are based on, or even books that are based on a movie you feel are superior? If so, lets hear them!

 

[Tino]

First two that jump at me are Jaws and The Godfather.

Good books.

Tremendous films.

 

[Tino]

Regarding Alien. There is no original novel/book.

It was a novelization of the film.

 

[Tino]

Silence of the Lambs is as close to brilliant as the book.

 

[Gary Seven]

Most Stephen King (if not all) books are better then the movies. Off the top of my head...

The Stand
Carrie
The Shining
Pet Cemetery
Cujo

But the movies aren't bad.

 

[Bryan^H]

Regarding Alien. There is no original novel/book.

It was a novelization of the film.

I know. Novelizations of the film they are based off are a big part of the movie/book connection. Alien is at the top of the list in that regard. 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' is another fantastic adaptation.

 

[Bryan^H]

Most Stephen King (if not all) books are better then the movies. Off the top of my head...

The Stand
Carrie
The Shining
Pet Cemetery
Cujo

But the movies aren't bad.

Christine stands out the most to me. I liked the movie fine, but the book was terrific.

 

[Bryan^H]

Silence of the Lambs is as close to brilliant as the book.

Hmmm. I never tried that one.

 

[Walter Kittel]

While I admire Phillip K. Dick a great deal, I would argue that the visuals, production design, Rutger Hauer's performance, and the score by Vangelis all elevate Blade Runner over the source novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. There are some interesting themes and concepts in the novel, but the film was a great experience.

I would agree that most of King's novels are better than the films. The exceptions to that rule (for me) are:
The Shining - pretty much a tie for me.
Misery - the performances by Bates and Caan really make the film work.
Stand By Me - Good story, great film. The narration by Richard Dreyfuss really adds a tremendously effective nostalgic air to the film.

- Walter.

 

[EricSchulz]

I agree with King: his books are almost always better than the movies. Both the book and movie of Carrie are great. I really liked the structure of the book. I'm going to have to think about this one some more...

 

[Vic Pardo]

John Huston's THE ASPHALT JUNGLE (1950) was quite an improvement over the book (by W.R. Burnett).

Both films I've seen that were based on Ernest Hemingway's novel, To Have and Have Not, were superior to the novel: Howard Hawks' TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT (1944) and Michael Curtiz's THE BREAKING POINT (1950). I still have to see Don Siegel's version THE GUN RUNNERS (1958).

Graham Greene's novel The Quiet American is superior to Joseph L. Mankiewicz's 1958 film version. However, the 2003 film version by Philip Noyce and starring Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser is pretty damned good, as I recall.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I also agree that Francis Ford Coppola's film of "The Godfather" is better than Mario Puzo's original novel. Puzo's novel was a trashy, disposable paperback filled with subplots that had little to do with the main story (if memory serves, an excessive amount of time was spent on a woman who was concerned that a very private part of her anatomy was too large). Coppola's film is a masterpiece, and elevates the source material into something much more prestigious.

 

[Tommy R]

As far as movies being better than the books, The Godfather immediately came to mind. I was amazed at how schlocky the book was when I read it. I’ll thrown in some of the earlier Bond films; Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

 

[sidburyjr]

2001. The book was written concurrently with the film. Film better.
Ready Player One. Book much better particularly the audiobook.
Ender's game. Book better.
Hitch hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Book better, then the radio play then the tv series, then the movie.
Most of the Harry Potter films are better than the books despite zero chemistry between Radcliffe and Wright. Harry whines too much in the books for my taste.
Starship Troopers. Book much better.
Fahrenheit 451 (the Oscar Werner/Julie Christie one). The movie is slightly better.
Jurassic Park. Movie much better.
Andromeda Strain. Book much better.

[I've been listening to lots of audiobooks while doing my daily hour or so walk. Currently I'm on SF].

 

[Bryan^H]

Jurassic Park. Movie much better.
Andromeda Strain. Book much better.

Hard to find a Michael Crichton based movie better than the book. I think I have read nearly every one of his novels. "Sphere" was a fun page turner. I also liked "Eaters of the Dead". Both made lousy films.
I agree that "Jurassic Park" was better than the already great book.
The magic of Spielberg.

However I hated the novel, and movie of "The Lost World" wasted my money on the hardcover, and a ticket to watch it at the cinema.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Not sure I agree concerning Jurassic Park. While the dinosaurs being brought to life on the screen was pretty special, I didn't like how Spielberg 'softened' the Hammond character. But maybe that is my own bias speaking.

The book was a real page turner, so more of a tie for me.

- Walter.

 

[Vic Pardo]

2001.
Starship Troopers. Book much better.

The battle with the insects doesn't occur till the last 13 pages of the book, yet the movie starts with it! I guess that's all that was important to Verhoeven about the book and the fact that it gave him an excuse to satirize the military. Heinlein, no doubt, would have been appalled.

 

[Robin9]

Out Of The Past is better than the mediocre source novel Build My Gallows High. The Mask Of Dimitrios is very slightly better than the source novel by Eric Ambler. The novels Double Indemnity and Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye both have weak endings which the movies change for the better.

 

[Robin9]

As far as movies being better than the books, The Godfather immediately came to mind. I was amazed at how schlocky the book was when I read it. I’ll thrown in some of the earlier Bond films; Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Disagree about From Russia With Love. The novel does not have that silly and redundant helicopter sequence.

 

[Robert Crawford]

First two that jump at me are Jaws and The Godfather.

Good books.

Tremendous films.

I agree about "Jaws", but disagree about "The Godfather" to a certain degree as the book told me more about the exploits of the younger Don Corleone and his associates. However, it did spend too much time on the sexual exploits of certain characters.

I think I liked the book more than some of you guys is that I read it in high school before the first film came out. Teenagers in the early 1970's, ate up such sexual crap. Anyhow, I can see why many of you younger guys would have negative thoughts about the novel.

Another one is "The Exorcist" which I read in high school and then saw the movie. I think the movie is superior, but it's been many years since I last read that book.

Jaws, the book was without a doubt is worse than the movie. I was in college then and hated the book because of the melodrama between certain characters and the book's ending.