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

[Tino]

. However, it did spend too much time on the sexual exploits of certain characters

That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

The subplots involving Johnny Tremaine( edit: Fontaine) and the Maid Of Honor and her gynecologist.

Coppola was wise to excise those from his film and screenplay. Streamlining it into brilliance.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

The subplots involving Johnny Tremaine and the Maid Of Honor and her gynecologist.

Coppola was wise to excise those from his film and screenplay. Streamlining it into brilliance.

Like I stated, I was a young teenager when that book came out so the sexual exploits didn't bother me at that time. Now, if I read it years later as a more mature person than my reaction would be quite different. Yes, Coppola was correct in ignoring those sections of the book.

 

[mattCR]

Memoirs of a Geisha. Book much, much better.
Ready Player One - Book much better
Ender's Game - book much better
Dune - Book infinitely better than movie, the SyFy presentation is better, but still a big step down
Harry Potter series - I enjoy the books better, but the movies are quite good.

The Martian - is a film where I think the movie gets it and is more complete than the book.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

The subplots involving Johnny Tremaine and the Maid Of Honor and her gynecologist.

That's Johnny Fontane. Johnny Tremain is something totally different!

They should call that book "Johnny Deformed"...

 

[Tommy R]

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

Fair enough, that last 15-20 minutes of the movie gets a little redundant, but the book has that ridiculous part where Bond is hoping that Grant will shoot him in the lighter he has in his front pocket. I definitely think there are certain things in those early Bond movies that the books did better, but overall the 60’s era films (minus YOLT) were definitively better than the books.

I’d also say Jurassic Park is a better movie, but in the context that it’s just a better movie than the book is a good book. There’s a huge amount of action and excitement that the movie cuts out from the second half of the book, which is unfortunate, but the final product of the movie is just so amazing (especially back in 1993) and the book is just a really fun page-turner.

 

[AcesHighStudios]

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.

Which is, of course, included in "The Godfather, Part 2." When watching "The Godfather," the film, I don't think any of the early exploits are missed in any way, and most people today read the book AFTER seeing the film.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm almost always disappointed in film adaptations of books that I've read. They nearly always make changes that seem completely unnecessary and it ruins the film as all I can focus on is what has been changed.

Though I do agree that Jaws is one of the rare examples where the film is an improvement. The characters are better drawn and more likable, the mafia subplot is dropped, and the climax has more teeth (so to speak ).

It's been years since I read the Jurassic Park novels, so I can't really recall which I liked better with respect to the first book/film, but I know I much preferred the novel to the film of The Lost World. Though I don't recall specific details, I do still remember being very disappointed when I first saw the film in theaters.

 

[BobO'Link]

Jurassic Park - I'm not a fan of Crichton's work at all and generally consider it mostly rehashed tripe (i.e. he slightly reworks the same story for each "new" product) but the books are generally page turners. I took my then 14 yo son to see it and had to constantly bite my tongue to keep from laughing. He was totally engrossed and I didn't want to ruin it for him. The book is better.

Dune - Book vastly superior to the movie. As was mentioned, the Sci-Fi Channel production is better than the movie but still pales against the book.

The Lord of the Rings (trilogy) - Books superior. I still very much like the movies in spite of some of the liberties taken.

The Hobbit - Hands down the book. I like the movies, not as much as the LOTR trilogy, but there are just too many changes/additions.

20,000 Leagues under the Sea (1954) - Love both but the book's better.

Robin Hood (1938) - Another excellent movie with a book that's better.

The Agony and the Ecstasy - No comparison. The book is far superior.

Blade Runner - Tough one as I love the works of Phillip K. Dick but I lean towards the movie being better.

Charlotte's Web - Good animated story for kids but I liked the book better.

The Count of Monte Cristo (any version) - The book is the superior one here.

Dracula - Any version. I love the 1932 with Lugosi and feel "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is one of the superior filmed versions. There are a few other filmed versions I truly like but the book just can't be beat. There are little, but significant, things that all of the movies leave out.

War of the Worlds - I love the George Pal version, detest the Stephen Spielberg one,. The book is better than either.

Minority Report. The book. BUT, for a change, Spielberg delivers a good SF outing and what I consider to be one of his best fiction films.

Oliver! - Horrible movie - Excellent book.

Othello (1965) - Olivier does a very good job here. I have trouble reading Shakespeare so the movie wins for that reason.

Planet of the Apes (1968) - A rare tie. I love the movie and love the book. They each bring something different to the table although I prefer the ending of the book.

The Three Musketeers (1948) - A favorite and I enjoy some of the other filmed adaptations. However, it's hard to beat Dumas' writing. The book wins hands down.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) - What a magnificent movie! Even so, it pales against the words of Victor Hugo. The book wins.

 

[Bryan^H]

I'm almost always disappointed in film adaptations of books that I've read. They nearly always make changes that seem completely unnecessary and it ruins the film as all I can focus on is what has been changed.

There are some instances where the adaptation is really good. "Alien" is one of them, "Back to the Future" is another. A fun read, not on the level of the film though.
"Starman" was decent, but again not on the level of the movie. Gotta love Alan Dean Foster.

 

[benbess]

The Wizard of Oz movie from 1939 I think is better than the book it's based on.

 

[JQuintana]

Has anyone compared Willy Wonka 1974 movie to the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory original book?

 

[EricSchulz]

Charlotte's Web!!! Probably my favorite children's book but the movie...meh.
Psycho by Robert Bloch I seem to recall being a bit different than the movie but despite the book being good, the movie is a masterpiece.

 

[MartinP.]

There are some instances where the adaptation is really good. "Alien" is one of them, "Back to the Future" is another. A fun read, not on the level of the film though.
"Starman" was decent, but again not on the level of the movie. Gotta love Alan Dean Foster.

I have a hard cover novelization of E.T., and I quite enjoyed it.

As for Jurassic Park, elements of the Jurassic Park novel were in the second film (like the waterfall/T-Rex's scene) and the third film (the pterodactyls aviary) so it's hard to discuss "better" or not, as I was disappointed the pterodactyls weren't in the first film.

 

[MartinP.]

I've read three James M. Cain novels, Double Indemnity, The Postman Always Rings Twice and Mildred PIerce.
All three original film versions of them are better.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Which is, of course, included in "The Godfather, Part 2." When watching "The Godfather," the film, I don't think any of the early exploits are missed in any way, and most people today read the book AFTER seeing the film.

I wanted more of the younger Don Corleone and his associates. I wanted to see a young Luca Brasi give retribution to two of Capone's guys like he did in the book. In the book, you get a real sense how much of a bad ass Luca Brasi was and why he was feared. There was some other stuff too which tells you how smart Genco was and what he meant to Corleone.

 

[MartinP.]

The novel Bid Time Return was set in the Coronado Hotel (near San Diego) in the 1890's and that was a major appeal to me reading the book, but the film version of it, Somewhere in Time, which I did enjoy, was filmed in the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island, Michigan, and set about 20 years later, and so I was really disappointed in that aspect.

 

[Arthur Powell]

Film better than the novel:
Lost Horizon (1937)
Kings Row (1942)

Novel better than the film:
The Great Gatsby (1974 and 2012)
2001: A Space Odyssey
Casino Royale (the Daniel Craig Bond films have always been lacking in my opinion)
Little House on the Prairie (technically a tv series, but the books are far better)

 

[Tommy R]

One that just sprung to mind is The Fault in our Stars. Usually having read the book before seeing a movie guarantees that I won’t be able to look at it objectively as an adaptation. But this is one that I’d at least call a tie. It’s an amazing book considering it’s YA, and then they made the movie and nailed it perfectly with the cast and general filmmaking. As a bigger fan of the medium of visual story telling, I could tip the scales to the film, but there’s still plenty of good stuff in the book that I’ll say it’s a tie and that they compliment each other and I am very happy to have both the book and the film.

 

[JimmyO]

I would be curious, for anyone who has seen the movie and read the book, what your thoughts on Cloud Atlas would be.

I am sure I am in the minority of those who love the film, but I didn't read the book. I saw the film when it opened at TIFF on my birthday - and was part of the crowd that gave the Wachowski's a ten-minute standing ovation. The whole cast was there too.

 

[Bryan^H]

The two great movies of "True Grit" still pale in comparison to the novel. Charles Portis is a genius.