jump to last post 1-26 of 26 discussions (57 posts)

What Movie is Better than the Book?

  1. bogerk profile image85
    bogerkposted 6 years ago

    Almost every time someone has read a book and then seen the movie adaptation they say, "The book was better."

    What movie have you seen that you thought was better than the book?

    1. bogerk profile image85
      bogerkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      For me, it would be Fight Club.

    2. Antonia Monacelli profile image92
      Antonia Monacelliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Girl, Interrupted.  I liked the book, but I loved the movie. 
      In all fairness, the book is a memoir, and the movie drastically changed what had actually occurred, so it really isn't a fair comparison.  The movie was more of a fictional take with only the bare bones of the memoir intact.  Had the movie stuck with the actual storyline of the book, I don't know that I would have enjoyed it more than I did the book.

      Also, A Walk to Remember; I didn't like the book, but the movie was decent.  For a chick flick at least wink

    3. Stevennix2001 profile image81
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's fundamentally impossible if you ask me, as most books (regardless of source) are a lot more detailed and in movies, they often have to cut out a lot of things for time constraints.  However, if you want to count comic books, then I think Blade vastly exceeds the original comic book, as the character was always bland and uninteresting.  It wasn't until Wesley Snipes reinvented the character that he was even remotely interesting.  Anyways, i hope that helps.

      1. kirstenblog profile image78
        kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I found your post great! We started watching the new TV series Blade and it is very different then the movie. I enjoy it for the most part but hubby finds it really irritating and picks at every hole! This could go a long way to explaining why the TV show is so different from the movie. I actually read this post to hubby and he appreciated hearing that the comic character was not exciting the way he is in the Blade  movie.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image81
          Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Kirsten.  I'm glad you and your husband liked the post. smile To be honest, I've never seen the TV series, but I have seen all the films and read some of issues when i was younger. The movies are definitely better than the original comic books if you ask me.

          1. kirstenblog profile image78
            kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The TV series is pretty new actually. I do enjoy it but I have to forget the vampire world of the movie in order to accept the vampire world portrayed in this new show. I think if hubby could let go of the image of Blade he has (of Wesley Snipes) he might enjoy it more but I don't think he can stop comparing the two. I still prefer it to the vampire world as portrayed by the twilight movies tongue

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image81
              Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I kind of have the same problem with Heath Ledger as the Joker.  Ever since "The Dark Knight", I can't imagine anyone else playing that character, as all others just seem phony to me now; even Jack Nicholson's version back in 1989. lol. 

              As far as "twilight" goes, I'm not going to comment on that, as I hated those movies.  lol.

              1. Tina Kachan profile image49
                Tina Kachanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And here I thought I was the only one liked Heath Ledger better thank Nicholson as the Joker. Good to know I`m not insane big_smile

    4. warchild75 profile image44
      warchild75posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Fight club and the Shining both better than the books.Also the mini series Martina Coles "The Take".

    5. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I might get flamed for this but I once tried to read The Lord of the Rings books. Big mistake. The movies are way better. Tolkien gives you far more detail about everything than you need and while I applaud his imagination for creating this detailed a world its just much easier to process and enjoy in movie form.

    6. chasescats profile image61
      chasescatsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would have to say that out of every movie that I have seen that came from a book, none were better. Don't get me wrong, the movies can be excellent, but they can never display all the detail that can be provided an author.

    7. Shido profile image61
      Shidoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      For me it was Altered States..  Paddy Chayefsky left out one critical observation made but not explained in the movie by Bob Balaban's character.  That one thing made the difference.  The two versions came very close to paralleling each other otherwise.

    8. filmchick1987 profile image80
      filmchick1987posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Harry Potter 5: The Order of the Phoenix. The book was totally boring, LONG and uninspiring. The film captured all the exciting elements and cut the crap.

  2. KristenGrace profile image60
    KristenGraceposted 6 years ago

    Might sound silly, but I thought the Nanny Diaries was better than the book.  I certainly enjoyed it more, although I still thought the book was a decent read...
    The Shining was another movie (although I will note that it's quite the different genre than Nanny Diaries!!).  Still, the movie scared me more than when I was reading.

  3. megmccormick profile image81
    megmccormickposted 6 years ago

    Bridges of Madison County, the book was pretty hideous, one of the most trite, ridiculous books ever,  but the movie was fairly tolerable.

  4. spookyfox profile image80
    spookyfoxposted 6 years ago

    The Shinning, and maybe A Clockwork Orange? I haven't read the book but I'd say most Kubrick films based on books are better than them.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Agree on The Shining.  Nicholson is a master, Stephen King....ehhhhhh.

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        With The Shining, I thought the novel was much better. In fact, one of the scariest parts wasn't even in the movie. I did love Jack Nicholson, though!

        1. spookyfox profile image80
          spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Which part?

      2. spookyfox profile image80
        spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I used to love Stephen King, but even when I did, there was always something that I found silly, usually in the manifestation of an obviously supernatural event.

  5. Lexe Charleston profile image75
    Lexe Charlestonposted 6 years ago

    That's hard to say. Maybe the movie Apocalypse Now--based off the novel Heart of Darkness. Don't know if this really counts though 'cause the book is brilliant. It's just that the movie is also brilliant which I rarely find when movies are based on books.

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image81
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      shawshank redemption and the lord of the rings trilogy were based off books, and they were great.  probably not as great as the books, but still great.  plus,everything spooky fox said too.

      1. bogerk profile image85
        bogerkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good call on Shawshank Redemption. That might actually be the best example of a movie that is better than the book.

        1. Piper_Lynch profile image59
          Piper_Lynchposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Totally agree on Shawshank.  The novella was good but different.  The movie was less graphic and seemed to have more heart.  Or, maybe that was just Morgan Freeman's narration.  Morgan Freeman could narrate a trip to the bathroom and I'd probably still think it worthy of 4 stars.

  6. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    The Horse Whisperer

    Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

  7. Me, Steve Walters profile image78
    Me, Steve Waltersposted 6 years ago

    Lonesome Dove....only 'cause I enjoyed seeing it played out in the movie version...with real scenery...and seeing the characters come to life on screen!

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This one would be a tie for me - both versions were great! The movie script was almost identical to the book, and I LOVED Robert Duvall as Gus.

  8. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    Try to read Shakespeare, seriously, I can't. I usually give up pretty soon. But to watch movie is another story. Same about Dickens. Though I love to read Jane Austin. And movies are pretty decent too.

    1. spookyfox profile image80
      spookyfoxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Before I read any Shakespeare I thought I'd feel the same, but I found Hamlet to be one of the most enjoyable and fun books I've encountered, read it like 5 times.

  9. kerryg profile image86
    kerrygposted 6 years ago

    Sense and Sensibility was one of Austen's weakest novels but I thought Emma Thompson did a fantastic job of distilling what was good about it and leaving out what was less good in her adaptation.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I also think the movie version of Persuasion is better than the book.

      1. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The one with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds? That was very good. I liked the book better than S&S, though, so it's harder for me to judge.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, that is the best one. I have trouble getting through the book even though it is a small one.

  10. IntimatEvolution profile image84
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    The YaYa Sisterhood.

  11. kirstenblog profile image78
    kirstenblogposted 6 years ago

    It has taken me ages to think of a movie that I preferred to the book (I always prefer the books) but I have just remembered one. The Exorcist. This may well be down to the fact that I read the book at about 12, and really struggled to take all the detail in while the movie was very easy to keep up with. I may well want to read the book again that I am all growed up! tongue

  12. BillyDRitchie profile image61
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    JAWS.  The movie is a first rate, A-Z adventure story, the novel is a fairly trashy read where you hope all three main characters get eaten by the shark....

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes! The movie was better!

  13. nell79 profile image84
    nell79posted 6 years ago

    When I was a teenager, I saw a movie with Juliette Lewis called That Night and loved it. I found it was based on a book and so I jumped on it. I hated it. Looking back, I'm sure it was more realistic and I do remember it had a lot of good details, but the endings were very different and I liked the movie one better (think hollywood ending haha).

    As an adult, I think I just about always prefer the books to the movies, though I'm not a snob about it. I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Harry Potter, Where the Heart is, and other movies, but the books have so much more and the imagination isn't limited by the contraints of technology (though that's becoming less of a problem for movie-makers these days).

    One of my favorite adaptations is BBC's Pride and Prejudice. I love that one!

  14. brimancandy profile image81
    brimancandyposted 6 years ago

    I haven't really read a whole lot of books, but I did read both Jurrasic Park and The Lost world. I did like both movies, but neither of them followed the books completely, and the Lost world  movie wasn't anything like the book. However, to see it all brought to life on the big screen sure made it interesting, and Jurrassic Park was a very good movie. (Not so excited with lost world)

    Another book I read was Master Of The Game, which was made into a TV mini-series, and the series was much better than the book. They did an excellent job with the acting roles, and, I couldn't wait to see each part as the show unfolded. I think the twin sisters near the end of the series was the best part.

    I also read Consenting Adult, which was also made into a TV show. Again, it had two good actors (Martin Sheen and Marlo Thomas) and, it just brought the whole story to life. Not saying it was a great movie, but it was better than the book.

    Going way back, I also read "Burnt Offerings" But, the book kind of gave away the whole story in the first few chapters. I actually saw the movie before I read the book, and found the book kind of boring and long. I think
    the movie could have been better, but, it was pretty good for it's time.

    I also started reading "Phantom Menace." But, never finished it.
    You can't read Star Wars, you have to see it.

  15. profile image0
    Toby Hansenposted 6 years ago

    None.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      First, Jaws

      1. Shido profile image61
        Shidoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.  I hated Matt Hooper in Benchley's book!

  16. Kangaroo_Jase profile image83
    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 6 years ago

    Stephen King's It and
    Enemy Mine

    1. KristenGrace profile image60
      KristenGraceposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I saw It when I was only a kid and I became TERRIFIED of clowns.  Pennywise was not the friendliest of sorts...

      1. Shido profile image61
        Shidoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Clowns can be naturally terrifying!

  17. thirdmillenium profile image61
    thirdmilleniumposted 6 years ago

    Where Eagles Dare.
    Alistair McLean wrote the book and the screenplay side by side and finished both in 6 weeks flat, even as the shooting of the movie was going on.

    It was perhaps the virtuosity of Richard Burton and the magnetism of Clint Eastwood that pulled it off. But yes, the movie was certainly better than the book.

  18. Don Ship profile image74
    Don Shipposted 6 years ago

    A Walk to Remember and Dear John! I liked the movie! big_smile

  19. I am DB Cooper profile image68
    I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago

    Without a doubt The Shining was a better movie than a book. Stephen King apparently hated Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining (but apparently loved the later made-for-TV version), but I think he was just jealous. The movie was really Kubrick demonstrating how his genius towered over King's. You could watch The Shining a thousand times and not catch all the intricate details. Everything from the character's clothing to the patterns on the carpet are in some way tied into Kubrick's grand theme.

  20. Broken Poet profile image60
    Broken Poetposted 6 years ago

    Darren Shans Cirque Du Freak

  21. SuperGal profile image59
    SuperGalposted 6 years ago

    I could get a lot of flack (flack?) for this, but I must say The Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books.  Though to be honest, I have not read the LOTR books (aside from The Hobbit) simply because I found them to be a bit...unreadable.  The writing is just so...idk, tedious.  It seems to drag on forever with unnecessary details.

    1. filmchick1987 profile image80
      filmchick1987posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I understand what you mean. It took me quite some time to get into the Lord of the Rings books. However, once you get into them, it's like you are part of the fellowship and a part of you dies when the book ends. (I'm only exaggerating a little bit)

      I'll never forget reading an entire paragraph on the texture of bark though. Tolkien clearly loved trees... tongue (A tad OTT)

  22. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    I wouldn't say the Lord of the Rings film trilogy is better than the books. The books, while filled with rich, intricate details, make it entirely like another world, a fantasy, which is what he wanted. When he describes the woods, the landscape, the mountains, he is introducing characters. They are as much a part of the story as the human characters. The landscape becomes symbolic of good and evil. And the films do change some from the books. But I love both the books and the films. The movies are among the best fantasy ever produced.

    I can't think of a movie that is better than the book, at least the books I have read. I didn't read The Shawshank Redemption, but the movie is 5 stars.

  23. danielle day profile image60
    danielle dayposted 6 years ago

    For me it would be The Princess Bride read the book but liked the movie much more.

  24. Bronson_Hub profile image59
    Bronson_Hubposted 6 years ago

    Fight Club.

  25. Rafini profile image85
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    I don't know that I would say better than, but at least equal to -

    Harry Potter 1,2,3.  The movies matched what I saw in my imagination which I felt was truly amazing.

  26. profile image59
    seedyukposted 6 years ago

    Gotta agree with fight club. Also I believe Of Mice and Men deserves a mention as John malkovich did very well in bringing Lenny (the less intelligent main character) to life. The film in general did very well in bringing the book to life come to think of it! Great little book complemented by a nice film version.

 
working