• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Cinematic Adaptations That Were Better Than the Book

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Is that what makes a movie good for you?

Anyway, I already explained why but I guess you didn't read that post.

I obviously didn't read it.

Visuals aren't everything but I admit I'm a visual junkie. I like stunning visuals. Is there anything wrong with that?
 

kelric

Feline Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,169
MBTI Type
INtP
The first Lord of the Rings movie was such a chore that I didn't bother with the last two.

I "watched" all of them, technically... although I think I spent about half of the time asleep on my couch. I've never been a big fan of the books either, really... just could never get into any of the characters. Thought I'd give the movies a shot as rentals, as they'd been so well received, but they didn't really grab me either.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Visuals aren't everything but I admit I'm a visual junkie. I like stunning visuals. Is there anything wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with liking visuals.

It's just that if you want visuals, you don't need the overkill of a movie which is typically about a whole bunch of other things as well; get a good picture book.

Sitting through two hours of pictures no matter how good seems more taxing, since the eye will tire fairly quickly and the brain usually looks for other things to focus on.
 

Poindexter Arachnid

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
1,232
MBTI Type
ISTP
The first Lord of the Rings movie was such a chore that I didn't bother with the last two.

Dude! Dude.

You missed two or three massive battles that dwarf anything you've seen before, ever.
You also missed Legolas skating down stone stairs while firing off a volley of arrows into the invading Uruks.

And strong homoerotic undertones deriving from the Frodo/Sam companionship.

Shame on you.
Shame.
 

acronach

New member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
304
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Lord of the Rings - debatable
Star wars - weren't the books published after the movies? XD I still want to add this to the list
Shawshank Redemption - after skimming the thread I only saw 1 person mention this, this is one of the best adaptations ever IMO.

oh, and Eragon, can't forget Eragon :3
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I only didn't post shawshank because i think the story itself is damned good, so i can't say the adaptation is better... in fact the best stuff in the movie is cribbed right out of the novella almost word for word.

Star wars was not adapted from books, as you stated.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
A movie where I think the book was good but I think the movie nailed it even better was "The Silence of the Lambs." Thomas Harris actually is a decent enough writer that he could pass off a book with a ludicrous plot like Hannibal and still make dung smell sweet (I mean, I just shook my head reading that piece of trash and consider it a snub by Harris against his publisher, since basically he put a pig -- so to speak -- in nice clothes)... but I think that SotL was just one of those pictures that took an already decent narrative and made it sing.
Same here. I rather liked the book but the film lifted it to an even higher standard. I consider it one of the best jobs in adaptation I've ever come across. I also think they a great job at hinting at things that were explored more fully in the book - it subtly incorporated these themes into the atmosphere without laying it on too thick or making it all seem contrived.

I've heard One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was better than the book, but I've never read it and probably never will.
I've read it and thought the film was better... but then this might have been more to do with the fact that the novel had more blatantly sexist undertones, which I found irritating. :dry:
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Dreamcatcher immediately comes to mind, even though it wasn't very good, but the book was downright horrible. I guess the reason why this movie comes to mind is because Stephen King's books have historically always been better than the movies based on them. Hell, even the miniseries that have more than enough time to get the content from the books onto the screen manage to screw everything up, The Stand being a notable exception.

I don't know if comic books count, but for the most part, I like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man depiction better than in the comics, mainly the fact that his webs were organic rather than mechanical, made him much more spider-like.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Dreamcatcher immediately comes to mind, even though it wasn't very good, but the book was downright horrible.

Lol. I guess the thread title still applies to that! :)

I guess the reason why this movie comes to mind is because Stephen King's books have historically always been better than the movies based on them.

Generally agreed. There were some individual scenes in Dreamcatcher that weren't bad, but I considered it to be on par with Insomnia. Sometimes he just pumps out a terrible book.

I don't know if comic books count, but for the most part, I like Sam Raimi's Spider-Man depiction better than in the comics, mainly the fact that his webs were organic rather than mechanical, made him much more spider-like.

It depends on which comic. Not sure if Peter Parker has ever had organic slingers in any iteration; I know Spiderman 2099 (Manuel someone took Peter's role) did have them. I guess it's a matter of preference, since I kind of liked the return to the mechanical ones in the last movie, as it reiterated how smart Peter is... Maguire's version seems like a decently smart but not overly smart idealist, while Garfield's version seems like a real top-notch high-school techie wisecracker.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
I haven't read many books vs movies.. I usually do one or the other.

Game of Thrones -- A TV series in truth, not a movie.. and although the books are technically better, the series cuts out a lot of the 'boring' parts of the books for those that don't like world-building. They stick to the books rather well for a series, and it brings the characters to life and puts some faces to them, which I particularly liked for Eddard and Joffery. The action, the predatory relationships, and a lot of the grit and gore seems to be in the series so people without the time to enjoy the books can still be in on the craze. I think that makes it at least on-par with the book via reaching out to the masses.

I have this same feeling about LotR. While the books are better, the fact that there are faces to the characters, and enough beauty to show the world the author was seeing in his head and cutting out a lot of world-building traits allowed people to fall in love with the world without muscling through the tomes.. and people can always go back and read the books after they fall in love.

I am Legend was not better than the book ONLY for the switched up ending. If they had kept the ending true to the book it would have been an amazing movie. People wanted *us* to be right. The whole point of the book was to (spoiler!) show that humanity was the monster. He was going around killing and murdering. He thought he was being the good guy, and he realizes he was a monster being hunted down. It would have been a shocking, profound ending...

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest -- Better than the book, completely agreed. The book was fine as it was, I enjoyed reading the thoughts of the Indian.. something you miss out on a bit in the book. But the lobotomy was SO POWERFUL. Seeing him in a vegetative state was gut-wrenching, and the visual had an effect the book never could.

I'm assuming Jaws is the same way.. the book could never portray the fear that the movie created.

Silence of the Lambs I never read. But the movie created a sense of fear and creep and mystery that I feel the book probably could not have accomplished in the same manner. That movie was very powerful.
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
I've never read the book, so I'd like someone's opinions on Stephen King's IT (book) versus the movie. Looking at the wikipedia entry is enough to make one guffaw at the differences; however, the movie did well to stand on its own.


Also: Are we talking about books, novels in particular, or do short stories count as well?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
LOTR? Oh hell naw. Definitely not better than the book.

I agree about The English Patient and Kick Ass, though.

Also, The Hunger Games.
 
Top