Cinematic Adaptations That Were Better Than the Book

[Totenkindly]

Got any opinions on this?

Some that come to mind:

1. Gone, Baby, Gone. The book seems to be kind of unfocused and doesn't shape the narrative and characters as well as the movie adaptation does. (Just for the sake of time, the two-hour movie had to streamline the plot and condense/cut some things.) There are also scenes in the movie (such as the attempted rape in the bar) that are far more riveting than the book version. I'm currently about halfway through the book after watching the movie and it's just far flatter, dramatically, than the movie was. I was driven to read the book after seeing the movie, but I likely would not have seen the movie if I had read the book first.

2. Kick-Ass. This was based on a limited series comic book that I've skimmed through, and the comic itself seemed rather crass without the fun/interesting stuff, while the movie really captured the tone in a good way, with its excesses seeming humorous and not just bloody.

3. Wanted. Same kind of thing, a comic book narrative translated into a movie where things were streamlined and the cruel/vulgar tone of the book (which seemed kind of uninteresting) was given some life in the movie translation.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

Continuing your theme of graphic novels:

A History of Violence. The novel itself was bland.

 

[SilkRoad]

Ben-Hur. The novel is a tedious religious novel of the type that was once popular. The movie is one of the all-time great epics.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think "The Firm" would be another one of these movies. I really enjoy the movie adaptation, despite its length... and I'm usually not into movies like this. There was just some fine acting, including the best performance I think I've seen from Jeanne Tripplehorn, and of course Gene Hackman tends to elevate any movie he's part of. The book was average.

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.

I suspect also that Nolan's "The Prestige" is another movie that takes the basic info from the book narrative and jumbles it around in order to make a far more complex and psychologically interesting work. I haven't read the book, but I've read about it, and it sounds like that would be the case.

Ben-Hur. The novel is a tedious religious novel of the type that was once popular. The movie is one of the all-time great epics.

Lol... What about "The Ten Commandments"?

 

[SilkRoad]

Lol... What about "The Ten Commandments"?

Haha, not going to go there with that one! Actually, I think the Bible told that story more efficiently. I'm actually not sure if I've ever seen Ten Commandments from start to finish. Ben-Hur always moved me a lot more.

 

[MacGuffin]

The Godfather. Easy peasy!

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.

Jaws!

Since it seems I'm stuck in the 1970's... A Clockwork Orange. Esp. since they didn't include the "missing" chapter.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I concur on:

Silence of the Lambs
The Godfather
Jaws
The Firm

I would add:

High Fidelity
About A Boy
The Shawshank Redemption
The Exorcist
Apocalypse Now (if you count it as an adaptation of "Heart of Darkness")

 

[cascadeco]

I liked The English Patient better as a movie than as a book. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, but I adore the movie.

 

[ZPowers]

Psycho (based on Psycho)

There Will Be Blood (based on Oil!)

Dr Strangelove (based on Red Alert)

Clockwork Orange (Clockwork Orange)

Exorcist (Exorcist)

I think both versions of True Grit are better remembered than the novel itself.

 

[Coriolis]

To Serve them All My Days, by R.F. Delderfield. This was a novel about a soldier invalided out of WWI who returns to teach school in Great Britain. The book was rambling, disorganized, and made no effort to put across the dramatic arc of the story. The PBS dramatization was infinitely better; more concise, focused, with proper relative weight on more and less significant events.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think both versions of True Grit are better remembered than the novel itself.

LOL! I didn't even know it had been a book.

Which reminds me of "Shane." I've never seen the movie. I did like the book a great deal. Anyone have first-hand knowledge of both?

 

[Blank]

Lord of the Rings.

That's right. I said it.

 

[antireconciler]

The Hunger Games ... the movie does so much with such crappy source material it's amazing.

 

[Totenkindly]

Lord of the Rings.

That's right. I said it.

I hate the movies.

 

[Society]

watching star wars was a lot more entertaining then reading joseph's monomyth, if that counts for anything.

 

[Blank]

I hate the movies.

Then you must abhor the books.

 

[Totenkindly]

Then you must abhor the books.

To be more specific, there are aspects of the books I find boring. However, there are also parts of the books that I will reread, every year or two, because they're meaningful to me.

Jackson brought the narrative to the masses, in the process excising most of the boring stuff from the books (which was good) while also trivializing some of the transcedent parts of the text (bad). He got the relationshipship between Frodo and Sam right, did some great stuff with Boromir and Aragorn and Arwen, and he added his own sentimentality; but he butchered the presentation of the Watcher in the Water, the Balrog, Shelob, the Istari, the inherent splendor of the Noldor (Galadriel the bright and spark-throwing?) and anything else that required a deeper and more profound touch... essentially anything I really liked about the story involving its deeper mythological and spiritual elements. Even Sauron was just a big overdone fiery eyeball in the sky, without anything else really to him.

Anyway, all that aside, my basic point is that particular addition to this thread is contended much more than the others people have suggested, most likely.

 

[Blank]

...he butchered the presentation of the Watcher in the Water, the Balrog, Shelob, the Istari, the inherent splendor of the Noldor (Galadriel the bright and spark-throwing?) and anything else that required a deeper and more profound touch... essentially anything I really liked about the story involving its deeper mythological and spiritual elements. Even Sauron was just a big overdone fiery eyeball in the sky, without anything else really to him.

Anyway, all that aside, my basic point is that particular addition to this thread is contended much more than the others people have suggested, most likely.

That's a pretty accurate summation of my thoughts, which I feel the movies do a much better job portraying. Sure, there are certain things the movie can't portray properly, like the foray into Mordor; however, it expands upon other parts to make me enjoy it more (the armies of the dead, the fight with the Balrog...)

Of course this was a contentious one, but what would be the fun if it wasn't?

I'm interested to see how it will turn out with the Hobbit; I doubt I'll enjoy the movie more than the book (it was by far my favorite of the series,) but who knows? We shall see.

(That being said, I like the Exorcist book version more than the movie.)

 

[Such Irony]

Lord of the Rings.

That's right. I said it.

Same here. The books were too wordy for my liking. The movies skipped the most boring parts from the books.

I hate the movies.

Why???? At least the visuals were great.

 

[Totenkindly]

Why???? At least the visuals were great.

Is that what makes a movie good for you?

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