Movies that are better than the novels they are based on

[KenM]

Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (but hey, Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, so in effect, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an earlier draft of the work).

I did not know that Dahl wrote the screenplay. Heard he hated the movie, too many changes. Rumor is the new verson that Tim Burton is directing and stars Johnny Depp as Wonka is closer to the book.

 

[fanboy2000]

Interview with the Vampire. Ann Rice wrote the script for that one too.
Superman (quasi-kidding )

 

[Nasma]

"one flew over the cuckoo's nest"

 

[Cthulhudrew]

The movie Hannibal was better than the book. I was so disappointed in that book. I'd never read "Silence of the Lambs" or any other of that author's books (can't think of his name offhand...) but I'd heard how he was so good that his editors never touched a word he wrote, and was really looking forward to Hannibal.. and then I really wished that his editors had touched it, it was so bloody awful. The movie wasn't great, but it was much better than the book.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Godfather for me too. The books were flat out juvenile in places. I mean who gives a **** how well Sonny is endowed?

However I think movies and books are very tough to compare which is why a movie MUST change considerably from any book its based on. They are different media completely.

Now plays and movies, that's a slightly different story.

But whether its a lot better or a lot worse a movie is just going to be different.

For instance a lot of Heinlein fans derided Starship Troopers. But would anyone have been able to stay AWAKE through a movie filled with expositions on political and military theory?

Not me.

Chuck

Must change? What must change? I can see the delivery of some story elements changing but the story itself shouldn't be changed just becuase. I've seen a lot of movie adaptions that made needlesss story changes just so the the director can say "I'm improving on the original work", at least as far as I can tell.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm pleasently surprised by this thread; we've already had several people say that the LotR movies are better than the novels, and so far no Tolkienophiles have shown up to accuse them of being stupid and tasteless.

Well, it kinda goes without saying.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Must change? What must change? I can see the delivery of some story elements changing but the story itself shouldn't be changed just becuase. I've seen a lot of movie adaptions that made needlesss story changes just so the the director can say "I'm improving on the original work", at least as far as I can tell.

But for every one of you who read the original work and found it better, there's one of me who really likes some of the changes and sorta dislikes others, and there are 50 people who will never read the book and would never, ever have enjoyed the story in its original form.

The sheer amount of money made by Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. shows that the changes were received positively by the vast majority of the world.

 

[Desdichado]

The sheer amount of money made by Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. shows that the changes were received positively by the vast majority of the world.

But that's a bit of a strawman. Some of those changes did have to be made because of the media involved. Others did not, and were made for some other reason. It's hardly a given that one can relate the success of the movies on the changes made to the books, though. That could very well (and in my opinion for both movies) have more to do with the strength of the original source material that showed through in spite of some of the changes that were made.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Well, it kinda goes without saying.

What goes without saying? That the LotR movies are better than the books?

Seriously, though, I can't decide in that area. I feel that there are areas where the books are superior to the movies, and areas where the movies are superior to the books.

 

[Warrior Poet]

Oh, and ... Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The Coppola versions are much better. Hmmm... Godfather, Dracula, Frankenstein. Coppola has a good track record for book->movie.

Did Coppola do Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? I thought that was Kenneth Branagh, with DeNiro as the monster, Helena Bonham-Carter, et al. ....

If Coppola did it, I'm thinking of something different, in which case never mind the following:

I do have to say that, for me, the Branagh version of Frankenstein was not better than the book, but then, I think the book is a work of genius, so I'm biased. Still, how many times in the script did it read: Victor (Branagh) falls to his knees crying out to the heavens in furious angst. With his shirt off. In the rain.

Cleese was great in his brief cameo, though.

I agree that Coppola has done a great job with some of his book-to-film projects. I liked Bram Stoker's Dracula, except for Keanu Reeves, who I thought was execrable as Harker. The Godfather I & II were excellent films (especially part II). Way to go, Francis!

Anyway, if I'm thinking of the wrong film, sorry, never mind, and we now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Thanks for listening!

Warrior Poet