• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Movies that are better than the novels they are based on

I thought the ending in the movie of the Pelican Brief was better than the book. The book was good too though.

As for movies like Jurassic Park, Hunt for Red October, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy; I thought the movie and the book were both good equally but for different reasons.


Peace and smiles :)

j.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I read somewhere once that Coppola's Dracula was based on a stageplay written in the '60s, and not on the original novel. From what I understand, the stageplay was where the romance between Vlad and Mina was added. That being said, I felt that the movie was done well. I didn't look at it as an adaptation of the book so much as a reinterpretation of it. That being said, it was a good movie.
 

I'll add another vote for The Princess Bride. I just liked the movie better than the book, though the introduction in the book is pretty good.

As for The Lord of the Rings, it's hard for me to compare. The movies are very well done, but some changes/additions kind of irritate me because they're Hollywood cliches, or they distort the original.
 
Last edited:



dreaded_beast said:
While not a better movie based from a worse book, I think that the Buffy TV series was much better than the Buffy Movie.

Gah. I think the Buffy movie is what is keeping me from ever watching the Buffy TV series.

Princess Bride defiantely makes a better movie than book. Golding did a good job on it but really should have left out all the stuff about introducing it to his kids and re-writing it. It breaks the atmosphere the story should be creating. Not a fun read.

I enjoyed the first two Harry Potter movies much more than the books. Of course I can't say i enjoyed the movies very much either.

Master & Commander: Far Side of the World was a much better movie than book. I just find Patrick O'Brien nearly impossible to read.
 

The obvious:

The Godfather and The Godfather, Part II. I really like the novel but those films are spectacular.

I also agree with those voting for The Lord of the Rings. The only problem I have with the novel is that Tolkien's technical writing ability is exactly what you'd expect of an interwar professor of philology - i.e., not much chop.

The obscure:

The Devil's Advocate, which is literally my favourite film of all time and the first acting performance of Keanu Reeves' screen career. Andrew Niederman's book is interesting but the film, which takes little other than its central premise from the novel, is far superior. Full credit to Johnathan Lemkin for taking a decent idea and turning it into a spectacular one.

(The reason it's my favourite film is simple: I wrote my Honours thesis on representations of the Devil in cinema, and I discovered that I can watch it over and over again without getting bored. It's not the only film with this property for me, but it's got such an excellent premise.)

A Time To Kill - There are so many excellent actors in this film, they lift it above the fairly mediocre John Grisham potboiler it's based on.
 

Krieg said:
Yeah the fact he was taken completely surprise by the Raptor's tactics when they aren't any different from those employed by many contemporary big predators was a load. :)
The story was given a typical "Hollywood" makeover to soften the ending and make the characters more likeable. It was great for the special effects and visual impact but I thought the story was much better the way Crichton wrote it.
 

KenM said:
I know, I know. I don't want to hijack thish thread. If we want to talk about why I think the LotR movies are better then the books, someone start a new thread please.

When you'd rather watch the movie than read the book? never read any Tolkein nor want to.... same goes for alot of stuff... I thought Battlefield Earth was ok but I'll NEVER read the book.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top