Movies that are better than the novels they are based on

[Tanager]

Gotta disagree, there. The novels really hit stride with me, while the movies were a little too light. Kubrick's film was certainly good, but left out far too much.

As for the subject... hm. I really don't know of any. In every instance I can think of, the book was better than the film.

I think that's a little unfair to Kubrick as the novel 2001: A space Odyssey was only really begun as they (Kubrick and Clarke) roughed out the screenplay together. The original source for the project was an earlier short story by Clarke called, I believe, The Sentinel. I haven't read it so I can't comment on any changes there.

 

[RogueRonin]

*puts on flame proof suit* The Lord of the Rings. I think JRRT's style is not very good. He spends too much time describing almost every blade of grass, and the characters break off into some song that has nothing to due with the main plot. He glosses over major inportant plot points, while over describing small details that don't move the plot along. IE: At the end of FOTR, when the orcs attck and the fellowship breaks up, JRRT just mentions breifly the orcs attacking, no real details of the fight. I understand JRRT was a pacifst and did not like to talk about violence, but when you are talking about a war, you need to describe the battles as well as the world. The first part of FotR novel is also very slow in getting going.

I agree with this completely. I didn't get around to reading the books until I heard there were movie versions in the works. This was a while before the first film came out. So I read the books first, and went to the movie expecting to be very bored, but I wasn't at all. I can see how people would disagree, but that's what I think. I shouldn't say that the movies are better, but I enjoyed them more than the books.

 

[Angcuru]

The Princess Bride film was a lot better than the book, IMO. Even with the unnecessary old dude talking to his grandkid. Especially the dialogue added in the Wesley / Inigo fight.

The Lord of the Rings movie was better then the books in the manner that it was far more emotionally gripping and entertaining than the books. Other than that, it was one man's interperetation/vision of the books made into a movie. Tolkien's writing is brilliant in the way that such amazing, never-before-seen concepts are portrayed in a story that will never go out of popularity. BUT it has no real entertainment value for me. The movies are more entertaining, but the books are informative, and put your imagination into overdrive. Each have their ups and downs, and myself, I'd rather watcht the movies than read the books, even though the books are a damned good read, even the third time around. Emotional eye-candy vs. Intellectual mind-candy. You decide.

Green Mile, definitely better as a movie.

Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune (the recent ones) were good movies, but only Dune itself was better than the book, IMO. Messiah and Children seemed very rushed, although I liked the really rugged Muad'dib prophet look. Really crusty, cool, and awesome-creepy. The first Dune was a good movie, but strayed so far from the book that I won't even consider it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Princess Bride film was a lot better than the book, IMO. Even with the unnecessary old dude talking to his grandkid. Especially the dialogue added in the Wesley / Inigo fight.

I enjoyed the book.

The movie is my all-time favourite film.

The first Dune was a good movie...

"Ha! Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even God has never seen!"

-Hyp.

 

[shilsen]

Ben-Hur.

Interesting. I really like the movie, but I thought the book was far better.

 

[rangerjohn]

I thought Battlefield Earth was ok but I'll NEVER read the book.

The thing about Battlefied Earth is he tried to put too much in one book. I read the first part, which didn't make it into the movie. It had a totally different feel.
So much so it through me off stride for the rest of the book and I wasn't able to finish it.

 

[Storm Raven]

I thought Battlefield Earth was ok

Well, that shows such a disturbing level of taste that all of your opinions concerning movie quality become quite suspect, at least in my eyes.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

After reading his good Battlefield Earth Dekology I tried to read Battlefield Earth...I got about 200 pages in, looked at the 1000 or so pages I still had to go and said to myself, "What the HELL am I thinking?" and put it down. I use it to level my couch.

 

[Villano]

I just remembered another one, The Mothman Prophecies.

The movie has been described as an average X-Files episode. That's still a million times better than the book, which is typical UFO conspiracy theory stuff. To cite some examples of the book:

The author, John Keel, claims that UFOs aren't from other worlds but other dimensions and that they were the inspiration for leprechauns and other magical creatures. What's funny is that he mocks those that believe they come from space. As if one theory is more credible than the other. :\

Then he talks about a teacher or professor who commited a series of burglaries and blamed it on being abducted by aliens. Keel then asks the reader if aliens are brainwashing people to commit crimes, to which he replies, "The disturbing answer is yes" (or words to that effect). He then goes on to say that many assassins have claimed to have been guided by "God", including the killers of Abraham Lincoln!

That's right, ole Honest Abe was murdered on order of aliens. And, if you follow Keel's trail of logic, Lincoln was killed by alien leprechauns from another dimension!

Makes "average X-Files episode" look good, doesn't it?

EDIT: In case anyone missed my point, Keel maintains that his book is non-fiction. It's supposed to be about his investigation of the Mothman sightings. That's what makes the Abe Lincoln thing funny.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You mean kinda like Burke in Aliens?

Yep. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment of Hollywood, but it's clear they think that way. Aliens gave the audience a fair bit more credit than Jurassic Park did.

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.

Mostly agreed. But it had more emotional resonance in the movie. The relationships between the characters were simpler and more straightforward, which is pretty much expected in a big budget movie nowadays.

In Hollywood, the public is assumed dumb, and we do very little to prove otherwise.