Movies that are better than the novels they are based on

[Spatula]

Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune (the recent ones) were good movies, but only Dune itself was better than the book, IMO.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. The Sci-Fi Dune was terrible. Terrible acting. Very poor casting. Changes from the source throughout (despite the director/adapter talking about how he was going to make a faithful adaptation of the book). The special effects and sets were bad, but I expected that, at least.

The first Dune was a good movie, but strayed so far from the book that I won't even consider it.

Well, Herbert was happy with it. Both Lynch's and the Sci-Fi adaptations change quite a bit from the book. Lynch's version is certainly the better film.

Dune, the novel, is basically unfilmable (much like LotR, although for different reasons). Everything that makes it a great book are things that cannot be adaquately translated to film.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

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.

Everyone has varying tastes in stuff. Just because you're more narrow-minded in your "tastes", don't ridicule those of us who are more broad-minded.

Personally, I think Monty Python is stupid, mostly for that stupid custom or reciting every bloody line in the movie. That :: me off more than the flick itself. And why I won't watch another bloody Monty Python flick ever.

I prefer watching Spaceballs if I want to watch a parody flick.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. The Sci-Fi Dune was terrible. Terrible acting. Very poor casting. Changes from the source throughout (despite the director/adapter talking about how he was going to make a faithful adaptation of the book). The special effects and sets were bad, but I expected that, at least.
Well, Herbert was happy with it. Both Lynch's and the Sci-Fi adaptations change quite a bit from the book. Lynch's version is certainly the better film.

Dune, the novel, is basically unfilmable (much like LotR, although for different reasons). Everything that makes it a great book are things that cannot be adaquately translated to film.

Never saw all the Dune movies on Sci-Fi. The 80s movie was ok at best but the books were much, much better. I read those things multiple times back in school.

 

[drnuncheon]

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

Don't let it. In fact, expunge the movie from your mind as much as possible. The TV series is what Whedon wanted to do all along, the movie got Hollywoodized.

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.

Wow. I'm surprised at how many people said this.

I usually regard the movie as a great example of what to do when adapting a novel to the big screen. It is faithful to the story where it can be and abandons the things that wouldn't work in the new medium. Of course, it helps that Goldman wrote the screenplay as well as the book.

That said, TPB is one of my three favorite books (along with The Hobbit and Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart). The movie was a great fairytale, but the book added another layer to be enjoyed. For me the little asides about what was excised and why were as enjoyable as the main story- maybe because I've read novels like Les Miserables which are exactly the sort of thing he's parodying. And reading it after seeing the movie was akin to the experience Goldman supposedly had when first reading the unabridged Morganstern. Those extra levels made the book more complex, more mature and ultimately - in my case at least - more enjoyable.

J

 

[Klaus]

IIRC, the Dracula/Vlad Tepes correlation was added after the studies of two scholars, Raymond McNally and Radu Florescu. The Bram Stoker novel just isn't as entertaining without the Vlad Tepes side of Dracula.

So I vote for Coppolla's Dracula as being better than Bram Stoker's.

 

[WizarDru]

That said, TPB is one of my three favorite books (along with The Hobbit and Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart).

I'm with you. I don't consider the movie to be better, per se, but a great compliment. Supposedly, a reviewer for the Philadelphia Inquirer got fired when he reviewed the book, and didn't realize that Goldman was joking about being an original story from his native homeland. But I consider it to be one of the best examples of successfully translating a book into a movie. They complement each other (where did he really get that Holocaust Cloak? Read the Book!)

The Hobbit goes without saying, and Bridge of Birds is just a wonderful, wonderful book. I may go reread and it's sequels soon.

Concerning Tolkien, Shelley and Stoker: I love the LotR movies more than the books, but let's remember that the books aren't novels, they're trying to recreate an nordic saga. Tolkien knew how to write a novel...that's not what he was doing. That doesn't mean I want to read them, but let's be fair. Shelley was writing a gothic story in the early 1800s, and the rules for writing were different, then. Stoker....well, OK, you got me on Stoker.

I would vote for Stephen King's 'It'. While it foundered a little bit towards the end, I thought the miniseries was just better than the book, which lost it's way much sooner.

My biggest complaint about Jurassic Park (which was an awesome read), was that the lawyer was made into a comical 1-d bad guy, when in the book he was one of the most sympathetic good guys. And he didn't die as part of a poop joke. :\

 

[Templetroll]

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 understand a new movie of that will be made. Apparently, the Dahl family was not happy with the Gene Wilder version. Go figure. My wife despises the grandfather character in the movie. She blames him for all the trouble Charlie gets into. I thought he had all the bad traits a kid could have, so I agree with her on that.

 

[WizarDru]

I understand a new movie of that will be made. Apparently, the Dahl family was not happy with the Gene Wilder version. Go figure. My wife despises the grandfather character in the movie. She blames him for all the trouble Charlie gets into. I thought he had all the bad traits a kid could have, so I agree with her on that.

Roald Dahl hated the movie so much that he denied them the rights to its sequel. I know that my sister and brother, who were something like 9 and 7 at the time, thought it was one of the BEST MOVIES EVAR, and they were big fans of the books, as well. I think that Willy Wonka isn't faithful to the books, but is an excellent movie, anyhow (Much the way some folks feel about Jackson's version of LotR, afaik). I'm a huge fan of the original myself, but seeing Tim Burton and Johnny Depp try the material on for size looks to be very interesting, too.

 

[diaglo]

(Much the way some folks feel about Jackson's version of LotR, afaik).

the books are better. for all of the above movies.

i haven't read a book that became a movie where the movie was better.

 

[wedgeski]

I would vote for Stephen King's 'It'. While it foundered a little bit towards the end, I thought the miniseries was just better than the book, which lost it's way much sooner.

Holy crap, there really is no accounting for taste. I also disagree with the couple of people who say that the Green Mile movie is better than the novel. Unless you dislike King's style in general, what's in the book is pretty much what's on the screen. The film was way too long though, IMO. As for Coppolla's treatment of Dracula, don't get me started!

Hmm, what was the original question again..?