Better than the book

[Hlao-roo 388]

My usual reaction to watching a film based on a book is that the book is better -- perhaps because I've been conditioned by the book about what I should expect, or perhaps because the film really isn't as good. In your experience, what are some films that in fact exceed the quality of the source material (book, short story, or otherwise) on which they were based or by which they were explicitly inspired?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Jaws, obviously.

[Red 73]

The Shawshank Redemption, although that was based on a short story.

[Morlock 9]

Jaws. The Godfather. I think that while The Hunt for Red October loses so many of the details, the energy of it makes for it, making it a better, purer, telling of the story. I frankly liked The LoTR movies more than the books, but I find it easier to like a movie with characters I don't care for than I do a likewise book. The Road to Perdition was IMO better than it's source. Catch Me If You Can, too.

[Wojo 2,442]

Yes, Coppola wisely dropped that whole subplot involving Johnny Fontane's girl and her surgery, which was unnecessary to The Godfather.

As good as Baum's original The Wizard of Oz book is, I enjoy the movie much more. Probably it's because of the wonderful visuals and music more so than the plot changes.

I wonder how many more we can add to this list, because I can't think of too many.

[Hlao-roo 388]

What do you guys think about Minority Report? The movie is admittedly incoherent in spots, and the final act is blasé, but I found it a great deal more entertaining than the short story without sacrificing some of the key themes with which Dick was trying to grapple.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

I've never found P.K. Dick's works to be worth considering in this form of a question. Always the film version in his case.

I'm anxious to see what Jackson does with Lovely Bones, which to me seems like a difficult adaptation.

[fommes 126]

Actually Dick is quite good. I recommend Ubik if you need to be convinced.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Actually Dick is quite good.

:lol: :lol:

[Wycket 36]

I think Fight Club is sorely missing in this thread.

[indy4 152]

For WotW, I actually prefer the most recent film (I haven't seen the original).

For Freaky Friday, the film was much better.

For Jaws, the film was much better.

For everything else, usually whatever comes first. I would never want to read a book adaptation of a Star Wars film, but the HP books are much better than the films. Generally, whatever is created first is what I enjoy more.

[Wojo 2,442]

What indy4 brings up is the difference between a novel and a novelization. If it's a novel, it was written before the movie was made, often long before movies even existed or became mainstream (your Dickens, Verne, Wells, Stevenson, Clemens, Dafoe, Baum, Melville, Doyle, Cervantes; Rowling, Crichton, Clancy, Tolkien, etc.). A novelization is made when a movie (or other live action medium, like TV or radio) is adapted into a book, often does as a movie tie-in.

There are many Star Trek novels which were written for the sake of writing a book and never became episodes. "Q Squared" stands out as one of my favorites. Likewise, "...All Good Things" was novelized into a book, and for some reason I have two copies of it. It's not that bad, as it is pretty much verbatim the episode as it is based on the screenplay with only a few divergences. I also have the novelization of Star Trek II, which included a lot more scenes with Scotty's nephew; methinks that the original screenplay had more of these scenes, because many were put back into the director's cut of the movie.

The Star Wars novelizations are slightly different from the movies in that they're adapted from earlier drafts of Lucas' screenplays, and so they are not exactly word for word the movies. I haven't read the prequel novelizations, but I have read the ones from Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. They're decent. George Lucas' Star Wars novelization gets treated as an excerpt of "The Journal of the Whills," which was abandoned for the movies, and Leia's wonderful quote is in the early pages ("They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, naturally they became hereos.") Ben makes some comment about a duck, which forces Luke to ask what that is. And in The Empire Strikes Back novelization, when Leia speaks her love, Han says "You just remember that, because I'll be back," his original script line before Harrison Ford improvised it as "I know."

Novelizations tend to be quick reads, because they follow the structure of the movie much more closely and don't have as much exposition. Though they may flesh out characters' thoughts. Novels usually are superior to the films, because a film must fit all their storytelling and detail into not much more than usually 2 hours, whereas as a book can be as large or complex as needed.

For War of the Worlds, I prefer the novel. Forget the movies.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

To be honest, I thought that both of the Spielberg Jurassic Park films are better than the Michael Crichton novels (especially The Lost World).

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I'll agree with that.

[Lurker 5]

Goldfinger and Dr. No, for sure.

Neil

[Williamsfan301 11]

Goldfinger and Dr. No, for sure.

Neil

Agreed. The Bond books were really always movies waiting to happen.

I would also group the Harry Potter books into that category too.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Goldfinger and Dr. No, for sure.

Neil

Agreed. The Bond books were really always movies waiting to happen.

I would also group the Harry Potter books into that category too.

No, none of the Potter films are as good as the books, not even close

[Wojo 2,442]

If by "better" you mean much easier to understand, much quicker to get through in one sitting, more rushing through boring moments just to get to the next wizard fight and special effects sequence, then by all means, the Potter movies are better than the books.

But if by "better" you yearn for richer, deeper stories, more complex dialogue and exposition, and the possibility of having dull moments punctuated by long meaningful storytelling, then the Potter books are better than the movies.

If each movie could be made as good as the books, each movie would be about 8 hours long.

[John Crichton 4]

No, none of the Potter films are as good as the books, not even close

Truth, absolute and irrefutable.

[Wojo 2,442]

Facts are absolute. Truths are interpretable.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Facts are absolute. Truths are interpretable.

Though the quoted sentence makes sense, it sounds like a character from Soul Calibur IV would say it.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Facts are only absolute until disproven.

It was once a fact that the 4 minute mile would never be broken.

[indy4 152]

No, it was a fact that the fastest mile ever run was 4 minutes. Saying it would never be broken was just speculation.

To be honest, I thought that both of the Spielberg Jurassic Park films are better than the Michael Crichton novels (especially The Lost World).

They're about tied in my opinion, maybe with a slight lead going to the films. I think both are great.

No, none of the Potter films are as good as the books, not even close

Joe is correct.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

indy 4 you need to see the original War of the Worlds movie its better than Spielberg's version by far, and I really love the SS version

[Wojo 2,442]

I was paraphrasing Indiana Jones' line in his classroom scene in The Last Crusade:

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

[JoeinAR 1,759]

they were all facts too Darth, until they weren't.

[Morlock 9]

Goldfinger and Dr. No, for sure.

Neil

Agreed. The Bond books were really always movies waiting to happen.

I would also group the Harry Potter books into that category too.

No, none of the Potter films are as good as the books, not even close

No, but the best of the movies is better than the weakest of the books.

[Romão 1,931]

Ben Hur

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Prisoner of Azkaban (movie) is better than Half-Blood Prince (book)? I said the same thing once...not sure I still think so, though.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Goldfinger and Dr. No, for sure.

Neil

Agreed. The Bond books were really always movies waiting to happen.

I would also group the Harry Potter books into that category too.

No, none of the Potter films are as good as the books, not even close

No, but the best of the movies is better than the weakest of the books.

No Morlock you're quite wrong, none of the 5 films is better than any of the Potter books

[Wojo 2,442]

Never mind. I'm too tired to fully understand what Morlock wrote. I'm not writing any more diatribe about Harry Potter because I aim to watch and read each movie and book exactly once apiece and no more.

Merkel, I am not qualified to agree or disagree, because the only Ben-Hur book I have is abridged, or Latin for "not worth my time." So while the movie is fantastic, I can't say it's better.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I liked Prisoner Of Azkaban (film) more than the novel. I thought leaving the new Quiditch stick for the end allowed the for the rest of the movie to be more focused. It also allowed for a light-hearted and different ending that the others, which all ended at like the train station if I remember.

[Romão 1,931]

Merkel, I am not qualified to agree or disagree, because the only Ben-Hur book I have is abridged, or Latin for "not worth my time." So while the movie is fantastic, I can't say it's better.

You made me check my copy of the book...and it's also the abridged edition, which is a piece of crap and reads like a movie description. Guess I never really read the real thing then.

[Ollie 859]

Jaws, the movie, is better than the book.

Jurassic Park is a good film but the book is better.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I don't understand abridging literature. It's pretty much always worse than original piece, and it ruins what the author envisioned.

[AC1 3,565]

Apples and Oranges.

[indy4 152]

In some cases (eg: Jurassic Park), I would agree.

But in others you're picking from an extremely moldy orange to a shiny apple.

[Olivier 5]

I have never read the books, but I have often read that Hitchock improved on The 39 Steps and several other novels he adapted to the screen.

It's a very interesting question, Alan, and a very broad field of study, with many questions and parameters to take into account; it's even better when you have different adaptations of the same literary work to compare.

[Morlock 9]

It certainly does make things interesting. My American Friend and Ripley's Game both come from the same novel, yet they are very different movies.

[Wojo 2,442]

While I have not seen the Vaughn/Heche remake, I read that it came from the same Psycho script that Hitchcock used, as an experiment to see if you could recapture the magic of a classic film by recreating it line for line and shot for shot. If that was the case, the result was still a very different movie than the original.

A single source can often be interpreted many ways to result in different variations on a common theme. That's how we have at least two different interpretations of Frank Herbert's Dune novel, with a third movie version rumored to be in the works. And how many different film adaptations have there been of classic works, like Moby Dick or Treasure Island?

As for abridging, sometimes a publisher feels they can streamline a novel by removing unnecessary parts, and I'm sure there's also a monetary difference to be had. In this case, I think Moby Dick could benefit from abridging by removing the chapters about whaling that, while they provide valuable insight into a bygone era, don't necessarily advance Ishmael's story, to become more accessible to first time readers. Yet it's been 14 years since I read the book, so I might feel different about those chapters now if I read the book for leisure, not for a class.

To get more on topic, I know that Die Hard was based on a novel. Has anyone read it, and how does it compare to the movie? I started to watch the movie with McTiernan's commentary discussing the book, but that became very dull so I switched back to the movie audio.

[Ollie 859]

I never sought the book to read.

The Towering Inferno was based on two books but I never read them. And First Blood (the book) had Rambo dying at the end.

[Wojo 2,442]

I think the classic Disney movie of The Swiss Family Robinson is at least as good as, if not superior than, the original novel. That's a soundtrack I'd like to have, I remember it being quite good.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

I think Fight Club is sorely missing in this thread.

Hard to tell, really. Except for the different final page and two (afair) short scenes that were not in the movie (one of them scripted, but not filmed), they're absolutely identical. I couldn't say either is better than the other.

To be honest, I thought that both of the Spielberg Jurassic Park films are better than the Michael Crichton novels (especially The Lost World).

The first novel is very good, while the film is highly mediocre. Both the second book and film were crap.

[crocodile 6,294]

The Prestige. A interesting one, but the film is more restrained and classy, I think.

Karol

[Wesker 0]

The Prestige. A interesting one, but the film is more restrained and classy, I think.

Karol

Very good pick. Though, when one watches the film more and more, you begin to notice several little plot-holes and the semi-mishandeled twist at the end of the film. Still one of the best of 2006, though.

[crocodile 6,294]

True, but the book goes in a completely different direction, genre-wise, which makes it weaker that it should have been.

Karol - who still enjoys both.

[Richard Penna 2,083]

Amazingly I agree with Joe on the potter book/movies. I'll take any book over any film.

I had high hopes for the first movie, but for me it's far too close to the book and sacrifices what makes a good film IMO. I think Potter would make a good TV series. It fits the episodic nature of the books, and would allow it to be 6 hours long.

And I haven't read the Shawshank short story, but I'll bet anything that Darabont's masterpiece is better.

[MissPadmé 17]

Not sure if someone mentioned it:

Death on the Nile

Evil Under the Sun

I prefer this to the books, mainly because of genius Sir Peter Ustinov, one remarkable person. So wise and funny.

[MSM 85]

1) The Count of Monte Cristo. No strange side story about a Persian woman, more satisfying ending, better tension building.

2) Timeline. No useless characters, no rainy ending, no endless introduction.

3) Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World (the one with Bob Hoskins). More complex story, better verisimilitude.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

And I haven't read the Shawshank short story, but I'll bet anything that Darabont's masterpiece is better.

It is -- and that's coming from a die-hard Stephen King fan. However, it isn't a case of the novella being bad and then being salvaged by Frank Drabont: he just got the most out of it, and also managed to find good places to put in his own material. Stephen King hasn't been as poorly served by Hollywood as some people would lead you to believe, but Shawshank is possibly the only instance in which a movie has improved on his work. (Hardcore fans of Carrie and The Shining might be able to make a case for those movies; same might go for The Green Mile, I suppose.)

"Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" appeared in Different Seasons, which also contained the novellas "Apt Pupil" and "The Body" (which was the basis for Stand By Me). It's a toss-up between Stand By Me and "The Body," and Shawshank is better in movie form, but the novella "Apt Pupil" is vastly superior to the movie. I like the movie okay, but the novella is outstanding. The fourth novella in that book, "The Breathing Method," might be my favorite of the bunch. It hasn't been turned into a movie yet, and would be difficult to do, but maybe Darabont will tackle it someday.