Movies that are better than their books

Burf · 08-25-2005, 04:39 PM

Well, we were talking about movies at work today, and the subject came up about how books are always better than their movie counterparts.
That made me wonder if there were any movies that turned out better than the book?
The only one I could think of off the top of my head was 'Interview with the Vampire'. I suppose this is personal taste, but I found the book excruciating to read while the movie was rather enjoyable.

I know there have to be a few out there...

Runnen · 08-25-2005, 04:40 PM

'The Passion of the Christ' was better than the Bible because the lead actor was hit by lightning twice while on the cross.

Arbitrary · 08-25-2005, 04:45 PM

Forest Gump
Interview with the Vampire
Lawnmower Man
Hellraiser

Best I can do off the top of my head.

Cybsled · 08-25-2005, 04:49 PM

I'd have to agree with Interview.

Hannibal: The movie ending made alot more sense then the book ending. The scene on the plane is actually from a part earlier in the book, but I found it a perfect way to end the film.

LOTR Trilogy: Some will scoff at that notion. Some parts in the books were better then the film, however I found the books rather long winded (It should have been called Lord of the Musical, seriously they burst into song/poem every 20 fucking pages it seems). I also like how they handled the Aragorn's sword (I cant spell the damn thing, so I wont bother butchering it) in the film. In the book, he has it from the get go. Granted there are some cool scenes with it, like how it procs fire damage when he hits that orc in the head in Moria, but in terms of the progression of his character from ranger to king of men, I found that him getting the sword when he had finally made that transition to king to be a far better symbolic use of the weapon. The reforged sword = hope reforged and all that.

Eomer · 08-25-2005, 04:52 PM

Yeah, in terms of conciseness and storytelling and all that, I'd have to agree that the LOTR movies do have something on the book. But overall, I'd still say the books are better because it's kind of a window into this whole new world with all this other history that you want to find out about. The movies were almost TOO self-contained in some ways.

Can't really think of any movies that were better than the original book, but there MUST be one or two I'd agree with.

Runnen · 08-25-2005, 04:53 PM

I may be wrong but I think you've posted the almost exact same thing in the LOTR movies threads, Cybsled...

I agree with you that it was better handled in the movies though.

However I'm not sure the movies should be regarded as pure adaptations of the books, but rather as Jackson's vision of 'Lord of the Rings'.. hence the Elves at Helm's Deep, Narsil in third movie, no Scouring of the Shire, etc etc..

Gudrid · 08-25-2005, 05:11 PM

Interview with the Vampire movie was better, but it blows when they axe out huge sections of a book to fit a timeframe.

Arbitrary · 08-25-2005, 05:27 PM

The axed the wrong parts for sure, but you can only read so many pages about how tortured Louis is or how beautiful death is or the black sadness of eternal life blah blah blah.

It just goes on and on.

Faille · 08-25-2005, 05:28 PM

I think Shawshank Redeption also, though that was just a short story so not sure if that counts.

Arbitrary · 08-25-2005, 05:42 PM

See, now that is a good good short story. Everything that came out of that book, Differant Seasons, was excellent. It had The Body (Stand By Me), Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, and Apt Pupil in it. And Apt Pupil the story is a ton better than the movie.

The book is nearly the script. "There's a guy like me in every state and federal prison in America, I guess - I'm the guy who can get it for you."

They are both so good. In terms of their success, the film was of course gigantic.

It is a tough call.

Nebuchadnezzar · 08-25-2005, 05:51 PM

Jaws is the only one I can think to add at the moment...

Samus Aran · 08-25-2005, 06:06 PM

Not really a movie...but Band of Brothers (I still believe it is the greatest 10 hours captured on film).

Vorph · 08-25-2005, 06:47 PM

Can't have a movie > book thread without mentioning The Godfather (part 1 and 2).

Raytes · 08-25-2005, 07:09 PM

Gulliver's Travels. Ted Danson > all

Sanchek · 08-25-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorph

Can't have a movie > book thread without mentioning The Godfather (part 1 and 2).

I thought the books were better. Some of the things that got explained, like who Neri was (just popped up out of the blue in the movies), why Luca Brasi was so feared, more back story on Fontane, etc, really added a lot.

The best example I can think of is The Firm. The last 1/3 of the book is so bad it's hard to even read, compared to having seen the movie.

08-25-2005, 04:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
Burf Kneel before Zod! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,319 +2 Internets	Movies that are better than their books Well, we were talking about movies at work today, and the subject came up about how books are always better than their movie counterparts. That made me wonder if there were any movies that turned out better than the book? The only one I could think of off the top of my head was 'Interview with the Vampire'. I suppose this is personal taste, but I found the book excruciating to read while the movie was rather enjoyable. I know there have to be a few out there...

08-25-2005, 04:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
Cybsled Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,436 +16 Internets	I'd have to agree with Interview. Hannibal: The movie ending made alot more sense then the book ending. The scene on the plane is actually from a part earlier in the book, but I found it a perfect way to end the film. LOTR Trilogy: Some will scoff at that notion. Some parts in the books were better then the film, however I found the books rather long winded (It should have been called Lord of the Musical, seriously they burst into song/poem every 20 fucking pages it seems). I also like how they handled the Aragorn's sword (I cant spell the damn thing, so I wont bother butchering it) in the film. In the book, he has it from the get go. Granted there are some cool scenes with it, like how it procs fire damage when he hits that orc in the head in Moria, but in terms of the progression of his character from ranger to king of men, I found that him getting the sword when he had finally made that transition to king to be a far better symbolic use of the weapon. The reforged sword = hope reforged and all that. __________________ Training the citizens of Norrath from 1999-2003!

08-25-2005, 04:53 PM	#6 (permalink)
Runnen CEO of MillieDolls Ltd. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: France Posts: 2,179	I may be wrong but I think you've posted the almost exact same thing in the LOTR movies threads, Cybsled... I agree with you that it was better handled in the movies though. However I'm not sure the movies should be regarded as pure adaptations of the books, but rather as Jackson's vision of 'Lord of the Rings'.. hence the Elves at Helm's Deep, Narsil in third movie, no Scouring of the Shire, etc etc.. Last edited by Runnen : 08-25-2005 at 05:12 PM.

08-25-2005, 05:28 PM	#9 (permalink)
Faille Fires of Heaven Officer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,685 +13 Internets	I think Shawshank Redeption also, though that was just a short story so not sure if that counts. __________________ Faille Fires of Heaven http://www.fohguild.org/forums/uberw...lopment-forum/

08-25-2005, 05:51 PM	#11 (permalink)
Nebuchadnezzar Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,769 +0 Internets	Jaws is the only one I can think to add at the moment... __________________ I eat grass like an ox and shat like a fox.

08-25-2005, 04:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
Runnen CEO of MillieDolls Ltd. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: France Posts: 2,179	'The Passion of the Christ' was better than the Bible because the lead actor was hit by lightning twice while on the cross.

08-25-2005, 04:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
Eomer You mean I can change this? Neat! Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 10,189 +37 Internets	Yeah, in terms of conciseness and storytelling and all that, I'd have to agree that the LOTR movies do have something on the book. But overall, I'd still say the books are better because it's kind of a window into this whole new world with all this other history that you want to find out about. The movies were almost TOO self-contained in some ways. Can't really think of any movies that were better than the original book, but there MUST be one or two I'd agree with.

08-25-2005, 05:11 PM	#7 (permalink)
Gudrid Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 355 -2 Internets	Interview with the Vampire movie was better, but it blows when they axe out huge sections of a book to fit a timeframe.

08-25-2005, 06:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
Samus Aran Sons of the Storm Heal Bitch Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 771 +2 Internets	Not really a movie...but Band of Brothers (I still believe it is the greatest 10 hours captured on film).

08-25-2005, 06:47 PM	#13 (permalink)
Vorph Never Go Full Retard Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 5,871	Can't have a movie > book thread without mentioning The Godfather (part 1 and 2).

08-25-2005, 07:09 PM	#14 (permalink)
Raytes Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 157 -1 Internets	Gulliver's Travels. Ted Danson > all

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: