Movies that are better than the books

Bonniedog

phutyle wrote: »

Naked Lunch

The movie, while surreal, is pretty good. The book is pretty much unreadable. To the point that I can’t quite understand how anyone read it and decided to make a move out of it in the first place.

One of few books I have not only stopped reading in disgust, but left in a charity shop!

Put me off Burroughs for years. Junkie is good. Rest seems to be of same repulsive nature as Naked Lunch. Would not even try to watch the film.

Turtyturd

Watchmen.

Surprised to see American Psycho on here. Enjoy both the book and the film but the film is not a patch on the book imo.

Insect Overlord

I once spent a month reading A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, American Psycho, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, and Trainspotting (as well as The Bell Jar and The Catcher In The Rye) and comparing the books to their movie adaptations. I've been emotionally fucked ever since. :pac:

Collie D

phutyle wrote: »

I was wondering about American Psycho. The book and the movie are two very different experiences - both excellent in my opinion. The book on one hand contains entire chapters dedicated to reviewing the music of Phil Collins and Whitney Houston, but also scenes of extreme violence that could never have made it into the movie. That extreme contrast is one the things is that I really like about the book, but I can see people thinking it’s pretentious. The movie is much more even.

I do think the ending is better in the movie. More ambiguous, which I think suits the story better.

I’d go with the film but only because I hated it less than the book. I have a thing where if I start a book I’ll finish it no matter how much I dislike it or however long it takes.

I ****ing hated that book’s vileness. Saw the movie first and didn’t get the controversy - I’d definitely seen more violent films - but some of the stuff in the book is warped.

knockers84

Black dicks white chicks

Collie D

Oh and to answer the OP - The Commitments. Probably my favourite Irish movie and I saw it years before I read it. Finished the book and wondered how they ever decided to make a film from it but glad they took the punt.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

The Bourne Identity. Great movie, mediocre book.


On the shining, I understand King’s criticism of the movie. The characters he wrote were quite different in temperament, at least to begin with.

However that doesn’t mean the movie, judged on its own merits, isn’t great.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Collie D wrote: »

I’d go with the film but only because I hated it less than the book. I have a thing where if I start a book I’ll finish it no matter how much I dislike it or however long it takes.

I ****ing hated that book’s vileness. Saw the movie first and didn’t get the controversy - I’d definitely seen more violent films - but some of the stuff in the book is warped.

The book has really aged badly. It’s not very wise to over indulge in descriptions of popular culture of the day. And yes it’s gross.

Bannasidhe

Gangs of New York.

Book reads like a particularly dull PhD thesis.

Capt'n Midnight

Dante7 wrote: »

It's a well known adage that the book is generally better than the movie, but there are exceptions.

Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile (great books too)
Godfather's
Blade Runner (or anything by Philip K Dick)

technically speaking...
The Bladerunner (also published as The Blade Runner) is a 1974 science fiction novel by Alan E. Nourse, about underground medical services and smuggling.

They bought the rights to the book and only used the name.
Bits of the book were used in Impostor and Minority Report,

Mister Vain

Angels & Demons

Collie D

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The book has really aged badly. It’s not very wise to over indulge in descriptions of popular culture of the day. And yes it’s gross.

I actually thought the album reviews were the best bit but in a retro look down my nose kind of way, particularly as I hate Phil Collins.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Collie D wrote: »

I actually thought the album reviews were the best bit but in a retro look down my nose kind of way, particularly as I hate Phil Collins.

Well, yes. We’re supposed to hate Phil Collins and Bateman likes him. I’m not sure how any of this plays to a modern audience.

Bonniedog

Agree with Collie D about American Psycho. A bit like Naked Lunch, you find yourself thinking, "is there some point to this detailing of depravity?"

So didn't watch the movie on that basis.

A book and a film - although the movie was not strictly based on the book - that were equally good were Truman Capote's In Cold Blood and the film where he and Harper Lee go to Kansas to research the book and meet the murderers in prison.

Great acting of course in movie with Seymour Hoffmann as Capote.

Raconteuse

I love American Psycho the movie. Absolutely love it.

Had to give up on the book - too much.

So certainly the film is *easier* than the book. Still pretty darn warped in places, but the book... another level. :eek:

Bonniedog

I heard Ellis try to justify the book on basis of it being metaphor for America in the 1980s.

Don't buy that. Would only work if there was some redeeming feature or Dickensian type "moral" to the whole thing. There isn't. Not that books of course ought to have morals. but neither should they be just depravity for its own sake.

So I don't buy the attempt to intellectualise what is basically violent porn as art/

Raconteuse

Bonniedog wrote: »

I heard Ellis try to justify the book on basis of it being metaphor for America in the 1980s.

Don't buy that. Would only work if there was some redeeming feature or Dickensian type "moral" to the whole thing. There isn't. Not that books of course ought to have morals. but neither should they be just depravity for its own sake.

So I don't buy the attempt to intellectualise what is basically violent porn as art/

Same shyte got said about that depraved movie A Serbian Film - "a metaphor for the Balkans War", sure.

storker

Dial Hard wrote: »

King famously hates Kubrick's version. I've read the book several times but have yet to actually sit down and watch the film.

I hate it too. Not so much for the liberties Kubrick takes, although the Tony-the-finger thing is annoying. He has some really nice touches though, such as the twin girls. My dislike is more because of what Kubrick did with Jack and Wendy's characters. Book Jack has his demons but loves his family dearly and genuinely wants to do what's best for them. Movie Jack looks like he can barely tolerate his family at the best of times. This change dilutes the tragedy of Jack's story. Book Wendy is a loving, strong, determined, resourceful mother. Movie Wendy is a whinging doormat. If you've seen Alien, it's like the difference between Ripley and Lambert.

storker

I'll stick my neck out here and suggest "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Not that it's a bad book although the epistolary format and 19th century prose can make for a slow read, but the (IMO clever) reincarnated Mina angle gives a reason for Dracula's arrival in Whitby, whereas the Dracula of the book might as well be there because he closed his eyes and stuck a pin in a map.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

storker wrote: »

I hate it too. Not so much for the liberties Kubrick takes, although the Tony-the-finger thing is annoying. He has some really nice touches though, such as the twin girls. My dislike is more because of what Kubrick did with Jack and Wendy's characters. Book Jack has his demons but loves his family dearly and genuinely wants to do what's best for them. Movie Jack looks like he can bare tolerate his family at the best of times. This change dilutes the tragedy of Jack's story. Book Wendy is a loving, strong, determined, resourceful mother. Movie Wendy is a whinging doormat.

That’s Stephen King’s complaint too. And it’s valid provided you think that movies should be perfect recreations of books. I don’t agree with that and so would judge the movie on its own merits even though jack and Wendy are not the same characters, really.

storker

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That’s Stephen King’s complaint too. And it’s valid provided you think that movies should be perfect recreations of books.

I never said they should. What I'm saying is that by taking away those character elements, the movie loses much of its power.

I don’t agree with that and so would judge the movie on its own merits even though jack and Wendy are not the same characters, really.

AS I see it, even on its own merits it would be a pretty ho-hum horror flick. Psycho dad freaks out threatening whiny mom and kid. One to watch once only and then probably forget about.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

storker wrote: »

I never said they should. What I'm saying is that by taking away those character elements, the movie loses much of its power.



AS I see it, even on its own merits it would be a pretty ho-hum horror flick. Psycho dad freaks out threatening whiny mom and kid. One to watch once only and then probably forget about.

It’s generally considered one of the best horror movies ever, and I tend to agree. Your description of the plot could apply to the book.

Bonniedog

There have been some good dramatizations of Dickens - Hugh Leonard was responsible for some of BBC ones - but best one is David Lean's 1940s Great Expectations with Mills and Guinness and Jean Simmons.

Not as good as the book and slightly differently structured but masterpiece in its own right. Classic Brit movie.

storker

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s generally considered one of the best horror movies ever, and I tend to agree.

I'm not particularly interested in interested in what's generally considered, I'm just giving my own opinion. And I suspect that the reason for the plaudits given to the Shining is a lot more more due to the Kubrick brand label than it is to any great merit in the movie itself.

Your description of the plot could apply to the book.

Not really. Jack Torrance in the book isn't a psycho. It takes a lot to send him over the edge. Movie Jack just needs a bit of a nudge. That's a big difference. Have you actually read the book?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

storker wrote: »

I'm not particularly interested in interested in what's generally considered, I'm just giving my own opinion. And I suspect that the reason for the plaudits given to the Shining is a lot more more due to the Kubrick brand label than it is to any great merit in the movie itself.

Ok. That’s your opinion but not widely shared by experts. It’s a genuinely brilliant and unsettling movie in its own right.

Not really. Jack Torrance in the book isn't a psycho. It takes a lot to send him over the edge. Movie Jack just needs a bit of a nudge. That's a big difference. Have you actually read the book?

Yes. I’ve read the book and watched the movie in that order. Clearly I’ve acknowledged that the characters are different in the movie. More than once. I just don’t expect movies to be exact recreations of the books.

storker

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Ok. That’s your opinion but not widely shared by experts. It’s a genuinely brilliant and unsettling movie in its own right.

Argumentum ad populum.

Yes. I’ve read the book and watched the movie in that order. Clearly I’ve acknowledged that the characters are different in the movie. More than once. I just don’t expect movies to be exact recreations of the books.

Neither do I - as I've already said. Pointing out that the film is weaker because two important characters have been rendered one-dimensional is not the same as expecting an exact recreation.

Fourier

Starship Troopers. The movie is a fun romp, the book is Heinlein lecturing you.

Maybe Interview with a Vampire. Anne Rice's descriptions go on and on, but the loss of the section set in Romania with the feral vampires is a negative for the movie.

Dial Hard

storker wrote: »

I'll stick my neck out here and suggest "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Not that it's a bad book although the epistolary format and 19th century prose can make for a slow read, but the (IMO clever) reincarnated Mina angle gives a reason for Dracula's arrival in Whitby, whereas the Dracula of the book might as well be there because he closed his eyes and stuck a pin in a map.

I debated whether to post about Dracula, before coming to the conclusion that it would be unfair to compare two works with such a huge gulf in time, culture and, basically, human experience between them. I love the book for many reasons but every time I read it I laugh out loud at some of its absurdities. FFC's film is probably the seminal version but I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "better" than the book, simply because he knew which parts would jar with a modern audience and left them out accordingly. At the end of the day, Dracula is one of those books which has aged terribly (casual sexism a go-go) but which would be terribly unfair to judge by current moral standards.

Of course, it also needs to be taken into account that Stoker wasn't a particularly good writer and his legacy is really down to a number of factors, none of which he could have foreseen or would probably even countenance if he were able to witness the phenomenon he spawned.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

storker wrote: »

Argumentum ad populum.

No it’s more an argument to authority because I said experts.

Neither do I - as I've already said. Pointing out that the film is weaker because two important characters have been rendered one-dimensional is not the same as expecting an exact recreation.

I don’t agree that Jack Nicholson’s character is in any way one dimensional. It’s just not like the book. He starts off a bit less sane.

The movie is way better than the book, like many adaptions of King, because King is merely an ok writer (albeit very good at world building).

griffin100

Stand By Me, infinitely better movie than the book it’s based on (The Body).

Dial Hard

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The movie is way better than the book, like many adaptions of King, because King is merely an ok writer (albeit very good at world building).

BLASPHEMY!!!!!!

Semi-joking. My love for King is well-documented, but he's not without his faults. I'd be of the opinion, though, that actually the majority of his film adaptations don't work because his books require an imaginative leap of faith on behalf of the reader that's much harder to achieve in a visual medium. There are exceptions, obviously, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread, but those films have by and large been made by people who love and understand the source material, like Frank Darabont.

squonkie

Bonniedog wrote: »

Morse and Rebus series are far better than the books.

Some of Dexter's Morse books are almost infantile in construction and bad prose. We may thank John Thaw and the director for making them iconic.

Likewise, Rankin's Rebus books. One or two of them are okay. Rest are pretty awful.

Interesting opinion on the Rebus books. Love them myself!! Never read any of the Morse

storker

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

No it’s more an argument to authority because I said experts.

I'm not convinced that there can be really such a thing as movie experts, at least as far as determining quality goes. The field is too subjective. I think it's interesting, though, that you haven't set out what it is that makes the movie so much better, other than invoking "Kubrick" and "experts".

I don’t agree that Jack Nicholson’s character is in any way one dimensional. It’s just not like the book. He starts off a bit less sane.

...which is partly my point.

The movie is way better than the book, like many adaptions of King, because King is merely an ok writer (albeit very good at world building).

Fair enough, but I think he's better at building believable characters. In case you're assuming I'm a King Uber-Fan, I'm not. In fact I last week I started my first King book in many years - one I picked up at my local recycling centre. I do think, however, that he's a lot better than he's given credit for by people who tend to look a bit sniffily in his direction, but we'll just have to agree to disagree I think, just as we'll have to disagree about Kubrick, who I think was just an OK movie director. I've never been able to see what all the Kubrick worship is about

Bonniedog

squonkie wrote: »

Interesting opinion on the Rebus books. Love them myself!! Never read any of the Morse

Maybe its because I saw the TV series first. Probably had different idea of both characters than the books.

Rankin is better writer than Dexter I have to say.

storker

Dial Hard wrote: »

BLASPHEMY!!!!!!

Semi-joking. My love for King is well-documented, but he's not without his faults. I'd be of the opinion, though, that actually the majority of his film adaptations don't work because his books require an imaginative leap of faith on behalf of the reader that's much harder to achieve in a visual medium. There are exceptions, obviously, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread, but those films have by and large been made by people who love and understand the source material, like Frank Darabont.

I wonder if it's down to laziness on the part of film-makers, or because it's hard to make good horror movies anyway, even if you're starting with material from a good writer.

Even when great reverence is shown to the source material, there's no guarantee it will work. Witness the made-for-TV (maybe that's the problem right there) version of The Shining. Much, much more true to the novel and yet...it still doesn't work. I don't think I even finished watching it. I suspect that it's because Stephen Weber and Rebecca de Mornay were miscast as Jack and Wendy, even though their characters had much more depth than in the Kubrick version. In fact, reluctant as I am to say it, Kubrick's version is probably better. I'd guess it's more tightly directed, and in a more appropriate format.

Cookie_Monster

Fight Club definitely. The style the book is written in makes it un-readable.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The movie is way better than the book, like many adaptions of King, because King is merely an ok writer (albeit very good at world building).

+1 on this too, his books read like they were written by a 10 year old.

Hobosan

Farenheit 451. I found it more memorable than the book.

Neames

Ace Ventura - Pet Detective.

Hobosan

storker wrote: »

just as we'll have to disagree about Kubrick, who I think was just an OK movie director. I've never been able to see what all the Kubrick worship is about

Some can sense how much effort Kubrick put into each film.

And from recent research, it turns out that sense is not imagined. He'd spend many years, sometimes over a decade, studying the topics of each of his films themes.

For example, his collection of esoteric and cultist books for the movie Eyes Wide Shut was very extensive, as well as his acquired knowledge for all his other work, and that's before you get into his meticulous camera work and design choices.

He put absolutely everything he had into his work. That's why he's so well respected.

storker

Hobosan wrote: »

Some can sense how much effort Kubrick put into each film.

And from recent research, it turns out that sense is not imagined. He'd spend many years, sometimes over a decade, studying the topics of each of his films themes.

For example, his collection of esoteric and cultist books for the movie Eyes Wide Shut was very extensive, as well as his acquired knowledge for all his other work, and that's before you get into his meticulous camera work and design choices.

He put absolutely everything he had into his work. That's why he's so well respected.

That's research, not movie-making.

Church on Tuesday

Psycho.

The book is pretty average.

paleoperson

Ben Hur (the original of course, not the modern remake which we can safely assume is a travesty).

pappyodaniel

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.