Movies that are better than the actual Book

[Tarik One]

A Streetcar Name Desire

Donnie Brasco

Malcolm X

Just about every movie based on a John Grisham novel.

[Akrazotile]

A Streetcar Name Desire

Donnie Brasco

Malcolm X

Just about every movie based on a John Grisham novel.


I find this one hard to believe. The 'book' (script of the play) is terrific. Haven't seen the movie though so I can't truly make a judgement.

Whereas Donnie Brasco is one of my favorite movies, but I haven't read the book. So it's also impossible for me to say definitively.

A lot of times it just depends on which one you experience first. Same thing happens with song covers. People are usually partial to the versions of things they see/hear first.

[Derka]

Every Hunger Games movie, though I still haven't seen the newest one.

The books are good for what they are: young adult dystopian fiction. The movies do a significantly better job bringing not just the characters, but the plot overall plot, the key story beats, the actual physical realities of life in the Districts...all of it.

[rufuspaul]

I find this one hard to believe. The 'book' (script of the play) is terrific. Haven't seen the movie though so I can't truly make a judgement.



:wtf:

Dude, you have to watch it.

[Quote]Tennessee Williams collaborated with Oscar Saul and Elia Kazan on the screenplay. Kazan, who directed the Broadway stage production also directed the black and white film. Marlon Brando, Kim Hunter, and Karl Malden were all cast in their original Broadway roles. Although Jessica Tandy originated the role of Blanche DuBois on Broadway, Vivien Leigh, who had appeared in the London theatre production, was cast in the film adaptation for her star power.[2]

Upon release of the movie, Marlon Brando, virtually unknown at the time of the play

[LJJ]

The Godfather is a thoroughly mediocre book.

[Akrazotile]

:wtf:

Dude, you have to watch it.



Leigh and Malden won Oscars for their performances. Brando would win in his next film, On The Waterfront, which also starred Malden and was directed by Kazan.




As a cast member of the first film I must agree. :D


I should. I tend not to seek out movies/books if Ive already experienced them in the opposite medium, bc I feel I'll likely end up disappointed. But I know Streetcar the film is considered a classic, I probably should make an exception for it when I have the chance.

[KevinNYC]

Agree on Godfather.

Sideways is a much better movie than a book.

Donnie Brasco is a non fiction book and the book is quite good.
Wiseguy is also nonfiction, but it's amazing. A lot of the great narration comes straight from the book.

[CakeorDeath]

I might get killed for this, but I actually thought the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books. The books were poorly paced in my opinion. If I recall correctly, it took the Hobbits something like 200 pages just to get out of the Shire.

[outbreak]

I might get killed for this, but I actually thought the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books. The books were poorly paced in my opinion. If I recall correctly, it took the Hobbits something like 200 pages just to get out of the Shire.
depends what you enjoy though, the fantasy genre is all about world building which can lead to lengthy sections which can be boring to some but interesting to others. For me I feel they help build up the rest of the novel and make the world more interesting. What's odd for me is I'm a big fantasy fan but didn't really get in to tolkien's novels or the movies.

[CakeorDeath]

depends what you enjoy though, the fantasy genre is all about world building which can lead to lengthy sections which can be boring to some but interesting to others. For me I feel they help build up the rest of the novel and make the world more interesting. What's odd for me is I'm a big fantasy fan but didn't really get in to tolkien's novels or the movies.

That's a very fair point. The reason why the world of the films is so rich and deep is because of the books. Every sweeping panorama shot in the films is something that had to be described in the books.

I might be biased on Fellowship since I saw the film before reading the book, though I read Two Towers and ROTK before the films came out, and felt the same about them as I did about Fellowship.

[BoutPractice]

Yeah, the Godfather is the prime example here. Unremarkable book; one of the great films.

This is pretty common in Hollywood since so many films are adapted from books to begin with.

Another one that comes to mind is The Graduate, a classic film adapted from a novel few remember.

More recently you might mention Gone Girl. The book is an above average "page turner", whereas the film is one of the most compelling thrillers in recent memory.

[ArbitraryWater]

American Psycho

[Derka]

I might get killed for this, but I actually thought the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books. The books were poorly paced in my opinion. If I recall correctly, it took the Hobbits something like 200 pages just to get out of the Shire.
I've read everything Middle-earth related that has been published with Tolkien's name on it and I would agree with you on this. The work PJ & co. did adapting those stories for the screen was Herculean.

People forget that The Hobbit and LoTR were written by a stuffy old British guy who studied dead languages for a living in the early 20th century. Both books show their age, big time. He even joked that his books were "unfilmable."

[KyrieTheFuture]

Every Hunger Games movie, though I still haven't seen the newest one.

The books are good for what they are: young adult dystopian fiction. The movies do a significantly better job bringing not just the characters, but the plot overall plot, the key story beats, the actual physical realities of life in the Districts...all of it.
I hope that isn't true because those movies are atrocious

[Jailblazers7]

I find this one hard to believe. The 'book' (script of the play) is terrific. Haven't seen the movie though so I can't truly make a judgement.

Whereas Donnie Brasco is one of my favorite movies, but I haven't read the book. So it's also impossible for me to say definitively.

A lot of times it just depends on which one you experience first. Same thing happens with song covers. People are usually partial to the versions of things they see/hear first.

Brando is very good in the movie. Hard to claim the movie is better tho when the script requires no adaptation. At that point it's simply about who plays the role best. No different really than saying you like one plays cast better than another.

[Dresta]

There are lots - good novels very rarely make good films, as what makes them great, is exactly that which cannot be transferred to the screen. Hence why average books like The Godfather can make first rate films when guided by a great director.

[Smoke117]

http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/23069/p23069_p_v7_aa.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/ShawshankRedemptionMoviePoster.jpg

http://missedprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/total-recall-movie-poster-by-candy-killer.jpg

...though to be fair, Total Recall the movie (s) are so different from the short story that they might as well not be even based on it. I'll post more later as they come to me.

[Smoke117]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/ThingPoster.jpg

[gigantes]

I might get killed for this, but I actually thought the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books. The books were poorly paced in my opinion. If I recall correctly, it took the Hobbits something like 200 pages just to get out of the Shire.
i can read the books every few years and still enjoy them hugely each time around, but watching a peter jackson film more than once is pretty much like having my teeth pulled. the books (other than the hobbit) don't try to charm you up front, yet are hugely charming on balance. the movies are almost the opposite of that IMO... awkward as hell, really.


...


shogun wasn't necessarily better than the book, but it was a brilliant adaptation. arguably the finest mini-series of all time.


http://a2.tvspielfilm.de/imedia/6013/1696013,tLmch_TO9w6b3b1LveSr9bke6mKyYFU4upoYQPxxlo jUuQZpM6LPlArm0UA5ENB2KSQKrAPtYcJjzPcJVNgyTw==.jpg

[Derka]

I hope that isn't true because those movies are atrocious
They're not Oscar winning material, sure...but for my tastes, they're passable as pure entertainment. I enjoy stories where people come together to overthrow a dystopian world.

The books made me HATE Katniss Everdeen. I honestly didn't care if she lived or died by the end of book 2.

Not so with the movies. The very stark, very brutal reality of the world the characters live in was presented in much more relatable terms on screen. The actors they picked, with the exception of Peeta's actor, I think really took those characters to places the author herself honestly didn't.

[Duderonomy]

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/750/750024/planet-of-the-apes-1968-20061208003013495.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/98/8e/aa/988eaafb17c39c80b325289d857bb456.jpg

https://garbagedayreviews.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/jackie-brown-3.jpg

[Shade8780]

I might get killed for this, but I actually thought the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books. The books were poorly paced in my opinion. If I recall correctly, it took the Hobbits something like 200 pages just to get out of the Shire.
i was gonna post this before you, but didnt want to be murdered.

tlotr was a hard read. very slow-paced, lots and lots of exposition and world-building, and not enough action or exciting bits that were a real page turner. the large, epic battles like helm's deep weren't long enough or written all that well.

i prefer the movies too tbh.