Movies Based on Books... [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

wh1t3bread

11-04-2005, 09:18 PM

With "Jarhead" (based on a book) coming out this weekend it got me thinking...

Are there any movies that you have seen that are based on novels that you liked better than the book?

I was thinking maybe "Jurassic Park"? Maybe a Steven King piece, like "The Shawshank Redemption"? "Band of Brothers" definitely crossed my mind but I dismissed that for being a mini-series and not a movie. Can a case be made for "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" (I haven't read either)? Wasn't "Apocalypse Now" based on a book? "2001: A Space Odessey"? .....

11-04-2005, 09:20 PM

no case can be made for lord of the rings, especially because they left out the single most important part of book three...

as far as ones taht are better than the book... damn, I really cant think of any.

I know all of the crichton books were better.

Im thinking we may have a shot at a particularly good movie version of a stephen king book?

suggestions?

krazyace5

11-04-2005, 09:23 PM

I have never seen a movie that was as good as the book.

wh1t3bread

11-04-2005, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Im thinking we may have a shot at a particularly good movie version of a stephen king book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be right. How about The Green Mile or The Shining?

SoCalRugger

11-04-2005, 09:27 PM

Jurassic Park was a good movie, but the book was much better. Same thing for Lord of the Rings.

Maybe Bourne Identity/Supremacy? The movies were pretty good. But it's been so long since I've read the books that I can't really compare the two.

A Christmas Story. I didn't like the book it was based upon at all.

wh1t3bread

11-04-2005, 09:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe Bourne Identity/Supremacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

This crossed my mind as well. I never read them but I heard the books were really good.

[ QUOTE ]

A Christmas Story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know this was a book, but this movie is awesome.

lapoker17

11-04-2005, 09:32 PM

A few of the Grisham movies were fairly well done.

Gotta think some James Bond is close.

Duke

11-04-2005, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
no case can be made for lord of the rings, especially because they left out the single most important part of book three...

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, the movies were better than a straight adaptation of the book would have been. I missed Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire too, and they would have been welcome additions, but there were many other choices made that worked better for the film than a direct

No, I don't think a book adaptation of the films would be better than the original books. What works better in print does not always work better on the screen, and vice versa.

In that sense, I think the films are better than a video-book would have been.

~D

HtotheNootch

11-04-2005, 09:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a movie that was as good as the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Godfather maybe?

BadBoyBenny

11-04-2005, 09:44 PM

Shawshank.

Generally if a book is more than 150 pages then it will be better than the movie. Shawshank was a novella and if I remember right, it seemed almost word for word in it's adaptation. Morgan Freeman sounded better than my imaginary narrator in my head.

Wes ManTooth

11-04-2005, 09:48 PM

is donnie darko based on a book? I know there is a book but I am not sure if the book came out as a result of the movie.

Bascule

11-04-2005, 10:00 PM

Sin City

11-04-2005, 10:11 PM

I'd like to say Fight Club, because thats my favorite movie (I know, Im checking the 100 films list) but I think the book is supposed to be better?

Dude, Im sorry but the Scouring shoulda been there... maybe not Tom Bombadil because I think it would have been hard to do right, but the scouring of the shire was the entire point of the trilogy... kind of changes the spirit of the whole thing.

but then again, Im a writer/Tolkien nerd.

Colonel Kataffy

11-04-2005, 10:17 PM

I generally dislike comparing books to movies. It makes sense if somebody were to make arguement favoring a plot difference or something like that, but it seems for the most part people just like to spout off "the book is better than the movie" for no better reason than that their teacher instilled the belief in them while they were in the 3rd grade.

Besides plot, dialogue, and maybe a general sense of quality, books and movies have little in common to compare. Obviously you can say which you like better in the same way that one person might enjoy the smell of a cookie over its taste, but I bet in most cases, people who prefer books to movies also perfer a particular book to its particular movie counterpart and vice versa.

bwana devil

11-04-2005, 10:18 PM

trainspotting

321Mike

11-05-2005, 12:42 AM

Silence of the Lambs.

11-05-2005, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe Bourne Identity/Supremacy? The movies were pretty good. But it's been so long since I've read the books that I can't really compare the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

The books were amazing, though almost entirely different from the movies.

As for LOTR: I am a big fan of the movies, but watching them made me read the book, which was miles better.

Tyler Durden

11-05-2005, 12:54 AM

Jurassic Park was *not* a good movie. The special effects were cool but that doesn't mean it was a good movie.

11-05-2005, 01:10 AM

um but at least the first one had *one* good actor.

Sheepscot

11-05-2005, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a Steven King piece

[/ QUOTE ]

I never read "The Body" but I liked Stand By Me.

ddollevoet

11-05-2005, 01:25 AM

A lot of the King books transferred well to the big screen.

Shawshank and The Body were both good, my favorite is Misery.

Recliner

11-05-2005, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to say Fight Club, because thats my favorite movie (I know, Im checking the 100 films list) but I think the book is supposed to be better?

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw the movie first. After reading the book I wish I'd never seen the movie and just read the book because the book is that much better.

diebitter

11-05-2005, 03:07 AM

Dead Zone and Carrie were pretty good too.

Dominic

11-05-2005, 03:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't "Apocalypse Now" based on a book? "2001: A Space Odessey"? .....

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right????

Besides your utter lack or knowledge concerning literature, this is a silly comparison.

movies - books
apples - oranges

books are internal, usually about the emotions of the protaganist. Movies are external, and are usually plot driven.

You get different pleasures from the two mediums. They are not at all similar.

Film - sensory overload, music, visual stimulation, etc.
books - a well-turned phrase, the solitude, imagination

And most people's argument - "they shoulda kept this in the movie - it was the best part of the book!" is asinine. If you filmed a book completely faithfully, every scene, every character...you'd have a 40 hour movie.

To compare them is just silly.

plaster8

11-05-2005, 07:08 AM

Although I agree with the "apples and oranges" talk, if you must compare, you could make a really good case for "Goodfellas" being better than the book. (It was based on "Wise Guy" by Nicholas Pileggi.)

11-05-2005, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to say Fight Club, because thats my favorite movie (I know, Im checking the 100 films list) but I think the book is supposed to be better?

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw the movie first. After reading the book I wish I'd never seen the movie and just read the book because the book is that much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually felt that the movie was better than the book. For one, the ending of the movie is much better than the book. And I think the message of the story is better presented in the movie. But again you can't really judge the two.

wh1t3bread

11-05-2005, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Besides your utter lack or knowledge concerning literature, this is a silly comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

My utter lack of knowledge? A Space Odyssey was written concurrently with the screenplay by Arthur C. Clarke. Which came first I don't know. But it was a book and a movie.

Apocalypse Now was based on a book titled "Heart of Darkness" was it not? And yes I know Heart of Darkness is a completely different time period and different plot, but the movie was based on it all the same.

And FWIW, I'm not trying to compare books and movies (they are apples and oranges) I'm mearly asking if anyone actually liked a movie better than the book it was based upon. It can happen.

Peter666

11-05-2005, 01:17 PM

Jaws

SmileyEH

11-05-2005, 02:23 PM

I recently read sideways and I found the movie better, if only because it is one of my favorite movies ever.

-SmileyEH

The Dude

11-05-2005, 03:35 PM

The Shawshank redemption was the first movie that came to mind, but I haven't read the short so I can't say for sure. It was an amazing movie though.

If you're asking which movies based on books were phenomenal and true to the novel (different question, I know), Interview With A Vampire and LOTR are the two easy picks, although the books were better in each case.