Which films were better than the books?

capt_slog

Rather than write this in the other two similar threads and take them off topic.....

Films which you've seen that are based on books, but better than the book itself.



The Martian Chronicles, Ray Bradbury. A really well done film, so I read the book. What a disappointment, very little in there.

Blade Runner. Supposedly based on "Do Androids dream Of Electric Sheep" by Philip K Dick. Really?

Captain Corelli's Mandolin. The film has an ending that makes sense, the book doesn't, but is a good read for it's coverage of WW2 in Greece.

Lantern-Vert

The Godfather (1&2) - Original book by Mario Puzo spends an awful lot of time on minor charachters like Johnny Fontaine and dealing with the size of one of Sonny's mistress's vajazzle :shock:

buckmulligan

Maybe a bit controversial here, but I found 'No Country For Old Men' an excruciatingly boring read, but seeing the film afterwards, absolutely loved it!

There's just too much description, not enough narrative in the book, but I'm sure others love it.

Cleat Eastwood

Walkabout. The short story is very short and doesnt have anything relating to Bond or Roegs vision.

lostboysaint

Lantern-Vert wrote:

The Godfather (1&2) - Original book by Mario Puzo spends an awful lot of time on minor charachters like Johnny Fontaine and dealing with the size of one of Sonny's mistress's vajazzle :shock:

Couldn't agree less. Johnny Fontaine is hardly a minor character as it's because of him that the family end up in the film business and in Vegas and more or less legit. It's absolutely essential to the whole story.

As for Lucy, yes that bit is an amusing aside (forgetting the bullshit that her's and Sonny's illegitimate child takes over the family in the Godfather 3) but again it's also central to the Vegas move plot as she holds the family's stake in the hotels, not to mention the link between her, Johnny, her new doctor, the career resurrection etc.

I'm afraid I couldn't agree less.

Lantern-Vert

lostboysaint wrote:

Lantern-Vert wrote:

The Godfather (1&2) - Original book by Mario Puzo spends an awful lot of time on minor charachters like Johnny Fontaine and dealing with the size of one of Sonny's mistress's vajazzle :shock:

Couldn't agree less. Johnny Fontaine is hardly a minor character as it's because of him that the family end up in the film business and in Vegas and more or less legit. It's absolutely essential to the whole story.

As for Lucy, yes that bit is an amusing aside (forgetting the bullshit that her's and Sonny's illegitimate child takes over the family in the Godfather 3) but again it's also central to the Vegas move plot as she holds the family's stake in the hotels, not to mention the link between her, Johnny, her new doctor, the career resurrection etc.

I'm afraid I couldn't agree less.

Look at all of us talking about literature, fillum and the like and not a bike reference in sight

Will admit it's been a decade (or nearly two) since I read it, so memory could be slightly hazy. Always a thorny topic in the screenwriting world when adapting a bestseller, what to leave in Vs what to leave out. I was drawn to the book by the films and I think Coppola took the best from the book and gave the screen story a better focus by concentrating on the family.

Didn't I read someplace that Stephen King was majorly hacked off at the Stanley Kubrick version of 'The Shining', which I think is an incredible film.

Any fans of the book like or loath the Kubrick film?

lostboysaint

Lantern-Vert wrote:

I was drawn to the book by the films and I think Coppola took the best from the book and gave the screen story a better focus by concentrating on the family.

I love the films (well, the first one particularly) and completely agree that Coppola took the story and adapted it well (hardly a surprise as Puzo wrote the screenplay with him!) but the detail that you talk about in the book is vital to the family's story and how it develops as a whole in a way that becomes a bit lost in the films.

Have another read of the book. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how important those seemingly trivial bits are. (Nino's drinking, the Godfather telling Johnny to help him out, them releasing a record which, because of it's sales gets Hollywood interest in Johnny, leading to family investing in movies, the Oscar win and, perhaps the most remembered scene - if not genuinely remembered, certainly the most often told - of the horses head in the bed) And so on. It really is a very, very special book that's so well put together.

Much as I love Frederick Forsyth, I'd put up an argument that by being so devoted to the book and played so well "The Day of the Jackal" is a good call for being better as a film.

finchy

Goldfinger. Average book, great film.

finchy

The Bible (the Monty Python version).

lostboysaint

johnfinch wrote:

The Bible (the Monty Python version).

I keep asking, but where's the "exalt" button when you need it?!

jordan_217

Stephen Kings The Body and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption were two short stories/novellas which have been adapted into great films, Stand by Me and The Shawshank Redemption. Both are excellent IMO.

carrock

The green mile. Like the shawshank redemption, a frank darabont film based on a stephen king novel. I defy anyone to watch this without shedding a tear. Brilliant.

jordan_217

carrock wrote:

The green mile. Like the shawshank redemption, a frank darabont film based on a stephen king novel. I defy anyone to watch this without shedding a year. Brilliant.

After posting on this earlier my wife has just dug out The Green Mile for me to read. Brilliant film, book is now in my 'to read' pile

rolf_f

lostboysaint wrote:

Much as I love Frederick Forsyth, I'd put up an argument that by being so devoted to the book and played so well "The Day of the Jackal" is a good call for being better as a film.

Good book and good film - your argument sounds a bit like that film is the superior medium (which I don't think it is!). The film is good for being an accurate rendition of the book but IMO, a film can really only be superior to the book if the book is relatively poor.

As for The Godfather. I've not read it but for me the film was one of the most disappointing films I've ever watched. Nice cinematography but I couldn't see why I'd care about any of the main characters; zero main characters that you can have any empathy for kills it for me. As I see it, the quicker that everyone in it is dead the better! But this is the sort of thing that implies that maybe the book is worth a read.

As for Bonds - the good Bond films are usually the close adaptations of the books (eg OHMSS, most of Casino Royal). The bad ones are the ones where they are not (eg Moonraker - which would make a very good film if done properly; certainly a damn site better than the Roger Moore one).

@ Cleat - to be fair, the book of Walkabout probably lacks Jenny Agutter swimming in a pool with no clothes which is a distinct disadvantage

MichaelW

The African Queen
Lousy book, epic Hollywood pairing, sparkling dialogue.
The Cruel Sea.
Lousy book, epic stiff-upper-lip, black-and-white naval celluloid heroics.

RDW

So far I'm preferring 'Game of Thrones' to the books. Not that the books are bad, but the quality of the acting and production, the whole 'North = Northern England' conceit, some clever changes to the plot (Arya and Tywin, etc.) all manage to lift the source material up a notch. Which is probably terrible sacrilege to the hardcore George RR Martin fans (and to be fair, he wrote a couple of excellent episodes for the series himself).

I would have put 'The Cruel Sea' in the 'both good' thread. 'Do Androids dream Of Electric Sheep' isn't my favourite PKD novel (try 'The Man in the High Castle' or 'A Scanner Darkly' or 'Valis'), but it's so different to Blade Runner they're hard to compare. I do like the Bradbury 'Martian Chronicles' (and Bradbury in general) a lot - haven't seen the TV series since it was first on.

rolf_f

The Swedish films of the Stieg Larsson Millenium Trilogy. The prose is a bit weak at times (especially in the first book) and Larssons obsession with listing computer specs makes the books seem far more dated than they otherwise would be - they are good but I felt they were a bit like Dan Brown for people who like books. On the other hand, the films cover much of the plot quite well and the pace makes it all seem a bit more less unbelievable. Nicely acted and atmospheric.

Not watched the Craig version yet.

MichaelW wrote:

The African Queen
Lousy book, epic Hollywood pairing, sparkling dialogue.

I enjoyed the book. I don't think it is lousy but it's nothing out of the ordinary. It does show what film can do though as long as the plot is well thought out. A lesson that the Bond producers haven't convincingly proved they've learned yet.

lostboysaint

Rolf F wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Much as I love Frederick Forsyth, I'd put up an argument that by being so devoted to the book and played so well "The Day of the Jackal" is a good call for being better as a film.

Good book and good film - your argument sounds a bit like that film is the superior medium (which I don't think it is!). The film is good for being an accurate rendition of the book but IMO, a film can really only be superior to the book if the book is relatively poor.

As for The Godfather. I've not read it but for me the film was one of the most disappointing films I've ever watched. Nice cinematography but I couldn't see why I'd care about any of the main characters; zero main characters that you can have any empathy for kills it for me. As I see it, the quicker that everyone in it is dead the better! But this is the sort of thing that implies that maybe the book is worth a read.

As for Bonds - the good Bond films are usually the close adaptations of the books (eg OHMSS, most of Casino Royal). The bad ones are the ones where they are not (eg Moonraker - which would make a very good film if done properly; certainly a damn site better than the Roger Moore one).

@ Cleat - to be fair, the book of Walkabout probably lacks Jenny Agutter swimming in a pool with no clothes which is a distinct disadvantage

No, I'd never argue that film is the superior medium. However, I do feel that The Day of the Jackal was particularly good, despite loving the book, I am a big, big fan of the film.

Yes, you're argument about the Godfather is similar to mine, although you don't rate the film as highly as I do, the book is significantly better.

heavymental

Lantern-Vert wrote:

The Godfather (1&2) - Original book by Mario Puzo spends an awful lot of time on minor charachters like Johnny Fontaine and dealing with the size of one of Sonny's mistress's vajazzle :shock:

Lol, I remember reading that and wondering what the hell Puzo was thinking. It's such an unneccessary storyline.

bartimaeus

Lord of the Rings.... it may be a 'classic book', but it's structurally poor, has very little character development and some very dull bits. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh definitely improved on the book when making the film trilogy.

likeakipper8

The Prestige, great film, bought the book and didn't finish it. Got about 2/3 of the way through but it's set in the present day, whereas the film is set in Victorian times (although it is better than that sounds). The book is therefore about the descendents of the more interesting characters, which is what the film focuses on.

RDW

Bartimaeus wrote:

Lord of the Rings.... it may be a 'classic book', but it's structurally poor, has very little character development and some very dull bits. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh definitely improved on the book when making the film trilogy.

Noooooooooooooooo!

They did quite a few things well in the films, but nothing better than the book, and many things much worse. The dialogue is horribly clunky at times, and the added 'character development' (e.g. of Faramir) and extra bits they came up with (shield surfing, dwarf tossing, Lurtz!) feel nailed on, and often silly. The book has an unconventional structure (e.g. telling parallel stories in long separate chunks, rather than interleaving them), but this is quite deliberate, and creates a particular effect (keeping the reader in the dark, just as the characters are). Re-reading the books is rewarding, but re-watching the films (especially now the CGI is starting to look dated) ... not quite so much.

thomthom

I've yet to read a book that was worse than the film and I find it hard to believe that it will ever happen.

doublem_1

likeakipper8 wrote:

The Prestige, great film, bought the book and didn't finish it. Got about 2/3 of the way through but it's set in the present day, whereas the film is set in Victorian times (although it is better than that sounds). The book is therefore about the descendents of the more interesting characters, which is what the film focuses on.

+1

Loved the Prestige!

rolf_f

ThomThom wrote:

I've yet to read a book that was worse than the film and I find it hard to believe that it will ever happen.

I think it would be hard to make a film of a Henry James novel worse than the book (though some people might kill me for saying as much!). Don Quixote is so irritating a read that that should be easily doable. Gullivers Travels (full version) is truly terrible but it will be tough to make a film of it that isn't equally bad.

Irrespective of personal taste, there are some terrible books with good plots that could be better as films - anything by Dan Brown for example.

lostboysaint wrote:

No, I'd never argue that film is the superior medium. However, I do feel that The Day of the Jackal was particularly good, despite loving the book, I am a big, big fan of the film.

Yes, you're argument about the Godfather is similar to mine, although you don't rate the film as highly as I do, the book is significantly better.

I should probably re-read Day of the Jackal; I've just re-watched the film and loved it as much as ever. What I do recall is that I think that the final sequence is better in the book than the film; much down to the way the setting is described and it felt less contrived and dependant on coincidence (irrc). I think the film was too late to use the same setting but it does show what an author who knows his locations can do. I just regret the fall of the Berlin wall for the adverse impact it's had on the output of the likes of Forsyth, Le Carre and Deighton. I'm just not so interested in Middle East intrigue and drugs!

Steve GT

I thought 'The Silence of the Lambs' was far better than the original book.

Garry H

The ten commandments.

Ben6899

Capt Slog wrote:

Blade Runner. Supposedly based on "Do Androids dream Of Electric Sheep" by Philip K Dick. Really?

You don't think they're alike? Director's cut?

thomthom

Rolf F wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

I've yet to read a book that was worse than the film and I find it hard to believe that it will ever happen.

Irrespective of personal taste, there are some terrible books with good plots that could be better as films - anything by Dan Brown for example.

The couple of movies I've seen made on Dan Browns novels have been dreadful.

Garry H

ThomThom wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

I've yet to read a book that was worse than the film and I find it hard to believe that it will ever happen.

Irrespective of personal taste, there are some terrible books with good plots that could be better as films - anything by Dan Brown for example.

The couple of movies I've seen made on Dan Browns novels have been dreadful.

Silk purses and pigs ears.

Tom Dean

Harry Potter