Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,961
Member is Online
|
Post by Sephiroth on Apr 9, 2015 8:13:09 GMT -5
Its a general rule that the book is always better than the movie, right? Well, there are those rare cases where its the opposite. For me, JAWS is the stand out example. I tried reading the book but just couldn't handle it-because the movie was head and shoulders above it. In the movie, the plot is much more straightforward while in the book there are a variety of distracting subplots that add nothing to the overall story. On top of that, the characters in the book all come across as overtly hostile to each other from the get go, while in the movie they develop in a way that actually gets you involved.
I'd also rank The Crow in this crowd, even though that is more of a graphic novel. J O'Barr's work was great and had a certain tragic beauty to it, the main character of Eric was actually very hard to empathize with throughout, thanks in no small part to a lack of development and the disjointed manner of the storytelling. In the movie, you are sympathetic to Eric from the start because you see what his motivations are and he acts the part of an anti-hero with a lighter touch, but in the book he is this downright cruel figure who only shows a few sparks of humanity. The decision to expand the role of some of the background characters, and even introduce a couple of new ones, was also good because it added some much needed light hearted touches and made the story much more linear and easy to follow.
Any other examples?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 8:17:14 GMT -5
The Shawshank Redemption is better than the novella. Like...a lot better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Apr 9, 2015 8:18:41 GMT -5
This will be controversial: Watchmen
It got rid of that tedious squid subplot. I thought this made more sense and I, otherwise, I thought it was a near perfect adaptation.
Also: Princess Bride (Only slightly)
I've heard people mention JAWS a lot.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Apr 9, 2015 8:19:39 GMT -5
Hunger Games Mockingjay Pt 1 was much better than the portion of the novel it's adapted from. I haven't read Catching Fire but I would be shocked if that isn't the case there as well, especially given that it's a retread in story that is a much better film than it has any right to be.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,961
Member is Online
|
Post by Sephiroth on Apr 9, 2015 8:20:19 GMT -5
The Shawshank Redemption is better than the novella. Like...a lot better. Agree on that one. The book suffered from Stephen King's usual habit of rambling. The movie was much more straightforward. |
|
Jeff Mangum PI
Hank Scorpio
11 herbs and spices for the rest of eternity; Is Number Two. Number Two!
The 2nd Coming
Posts: 6,957 
|
Post by Jeff Mangum PI on Apr 9, 2015 8:21:26 GMT -5
I thought the Deathly Hallows movies were better than the book.
That 12-year-olds fanfic of an epilogue still sucked though.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,122
|
Post by Mozenrath on Apr 9, 2015 8:24:05 GMT -5
Fight Club, and the author admits as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Apr 9, 2015 9:03:08 GMT -5
Hoooo boy, well...*tin hat on*...the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
*runs*
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Apr 9, 2015 9:13:03 GMT -5
Hoooo boy, well...*tin hat on*...the Lord of the Rings trilogy. *runs* You are correct sir |
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on Apr 9, 2015 9:13:05 GMT -5
Starship Troopers, Blade Runner, Running Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Apr 9, 2015 9:13:18 GMT -5
Hoooo boy, well...*tin hat on*...the Lord of the Rings trilogy. *runs* I agree. I love the books, don't get me wrong but Tolkien wasn't a great storyteller unless writing a more younger-age style (The Hobbit was great storytelling). He was an amazing world builder, wrote great characters, good plots and the depth of the Middle Earth world is astounding but... I found the books spent way too much time waffling over crap rather than getting to the point. There was like an entire pages descriptions about the way a stream looked and other such meaningless details. It was great, don't get me wrong. But I enjoyed the movies more. A condensed LOTR with much of the flowery prose and over-the-top descriptions trimmed would be amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Apr 9, 2015 9:17:10 GMT -5
I'll also add The Shining. The book was a bit too stupid in many parts. Good book, but there were some stupid things in it. The movie was just fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 9, 2015 9:17:59 GMT -5
Fight Club, and the author admits as much. A similar thing happened with Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Gary K. Wolf, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Apr 9, 2015 9:22:18 GMT -5
Yeah, Lord of the Rings are way better movies than books, I've tried to reread the books on so many occasions the most recent time I got about halfway through the Two Towers and stopped, there's just so much filler. The movies cut out a shitload of extraneous crap that Tolkien stuck in (including a few things that sabotage his own narrative)... though there are a few things that are better in the books like Helm's deep... but I'd take the movies over the books any day. I feel the exact opposite way about the Hobbit. Tolkien was much more to the point in the books where as the movies seemingly added a bunch of unnecessary stuff. This will be controversial: Watchmen It got rid of that tedious squid subplot. I thought this made more sense and I, otherwise, I thought it was a near perfect adaptation. While I like the movie, the problem with the new ending is that it gave the "villain" a face, the planet "know" what attacked the cities. They also know a shitload about him so they can figure out how to study and destroy him. It will take a while but they could. The squid beast... they don't know whta it is, where it came from, if it was actually trying to attack them or if it was an accident, if it can happen again and what can they possibly do to stop it. Also without the squid Bubastis doesn't make any sense since Bubastis was an earlier example of genetic modifications. The movie also cut out a lot of important scenes from the book (for time since it would be like 7 hours long if they got everything in) |
|
|
|
Post by Rumble McSkirmish on Apr 9, 2015 9:23:43 GMT -5
Jaws for sure as the film cut out a lot of the un-needed subplots (IE The mayor's mob ties and the love triangle between Brody, Hooper and Mrs Bordy) and just focused mostly on what was most important: Man vs Shark.
Goldfinger just for the fact that in the film Goldfinger's plan to just ruin all the gold in Fort Knox was a lot more believable than to steal all of the gold which Bond even pointed out in the film would not be doable before being found out even with all of the guards incapacitated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flash Burton on Apr 9, 2015 9:23:45 GMT -5
The only one I have is World War Z. I started to read the book way before even talks of a movie & just couldn't get into it, it was just random accounts of what had happened from army generals & civilians around the World, didn't even finish it & gave up around of a third of the way in. The movie, I actually finished watching even though I didn't think it was too great either
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 9:24:27 GMT -5
I agree about The Crow, and you could probably add Ghost Worls and Scott Pilgrim if we're counting comics (and we should, they're technically books).
Adaptation was also awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on Apr 9, 2015 9:54:45 GMT -5
The only one I have is World War Z. I started to read the book way before even talks of a movie & just couldn't get into it, it was just random accounts of what had happened from army generals & civilians around the World, didn't even finish it & gave up around of a third of the way in. The movie, I actually finished watching even though I didn't think it was too great either Ahhhh, gonna have to disagree with this one. The book told the tale of a UN investigator talking with people and tracing how the outbreak started and progressed (patient zero in China, black market human organ trafficking) through the medium of interviews with the people involved. I found it absolutely fascinating, especially when you find out what happens in places like Russia and the Pacific. It does have a good, consistent storyline as he revisits people he talked to later on in the story. The film bears almost no resemblance to the book. I do think the book would be almost impossible to do in anything other than a mini-series but the film is (in my opinion) World War Z in name only. Plus Both World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide go into great detail why zombies can't run. All chucked away for a 'cool' visual effect. |
|
|
|
Post by I'm Team Bayley and Indi on Apr 9, 2015 11:48:29 GMT -5
It's been a long time since I've read them but...
The Godfather film was way better then the book in my eyes
and Mrs. Doubtfire was was better then Madame Doubtfire (though I was about 12 when I read that).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Apr 9, 2015 11:55:40 GMT -5
And here I thought I was going to be the first heretic to say "Lord of the Rings."  |
|
