roguenuke

I figure most people would agree that most of the movies out there based off a book are not as good as the book. So are there any movies out there that people think were better than the book(s)? Are there movies that anyone thinks didn't even come close to capturing what the book(s) was about?

I watched the new Nancy Drew movie and was a little disappointed. The movie itself wasn't bad and might actually enticed some young girls to read the books, but the book series were so much better. Nancy did have flaws and she couldn't do anything. Although she could get out of a lot of situations with a little ingenuity, a lot of times she got out of dangerous situations with help from her friends.

Another one that disappointed me was "The Postman". I read this book at least a year or two before the movie came out. IMO, the movie left out some very good parts about his journey to actually start caring about other people. Also, the ending was cheesy.

I can't actually think of any movie I liked better than the book (out of books that I liked anyway) although I hated All's Quiet On the Western Front because I thought it was really boring, but the movie had some funny parts just because it was made so long ago. It made me realize how better coordinated stunts are in movies now as compared to when they were black and white. The actors would swing at someone and miss by a good 6 inches then the person who "got hit" would either turn their head or fall after about 2 or 3 seconds.

americanwoman

I can't think of one movie that is better or even on par with the book. It's always disappointing to me because no matter what I always want to see the movie to see it come out of life and out of my imagination. I always love it when I find out a movie I liked was based on a book because then I can get the better version of a good thing.




There are a couple, though none of the top of my head I can think of. I just don't get why they change things in the movie that are significant in the book. Like say the character has blonde hair in the book and her having blonde hair somehow relates to the story in general, then in the movie the girl will have brown hair or something. It's just the little details like that, that get to me.

Lachean

The Lord of the Rings books are the absolute worst fantasy books ever written, but made decent movies. Terribly dry, slow, and painful to read.

__________________
"Men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality. " - Ayn Rand

roguenuke

I never actually read LOTR, but I didn't really care too much for the movies either. However, my husband loves those movies, so every now and then I do have to sit through them.

Lachean

Ouch, I have em on DVD and have only watched each of them once. Its just TOO MUCH.

AuHtwoh64

A good example is the recent James Bond thriller. I was intro'd to the "007" novels back in '64. I then launched into reading all of them as quickly as I could find them. There were 12 novels on which the films were based while all the rest were contrivances from Fleming short stories. I don't know about the shorts, but the novels make for great reading.

The most recent equal in page turning qualities are the Vince Flynn Novels. While the 007 novels were the stuff of the "Cold War", the Flynn novels are about domestic intrigues, terrorism, and things we can all relate to, expecially after Nine-Eleven.

I quit the James Bond movies, tiring from all the special effects. I give the story and details more importance than all the "flash and fury." If the Flynn novels are made into films, we can only hope the drama and suspense will prevail over the usual stuff geared for too broad an audience.

...

__________________
AuHtwoh64

Currently Reading: Fourth Turning; An American Prophecy by Wm. Strauss & Neil Howe // Last Read: ROME ~ Profile of a City, 312 - 1308 by Richard Krautheimer

Tucker Case

Agreed. Awesome book, **** movie. A few more that fall into this category for me are Starship Troopers, Jurassic Park, Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Dune. I hated all of the movies from these books, but absolutely LOVED the books.



As far as books that also had great movies here are my 10 best in no particular order (the books were still better, but the movies were also fantastic):

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
Forrest Gump
Silence of the Lambs
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Godfather
Of Mice and Men (With John Malkovich)
Blade Runner (Book title: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep)
Shindler's List
Apacolypse Now (Heart of Darkness)


2 movies I actually liked better than the books are:
The Outlaw Josey Wales
The Shining


And movies from short stories/novellas tend to do better than some of the books,... ESPECIALLY Stephen King (Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemption)


Graphic Novels tend to Kick ass: Sin City, 300.

__________________

1069

I thought The Kiterunner was better than the book.
I thought the original The Shining was better (or at least awesome in an entirely different way) than the book.
Clockwork Orange, again, the book and the movie were great in entirely different ways.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

tryreading

Have not read Silence Of The Lambs yet, but I did read the other two, Hannibal and Hannibal Rising. They were both very good, especially Hannibal, however the movie based on it was terrible.

Since you mention Steinbeck, The Grapes Of Wrath is one of the best books ever, and the Henry Fonda movie, although certainly not better than the book, was excellent.

Agree with you and 1069 on The Shining.

Most science fiction movies based on books are really bad, imo.

Ethereal

Ethan Frome. The book is good yet dry. The movie is also good but it stars Liam Neeson and I really enjoy his acting.

The Count of Monte Cristo. One of the best books I've ever read. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. They even replaced the original ending -which was dark yet intellectually satisfying - with a formulaic Hollywood ending. Quite lame.

The Three Musketeers. One of the best books I've ever read. A decently entertaining movie. The movie was a good effort but there was simply no way it could stand up to the genius of the book. I guess Hollywood doesn't know how to do Dumas.

Gates of Fire. This isn't in exactly the same spirit as your question since they never made said book into a movie, but they did make the graphic novel-equivalent into a movie. The movie (300) was very good but after reading "Gates of Fire" (a less dramatic interpretation of the battle of Thermopylae) I became less impressed with the movie about Spartans. Should they ever make "Gates of Fire" into a movie, just remember that you heard it here first.

The Lord of the Rings. Very good movies, but the book (it wasn't a real trilogy) was so creative and intelligent that no director could have fully captured its grandeur.

The only movies I feel come close to the books are "No Country for Old Men" and "Jurassic Park". Both books were slightly, yet convincingly better, than the movies.

I can't really compare these two. Apacolypse Now is only loosely based on Heart of Darkness. They are both two of my favorites though. It's similar to "In Cold Blood" and the movie "Capote", both amazing yet not really comparable.