Movies better than the books

[sbk1234]

It's generally accepted that when filmmakers make a version of a book into a film, the book version is usually superior. This is for a number of reasons that don't really need to be discussed, such as feasability of special effects, budgets, etc. That's not what I'm talking about.
I have read a few books that were not as good as the movies they were made into.
For me, the original Planet of the Apes was much better than the Pierre Boulle novel. I found that it was much more relevant and powerful than the book. Just my opinion, you don't have to agree with me.
Another was Logan's Run. I thought the book was just "eh." But the movie was still pretty darn good.

How about you? What films have you seen that were superior to their source books?

 

[sidious618]

The Lord of the Rings. Loved the movies yet I despised the book.

 

[EnsignRicky]

The following were without a doubt great books, but in my opinion the movies simply took the material to a whole new level. In no particular order:

Jaws
The Lord Of The Rings
The Godfather
Silence Of The Lambs
Forrest Gump
Jurassic Park
Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep
Who Censored Roger Rabbit (Not a great movie, but that book really sucked)

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

The Princess Bride

 

[Mistral]

The World According to Garp-the casting and the movie script burnt the novel.

 

[Rii]

Starship Troopers.

The film is atrocious as a translation of the novel, missing the mark on nearly every conceivable level, but it works better as a satire of jingoistic militarism than the novel does as an exploration of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I couldn't say Lord Of The Rings as I love both, and they're both ideal for their different media- the books are heavily dependent of play of language, and the movies are visually poetic

So, my choices:

The Big Sleep - the book is great (though Farewell My Lovely is my favourite Chandler), but the Bogart movie, though otherwise faithful, has a better ending.

Jaws - The movie is just better in all ways

Goldfinger- The movie fills in a number of huge plot holes, including dispensing with the idea that Goldfinger would hire Bond as a secretary after catching him.

The Howling- Way more fun than the book

The Sum Of All Fears - a weak Jack Ryan thriller, but still better than the book, which is easily Clancy's worst, having 500 pages of technobablle about how nukes work, then 150 pages of actual plot...

Nothing Lasts Forever - Not as good as the previous book, The Detective, and far better as a movie under the better known title: Die Hard.

58 Minutes - Likewise, Die Hard 2 is just much more fun and exciting.

Finally, a TV example- Doctor Who: Human Nature - The TV version is even better, cos at least it has a decent Doctor in it...

 

[Starbreaker]

Contact
The Prestige

 

[Stevil2001]

For me, the original Planet of the Apes was much better than the Pierre Boulle novel. I found that it was much more relevant and powerful than the book. Just my opinion, you don't have to agree with me.

That is exactly what I thought of as soon as I read the thread title. Pierre Boulle was very good at making books that got turned into better movies, since he also did The Bridge over the River Kwai, which is a so-so book but one of the greatest movies ever, of course.

 

[Paul]

The Shawshank Redemption
Atonement

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The Sum Of All Fears - a weak Jack Ryan thriller, but still better than the book, which is easily Clancy's worst, having 500 pages of technobablle about how nukes work, then 150 pages of actual plot...

I would have liked it a lot better if the studio hadn't been so cravenly PC as to change the bad guys to European Neo-Nazis...

 

[stj]

Robert Heinlein's Puppet Masters. The book is a mess and the movie is much better written.

 

[Mysterion]

Starship Troopers.

The film is atrocious as a translation of the novel, missing the mark on nearly every conceivable level, but it works better as a satire of jingoistic militarism than the novel does as an exploration of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

That film is an abomination unto everything that was good about Heinlein's writing. It is a clumsy, heavy-handed anti-nazi screed by Verhoeven. And that would have been just fine if it had another title.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I predict the definitive answer will shortly become... WATCHMEN. (Runs out room covering head and ducking for cover, while shouting "joking, joking")

 

[Aquehonga]

For me, the original Planet of the Apes was much better than the Pierre Boulle novel. I found that it was much more relevant and powerful than the book. Just my opinion, you don't have to agree with me.

That is exactly what I thought of as soon as I read the thread title.

And me too! That makes 2 of us.

PB's original novel VS the Rod Serling written film? The winner is Rod Serling's adaptation. Hands down,

That makes 3 of us then yes?

Another example is George R.R. Martin's SANDKINGS.

The TV adaptation {same name as the story its based on} made as the pilot for the 1990's reboot of The OUTER LIMITS is superior to Martin's original story. At least IMO.

I found the novel The Return of the King much better than the film adaptation.

They left alot out including what would've been great hilarious dialogue between Brad Dourif's Wormtongue & Christopher Lee's Sauron or was it Sauromon? I was & am still disappointed about that.

I read the book almost a YEAR before TROTK came out.

 

[Colin Xavier]

A recent example for me is "Prince Caspian" movie. The additions to the film made the story work better.

 

[Thrall]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Yes I said it. The Graphic Novel is one of the most creative, clever, intelligent, well-written, well-researched, and innovative pieces of shit I have ever read. The subject matter is beyond repulsive. It's for the Classical Literature major who also loves weird, deviant sex and extreme violence porn. Somehow I doubt Robert Louis Stevenson or Jules Verne would approve of their characters being forced to participate in such a story.

The movie is stupid fluff and nothing more. But it's way more fun then having to put up with Alan Moore's violence and sex fixations. Hey, I'm all for sex and violence so long as it's fun. But the crap in the book is just a weird old pervert venting in creative ways.

 

[Sakrysta]

I'll second the nomination of The Princess Bride.

I'll add The Neverending Story. I suspect my bias is at least partially informed by the fact that I loved the movie from childhood, and didn't read the book until I was in college. But I was sorely disappointed in the book's Bastian - what a nasty little brat! - as opposed to the movie's Bastian, whom as a fellow bookworm / social outcast I could relate to.

 

[Harvey]

The Godfather is the easiest example. The scripts (including the flashback material from Part Two) cut out everything that was absolutely atrocious in the novel and par it down to the essentials.

 

[Kelso]

PB's original novel VS the Rod Serling written film? The winner is Rod Serling's adaptation. Hands down,

Have you read the Serling draft or are you referring to Michael Wilson's draft (which was filmed)?