Movie adaptations better than the book

[Hanley!]

Just look at all these topics. Do you love me now, Tim?!

After ripping on the terrible adaptation of The Beach in a thread recently, I thought I'd try to be a bit more optimistic and ask people what films did you find better than their original source material. I definitely have a few, though it does tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

V For Vendetta: Honestly, I loved both the graphic novel and the movie, but I loved how the movie updated it for a more modern audience and made the theme's relevant to the current day. It was just very smartly done and the script was really tight. Slight improvement over the original.

American Psycho: I can't fairly judge this one, I guess, given that I never read the book. I tried to read the book though. It was just so weirdly inaccessible that I put it down very quickly. The movie is a blast though.

Lord of the Rings, Movies 1 & 2: I didn't love the last Lord of the Rings movie, I thought it was a bit overrated. But I really enjoyed the first two films. So much so that I found I preferred them to the books. Tolkien had a real talent for world building without a shadow of a doubt, but I always kinda hated his prose. His style of writing wasn't very engaging.

[JDD]

I agree with V for Vendetta, although the graphic novel is fantastic. Another one is Perks of Being a Wallflower. I absolutley love the book, but the movie did it better. The film just edges out the book for me.

[Hanley!]

I agree with V for Vendetta, although the graphic novel is fantastic. Another one is Perks of Being a Wallflower. I absolutley love the book, but the movie did it better. The film just edges out the book for me.

I love the film, but I haven't read the novel yet. I actually bought it a week ago and I'm going to read it after I finish my exam in November. I wouldn't be surprised if the film was better though, because it was just really good.

Interestingly, the screenplay was actually written by the author too. So it was definitely true to his vision.

[JDD]

I agree with V for Vendetta, although the graphic novel is fantastic. Another one is Perks of Being a Wallflower. I absolutley love the book, but the movie did it better. The film just edges out the book for me.

I love the film, but I haven't read the novel yet. I actually bought it a week ago and I'm going to read it after I finish my exam in November. I wouldn't be surprised if the film was better though, because it was just really good.

Interestingly, the screenplay was actually written by the author too. So it was definitely true to his vision.

The novel is great as well in my opinion. One of the few times a novel and it's adaptation are both fantastic.

I agree with V for Vendetta, although the graphic novel is fantastic. Another one is Perks of Being a Wallflower. I absolutley love the book, but the movie did it better. The film just edges out the book for me.

I love the film, but I haven't read the novel yet. I actually bought it a week ago and I'm going to read it after I finish my exam in November. I wouldn't be surprised if the film was better though, because it was just really good.

Interestingly, the screenplay was actually written by the author too. So it was definitely true to his vision.

Chobsky both wrote and directed the film so yeah it was definatley true to the book, and explains why alot of people love both equally.

[DanielsonTHAGOAT]

I'd say Shawshank Redemption and The Shining are no brainers for films better than their books (or short story in this case).

[SortaCreative]

You know I would probably agree with the Lord of the Rings looking back at them now.

The books are good but they're a difficult read, the films really streamline everything and cut some fat and tell the story in a way that makes sense.

[Everlong]

The books are good but they're a difficult read, the films really streamline everything and cut some fat and tell the story in a way that makes sense.

Kind of funny how The Hobbit movies wound up being the complete opposite in pretty much every sense of this

The easy answer here is always The Godfather, the book is actually kind of a mess and the movie is one of the greatest of all time.

[Kirbi]

I'd say Fight Club the movie definitely has the edge over the book - it's a little less juvenile (for lack of a better word), and the ending is tighter.

The book's still worth a look, though.

[PorkChop]

I'd say Fight Club the movie definitely has the edge over the book - it's a little less juvenile (for lack of a better word), and the ending is tighter.

The book's still worth a look, though.

I enjoyed the book, though I see what you mean when you say it's juvenile - it's a very easy read, mostly very short and simple sentences.

[SortaCreative]

The books are good but they're a difficult read, the films really streamline everything and cut some fat and tell the story in a way that makes sense.

Kind of funny how The Hobbit movies wound up being the complete opposite in pretty much every sense of this

thats cos the films aren't just based on the books. something which people don't quite grasp

[Everlong]

thats cos the films aren't just based on the books. something which people don't quite grasp

Right well, they still suck.

[SortaCreative]

thats cos the films aren't just based on the books. something which people don't quite grasp

Right well, they still suck.

well that's okay. you may not like them, a lot of people dont.

it's just the whole "LOL HOOBIT IS ONE BOOK THO" argument hurts my brain.

[Hanley!]

It is one book though.

Fair enough, they did use some stuff from some of his other works that nobody cares about. But that doesn't make the complaint any less valid. People watching a movie of the Hobbit mostly want the story that they know from the book.

[SortaCreative]

It is one book though.

Fair enough, they did use some stuff from some of his other works that nobody cares about. But that doesn't make the complaint any less valid. People watching a movie of the Hobbit mostly want the story that they know from the book.

and they get it, it's not like it's not telling the story from the Hobbit.

[prophet]

Did anyone else other than me (and Taj?) enjoy both Hobbit films and are looking forward to the last one?

[Kirbi]

It is one book though.

Fair enough, they did use some stuff from some of his other works that nobody cares about. But that doesn't make the complaint any less valid. People watching a movie of the Hobbit mostly want the story that they know from the book.

and they get it, it's not like it's not telling the story from the Hobbit.

And if Gossip Girl was only pretty clothes instead of pretty clothes and facile drama, I might watch it.

[Matteo]

Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker. It was loosely based on Roadside Picnic by Arkadi Strugatsky and Boris Strugatsky who also authored the screenplay, but the film is considerably, considerably better. It's much more philosophical and existential in its approach, and has an extremely looser narrative at its core. But this is what cinematic adaptations should be like in some respects - Tarkovsky created a visual experience. A highly hypnotic, immersive experience, might I add, which had to be felt before being understood. It's certainly difficult to compare the two, but Stalker managed to adopt the general premise of the original source material and then take it in its own direction. I find that some adaptations try to be too 'adaptive', and this consequently engenders a sense of restriction, especially when writing the screenplay and flashing out narrative and characters.

That's why I admire what Paul Thomas Anderson did with Oil! - he adapted the first 150 pages of the book and then saw a perfect opportunity to branch out, artistically, in a different direction, and the final results were staggeringly good. There's nothing wrong with occasionally saying 'fuck you' to the text you're adapting and taking matters into your own hands if you feel you have genuinely good artistic intent.

Another would also be A Clockwork Orange. The text is an ambitious work, but surely does demand a lot from its readers. It just felt a little too excessive and impenetrable on the whole. It was hard to engage with, and Kubrick's film managed to bring - what is a fairly intricate and inaccessible work - alive, and the final result is, of course, masterful. Perhaps this is because I prefer the medium of filmmaking to writing, but the text was something I admired more than I loved. On a side note, I'm gutted Kubrick never managed to get the most out of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Censorship at the time was very restrictive and the subjects explored in the book were simply too taboo and off limits to explore visually. The film is still excellent, don't get me wrong, but a lot had to be 'implied' and often avoided and this just ultimately became a detriment. Nabokov's work was just incredibly descriptive and tragic storytelling, and if Kubrick had the artistic flexibility to really pursue it, then I'm sure it would have been a truly masterful film.

[Chewy]

Just look at all these topics. Do you love me now, Tim?!

American Psycho: I can't fairly judge this one, I guess, given that I never read the book. I tried to read the book though. It was just so weirdly inaccessible that I put it down very quickly. The movie is a blast though.

The book is better, there's way more murders for one and the descriptions are just delicious.

The movie misses awesome bits like the cannibalism, the Spam scene, the tube, cheese and hungry rat.

I mean even the first bit with the beggar is wrong. He is supposed to stab the guy in the eye not the torso and the result is supposed to be eye goo all over the sidewalk.

Mary Harron is a hippy. Should have been directed by Paul Verhoeven.

[KaiserGlider]

Did anyone else other than me (and Taj?) enjoy both Hobbit films and are looking forward to the last one?

I did.

[Daz]

Did anyone else other than me (and Taj?) enjoy both Hobbit films and are looking forward to the last one?

I did.

Daz too.