Movies Better Than Their Books

[WillMunny]

Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.

The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.

Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.

Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have yet to see a movie that is better than the book it was based on.

Some movies have come very close and were very good IMO.

Stand By Me, Shawshank Redemption, were both excellent.

The Lord of the Rings movies were very good but the books were still better

 

[OldLady]

Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.

The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.

Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.

Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.

Disagree about LTR. All the movies left in was the fighting/war. All the meandering "fat" is what made them such great novels. IMO.

 

[Unkotare]

Movies Better Than Their Books

There are none.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Game of Thrones is better than A Song of Ice and Fire

 

[JoeB131]

Jaws. The book had absolutely no likable characters.. Speilberg famously said halfway through reading the book, he was rooting for the Shark. Then he took the book and made the characters people you'd want to cheer for.

The 1990 version of "A Handmaid's Tale", which was better than the crappy book by Margaret Atwood. Her book had non-linear storytelling and a protagonist you kind of didn't care about. The movie version had good performances by Robert Duvall, Faye Dunaway and Natasha Richardson.

 

[skye]

Movies Better Than Their Books

There are none.

I agree.
It's very difficult if not impossible to bring a book to life.

It can happen, but very, very rarely.

 

[ChrisL]

It depends on a lot of different things I guess. Of course they are going to have to put a lot more in a book than in a movie for imagery purposes. They have to set a tone and atmospheres and since that is done with words in a book as opposed to pictures, well, you see what I mean.

 

[OldLady]

I liked the movie Gone With The Wind better than the book.

 

[TNHarley]

my wife reads erotica
do you know where i am going with this?

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Trainspotting

The book was good, but it was so chaotic and crazy to read. It's still a good read, but the movie was much better.

 

[Montrovant]

Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.

The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.

Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.

Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.

I agree with the LoTR books. I am not a big fan of the books, but the movies were good. I disagree on the King books. The Shining was the best adaptation of a King horror novel, but the book was still better. I never read The Hellbound Heart.

I preferred the Sci-Fi miniseries of Dune to the book. Like LoTR, it is a classic book that I did not particularly enjoy.

 

[Montrovant]

Game of Thrones is better than A Song of Ice and Fire

Game of Thrones is a good show, but too much detail is left out. The books give much greater depth to the characters and story.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Game of Thrones is better than A Song of Ice and Fire

Game of Thrones is a good show, but too much detail is left out. The books give much greater depth to the characters and story.

I’ve read all the books. There are plots and characters that I just thought “whaaat does this have to do with anything.”

But it’s been years and years since I read them. I’ll go back eventually.

 

[Gracie]

Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.

The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.

Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.

Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.

The only movies that did justice to the book that I have seen are Gone With The Wind, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile that I can think of off the top of my head.

I never read LOTR books or The Hobbit, but LOVE the movies.

 

[Montrovant]

Game of Thrones is better than A Song of Ice and Fire

Game of Thrones is a good show, but too much detail is left out. The books give much greater depth to the characters and story.

I’ve read all the books. There are plots and characters that I just thought “whaaat does this have to do with anything.”

But it’s been years and years since I read them. I’ll go back eventually.

Oh, sure, there's excess.....but I prefer a bit too much going on to some of the gaps and lack of depth from Game of Thrones the show.

 

[Montrovant]

Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.

The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.

Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.

Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.

The only movies that did justice to the book that I have seen are Gone With The Wind, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile that I can think of off the top of my head.

I never read LOTR books or The Hobbit, but LOVE the movies.

I recently read The Green Mile for the first time. The movie was very true to the book (or maybe I should say books, wasn't it originally a bunch of short books?). Shawshank is one of my favorite movies, and I'd probably put it on equal footing with the book, but there's a bit more difference between them than with Green Mile. Both are definitely excellent movies.

 

[ChrisL]

Trainspotting

The book was good, but it was so chaotic and crazy to read. It's still a good read, but the movie was much better.

That was one of the weirdest movies ever! Remember the baby on the ceiling? That was really quite creepy. The toilet scene? Gross.

 

[ChrisL]

Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.

The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.

Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.

Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.

The only movies that did justice to the book that I have seen are Gone With The Wind, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile that I can think of off the top of my head.

I never read LOTR books or The Hobbit, but LOVE the movies.

I recently read The Green Mile for the first time. The movie was very true to the book (or maybe I should say books, wasn't it originally a bunch of short books?). Shawshank is one of my favorite movies, and I'd probably put it on equal footing with the book, but there's a bit more difference between them than with Green Mile. Both are definitely excellent movies.

I've never read the Shawshank Redemption but saw the movie. Good movie.

 

[Gracie]

Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.

The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.

Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.

Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.

The only movies that did justice to the book that I have seen are Gone With The Wind, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile that I can think of off the top of my head.

I never read LOTR books or The Hobbit, but LOVE the movies.

I recently read The Green Mile for the first time. The movie was very true to the book (or maybe I should say books, wasn't it originally a bunch of short books?). Shawshank is one of my favorite movies, and I'd probably put it on equal footing with the book, but there's a bit more difference between them than with Green Mile. Both are definitely excellent movies.

Shawshank was a mini novel..like The Mist...in one of Kings condensed books of short stories. Yes, both were excellent movies.