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.

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

Yes, Lord of the Rings is so much better than the movies, which at best are okay. I couldn't watch them a second time, but could read the books again.

Like I said, I've read all 3 Tolkein's LOTR novels and they were very, very creative. But I also thought his novels had a lot of distracting plot clutter in them I thought was unnecessary plot-wise (like the Tom Bombadil character, who served no plot purpose of any kind). Apparently Peter Jackson agreed with me because the movies' plots felt more "cleaned up" to me, that's all. Nobody in their right mind can deny that seeing an LOTR movie on the big screen was a visceral, mental rollercoaster ride experience.

 

[WillMunny]

I've never read Frankenstein. I've seen some silly movies about Frankenstein, none that I would consider very good adaptations of the book probably though. I should read that one because I really enjoyed Dracula. That was a great book. I just saw an episode of Expedition Unknown recently and they went and visited the actual castle of Dracula (Vlad the Impaler) and talked about how Bram Stoker got a lot of his inspiration for his book by visiting the castle, talking to the locals, learning the history and the myths and legends regarding the dead and how rumors of the undead first began, and not to mention the terrible deeds of the former King of the region, Vlad Dracula. Fascinating stuff.

You’ve never read Frankenstein?!

I've never read Frankenstein. I don't know if anyone that I know has read it, either. Lots of people have not read Frankenstein.

In high school English class I remember we read Frankenstein. Then Ms. Mullins showed us the old 1930s Frankenstein movie on video. I remember liking different things about the book and movie. But I thought the Boris Karloff movie was openly scarier. BTW, Frankenstein is the name of the scientist who created the monster, not the monster himself. I'm ambivalent over whether the book or movie is better. It's apples and oranges.

 

[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.

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.

Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank redemption was a short story and the movie was much better fleshed out

I noticed the movie had more general "flare" to it than the novelette.

 

[WillMunny]

Another scene in The Shining that I think Kubrick made more weirdly creepy than King. LOL, I realize it's now my new mission here to convince USMB members that Kubrick's The Shining was more coldly morbid than Kings. It's my new holy mission in Internet life, just accept it.

The movie may have been more morbid, but I found the book more entertaining. For that matter, I thought the book was creepier, although I was pretty young when I first read it.

Oh I know the novel had a much more realistic human family drama element to it, no question of that. But I happened to enjoy its colder, blood-chilling, ghostly aspects more, which Kubrick seemed to focus on in the movie. Hauntings are more fun than Jack's inner alcohol issues, just my own taste.

 

[Unkotare]

I've never read Frankenstein. I've seen some silly movies about Frankenstein, none that I would consider very good adaptations of the book probably though. I should read that one because I really enjoyed Dracula. That was a great book. I just saw an episode of Expedition Unknown recently and they went and visited the actual castle of Dracula (Vlad the Impaler) and talked about how Bram Stoker got a lot of his inspiration for his book by visiting the castle, talking to the locals, learning the history and the myths and legends regarding the dead and how rumors of the undead first began, and not to mention the terrible deeds of the former King of the region, Vlad Dracula. Fascinating stuff.

You’ve never read Frankenstein?!

I've never read Frankenstein. I don't know if anyone that I know has read it, either. Lots of people have not read Frankenstein.

In high school English class I remember we read Frankenstein. Then Ms. Mullins showed us the old 1930s Frankenstein movie on video. I remember liking different things about the book and movie. But I thought the Boris Karloff movie was openly scarier. BTW, Frankenstein is the name of the scientist who created the monster, not the monster himself. I'm ambivalent over whether the book or movie is better. It's apples and oranges.

No, it's wagyu beef and rabbit poop.

 

[ChrisL]

I've never read Frankenstein. I've seen some silly movies about Frankenstein, none that I would consider very good adaptations of the book probably though. I should read that one because I really enjoyed Dracula. That was a great book. I just saw an episode of Expedition Unknown recently and they went and visited the actual castle of Dracula (Vlad the Impaler) and talked about how Bram Stoker got a lot of his inspiration for his book by visiting the castle, talking to the locals, learning the history and the myths and legends regarding the dead and how rumors of the undead first began, and not to mention the terrible deeds of the former King of the region, Vlad Dracula. Fascinating stuff.

You’ve never read Frankenstein?!

Hmm. I thought that is what I wrote above?

 

[bodecea]

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.

The book Jaws was a blatant rip off of Moby Dick...