Movies Better Than Their Books

[WillMunny]

See, this utterly cold-blooded, jolting scene is why I kind of prefer Kubrick's The Shining over Stephen Kings. This extra "hallway scene" is pure Stanley Kubrick. When I first saw this movie as a small child myself, you can imagine how much this scene must have fucked me up.

 

[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.

 

[WillMunny]

Need I really say anything about this Kubrick scene that greatly expanded on the brief Jack/Grady conversation from the book? I've never seen a "ghost" change from a friendly, servile gentleman to an utterly cold-blooded monster in a few minutes of conversation. So perfectly.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[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.

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

It is a novella. Longer than a short story, shorter than a novel. I wouldn't be surprised if the novella is longer than the script of the movie. I've read that a movie screenplay generally goes about 1 minute per 1 page of script. The Shawshank Redemption is 142 minutes long.

It's been some years since I read the story, but I don't recall the movie being "much better fleshed out."

 

[Montrovant]

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.

 

[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.

I think I understand what you're saying, because books and movies are very different mediums of entertainment. So what works well in one may not work at all in the other.

Well that, and they have to delve more into the atmosphere and what is going on to set the tone in the book because you can't see it in pictures, they have to use words to describe it, so that is why books would be a lot more wordy than the movies.

 

[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.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I think I understand what you're saying, because books and movies are very different mediums of entertainment. So what works well in one may not work at all in the other.

Well that, and they have to delve more into the atmosphere and what is going on to set the tone in the book because you can't see it in pictures, they have to use words to describe it, so that is why books would be a lot more wordy than the movies.

On the other side, one thing that movies can't do nearly as well or frequently as books is to give the thoughts of the characters. It only works in movies in limited ways, while in books a character's thoughts and feelings can be described regularly and it is simply part of the story. I think that is a big part of why books can create so much more character depth than films, other than the obvious time constraints films have to work under.

 

[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.

I think I understand what you're saying, because books and movies are very different mediums of entertainment. So what works well in one may not work at all in the other.

Well that, and they have to delve more into the atmosphere and what is going on to set the tone in the book because you can't see it in pictures, they have to use words to describe it, so that is why books would be a lot more wordy than the movies.

On the other side, one thing that movies can't do nearly as well or frequently as books is to give the thoughts of the characters. It only works in movies in limited ways, while in books a character's thoughts and feelings can be described regularly and it is simply part of the story. I think that is a big part of why books can create so much more character depth than films, other than the obvious time constraints films have to work under.

And they describe it but you use your own imagination to create your own imagery.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

 

[Unkotare]

Movies Better Than Their Books

There are none.

Uh, I just think you need to compare more novels and their movies then. ....

I’ve compared very many. There are none.

 

[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?!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

 

[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.

What??!!??!!?? What the heck? Read it!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

What??!!??!!?? What the heck? Read it!

The book is old enough that I worry the language differences would make it difficult to really immerse myself in the story.

 

[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.

What??!!??!!?? What the heck? Read it!

The book is old enough that I worry the language differences would make it difficult to really immerse myself in the story.

Not at all. You'll love it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I generally agree with the posters in this thread in saying that the books are almost universally better than the movies based on them.

But every rule has an exception, and for me, it's "Children of Men".

The book is OK. The movie is mind blowing.

 

[rightwinger]

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

It is a novella. Longer than a short story, shorter than a novel. I wouldn't be surprised if the novella is longer than the script of the movie. I've read that a movie screenplay generally goes about 1 minute per 1 page of script. The Shawshank Redemption is 142 minutes long.

It's been some years since I read the story, but I don't recall the movie being "much better fleshed out."

I read the story about 30 years ago
It was about 100 pages

Movie was better

 

[rightwinger]

The Godfather