Famous Movies Better/Worse than Books They Were Adapted From

[ShogunRua]

For me, there are two outstanding examples;

The James Bond series- I have read every single completed Ian Fleming book and have a soft spot for them.

But there's no denying they're simplistic, fast-paced, light paperbacks that have about as much to do with actual spying as Fleming's other big hit, children's classic Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. They're silly fun. There is nothing special in them in terms of the writing, scenarios, action scenes, or ideas.

But the movies? Some of the greatest action/adventure works ever. In fact, the more the movies deviated from the source material, the better they were.. They focused way more on the humor and excitement, had a great visual presentation, better pacing, and more exciting ideas, regardless of whether they starred Connery or Moore.

I challenge anyone to read Fleming's Diamonds are Forever or Moonraker and tell me they're anywhere near as exciting or memorable as the film versions.

Brewster's Millions- Perhaps the most jarring example. There have been multiple adaptations of the original story by George Barr McCutcheon, but I am primarily talking about the 1985 version directed by Walter Hill starring Richard Pryor. The movie is a true comedy classic.

I figured perhaps much of that was adapted from the book, which I decided to read last year. Huge mistake. It's dull and predictable, without an iota of humor, but plenty of plot holes and assorted nonsense. Here is a more detailed review.

It's amazing they made such a great movie from such a lousy book.

Movies that were NOT better than books-

Gone with the Wind- Excellent movie adaptation, but doesn't even touch the book, one of the masterpieces of the 20th century. Scarlett is way more interesting, fully-realized, and impressive of a character in the original, the events and secondary characters are more deep and detailed, and the story is far more engaging. There is a level of insight and intelligence that the movie is sorely lacking, too.

The Godfather- Controversial pick, and possibly due to me reading the book first. (I had a friend who also read the book first and preferred it to Coppola's classic) The adaptation is outstanding, and very close to the novel...but the book is a pulp classic, rife with murder, excitement, and sex on top of everything the movies presented. It was just more upbeat and exciting, ultimately.

Focus- What are movies better than their book originals? Only reply if you seen and read both, and provide reasons. Mindless list topics suck.

[ehk2]

I keep a list of adaptation movies I've both seen and read: http://www.criticker.com/?fl&filter=e35641

I don't think any of these movies is better than the book. some of them comes closer, or creates their own world successfully in their own sphere more or less -in all cases I prefer the books. But I think the movie Satantango is quite a different kind of experience. Certainly, reading the book gives a more detailed explanation/feeling of a doomed world, a pessimistic view, nihilistic understanding. But the movie has the advantage of giving you the visual sense + the 'advantage' of devouring you in that 7.5 hours length with boredom and anticipation and uncertainty. The length, the long shots, black and white colours, uncut long orations, long dances add advantages to the film (though it omits some parts and dialogues of the book even in that 7.5 hours -a technically hard-to-shot ascension scene?). And also because, the book is not really about character differences or development; it is rather a doomed world, not much caring with the individuals per se. Tarr's style is perfectly suited to create that atmosphere. Another reason may be the collaboration of the writer and director in this movie as well as in other movies, I don't know that point.

[CMonster]

I think I overly like the film because I watched it at just the right place and time, but I felt Sideways was much better than the book. I read the book and found it a bit forgettable, but the acting of both Giamatti and Haden Church was pretty captivating and memorable.

On the bad side, I read a book as a kid in Montana by an author from Montana so I have a big soft spot for it even if it is only ok. The film is a cinematic abortion. They fucked the plot. The whole thing looked like shit. And the acting was awful. I present to you, Eragon.

[VinegarBob]

Where I've read a book then seen the film I usually prefer the book, because I don't have nearly as much interest in what's going to happen next as I do in why the characters are behaving the way they are - and fiction lends itself to that kind of psychological analysis much more than film.

Almost all of Stephen King's stuff is made into films and the vast majority are mediocre/bad/downright awful. I've read everything of his except a few of the more recent books and seen (too) many of the film adaptations, and I think I've figured out why this is the case: King's very good at creating believable settings and characters that are very easy to identify with, so that when those characters end up in outlandish situations we tend go with it, because everything seems so grounded in reality. Most of the film adaptations on the other hand are much more concerned with plot/gore/special effects etc. and much less with characterisation - a common failing in Hollywood, especially with regard to horror movies. It's very hard to suspend your disbelief as outlandish situations arise among characters that aren't much more than stereotypes.
The best films adapted from King's work all have one thing in common; they concentrate more on exploring the psychology and motivations of the main character(s) than the plot/special effects etc. I'm thinking of films like Kubrick's version of The Shining (which King hated), Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption and Cronenberg's version of The Dead Zone. All of which concentrate more on fleshing out convincing characters and settings than 'what happens next'.

I'm not a fan of any of the Bond movies, except Casino Royale (2006), which I think is fantastic (much better than the book, which dwelt far too much on the perfect way to make toast and other inanities and not enough on interesting situations or exciting action scenes, although it did present Bond in an atypically dim light. Campbell's version was the only 007 film up to that point in the franchise that really got the fact that Bond was a ruthless and pretty humourless bastard. Plus it's the most 'grounded in reality' Bond film, while still having a great baddie, very little 'Bond girl' nonsense, a minimum of stupid gadgets, and devotes more screen time than usual to why Bond is the way he is. Great stuff.

For my money Crash, and Naked Lunch, both directed by David Cronenberg, are great examples of how to adapt a book for the screen. I think both of these films are better than the respective books, partly because the content of the books can be too abstract or hard to follow or visualise, and partly because they stay true to the books spirit, while deviating substantially from the letter - a difficult trick to pull off, but pretty much essential for a good adaptation imo.

[kyvetti]

Whether I read the book or see the movie first possibly affects things a bit, but there's some books where I'd pick the film over the book. Like Mary Poppins or Rosemary's Baby.

I didn't like A Ghost at Noon by Moravia at all but Contempt by Godard is one of my favourite nouvelle vague films.

Controversially enough I liked LotR films better than the books: it helps that I don't particularly like the books, the movies were entertaining enough. Haven't seen Hobbit films yet, but they look like disasters while I liked the book better than LotR...

The film versions of two less successful Harry Potter books, Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows, turned out better: both could use a bit of tightening and especially Umbridge is just so much fun in the film.

I'm sitting on the fence about Zazie dans le metro.

[ShogunRua]

Whether I read the book or see the movie first possibly affects things a bit, but there's some books where I'd pick the film over the book. Like Mary Poppins or Rosemary's Baby.

Interesting. Care to elaborate why?

I though the first few Mary Poppins books by PL Travers were vastly superior to the movie. They had a subversive humor and Poppins was herself an interesting, mysterious character. The movie does away with that in favor of saccharine sweet scenes and musical numbers.

[MikeH]

It's not a particularly famous book or film, but I'd go for 'Tell No One' written by Harlan Coben and the French film version of it by Guillaume Canet.

I thought the book was excellent -- a real page-turner and great example of how to write a story that keeps you guessing and executes good plot twists. The only drawback was that the no-frills writing style (which I'm generally a fan of due to my abysmal concentration span) felt a bit clinical and you didn't feel much warmth for the characters. For me, the film then solved this because you were dealing with characters that you could see and develop more feeling and sympathy for.

I think this is a good manifestation of 'a picture paints a thousand words' -- great cinema can do what books can do in a much more economic fashion, and if it saves me having to read a 500-page book, that's a good thing for a lazy reader like me

[ShogunRua]

Almost finished with Philip K Dick's Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep?. While I won't say it's obviously better than Blade Runner, it's certainly no worse. The two entities are very different, but Dick's work is highly intelligent and presents a logical, fully-realized world, as opposed to the often random deus ex machine of the film. It also manages to be both funnier and far more depressing than the movie version. All of the characters are far more interesting. There are many fascinating elements of the world that are way cooler than anything in the movie.

The only area where I feel Blade Runner is superior is one where the book can't compete; the outstanding visual aesthetic.

[dunbar]

I don't know how far you've delved into science fiction, ShogunRua, but if you enjoyed Dick's writing you should give some of his other stories a crack. Several of them have been made into movies, most of them aren't on par with the written version (*ahem* Minority Report).

Speaking of science fiction, wasn't I, Robot a delightful romp into Asimov's world?

Rumplesink, I'm really glad you mentioned Stephen King, because he's so heavily represented that you get to see some really varied interpretations of his writing. I really liked the point you made about the better King adaptations focusing on psychology and motivations rather than mere visual glitz, I tend to agree on that one, although perhaps The Shining does a bit of both. By the way, did you see the version that King got on board with after his disgust at Kubrick's? Count yourself lucky if you haven't.

[CMonster]

I haven't seen the film version, but A Scanner Darkly is my favorite Dick novel. It's really good stuff.