Search found 1 match: Ian Fleming

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.