Films better than books

enko · Post by **enko** » September 11th, 2013, 11:42 am

What films do you consider to be better than the books they were based on. It is not necessary that the films be taken from only public domain books. They could be more modern books.

The only one that I can think of now is the 1922 German film "Nosferatu" by Murnau which was an unauthorized adaptation of "Dracula" by Bram Stoker.

More information on Nosferatu here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu

Lucy_k_p · Post by **Lucy_k_p** » September 11th, 2013, 1:04 pm

It's not a film, but the TV series Dexter (At least the first season) was a lot better than the book. I watched the TV Series and really liked it, but when I tried picking up the book I couldn't get through it. The writing overall was poor, and the secondary characters were not developed at all, whereas the series fleshed them out and gave them things to do.

Hobbit · Post by **Hobbit** » September 11th, 2013, 2:17 pm

Though I wouldn't go so far as to say that the film is overall better than the book, there are aspects of the storytelling in the new movie version of The Great Gatsby that I prefer to the book.

gypsygirl · Post by **gypsygirl** » September 11th, 2013, 2:29 pm

I prefer the film adaptation of The Princess Bride to the book.

Kyriosity · Post by **Kyriosity** » September 11th, 2013, 9:27 pm

One of my favorite films is The Heiress. I went back and read Henry James's Washington Square, on which it is based, and didn't like it nearly as much.

The TV adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford beats the book hands down.

I'm not a huge fan of most Disney movies because they take too much liberty with the source material, but Mary Poppins on screen is fun; on paper she's just weird.

~Valerie

gypsygirl · Post by **gypsygirl** » September 12th, 2013, 2:38 am

Kyriosity wrote:The TV adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford beats the book hands down.

The recent one with Judi Dench? I liked it a lot. It combines two or three of Gaskell's books, doesn't it? (I've not read any Gaskell)

Kyriosity · Post by **Kyriosity** » September 12th, 2013, 2:40 am

Yes, I believe it combines two or three. I've only listened to one, and it was...lacking.

~Valerie

Mike001 · Post by **Mike001** » September 12th, 2013, 9:19 am

enko wrote:What films do you consider to be better than the books they were based on.

I don't know about "better" but I think equally as good as the book is the film Hombre.

Elmore Leonard seems a pretty good writer, although I haven't read much of his stuff. I didn't come across this short story until years after I'd seen the film. That probably helped me to see the film with clear eyes. If one already knows a book, the divergences (necessary or not) tend to stand out and put one off.

The film strikes me as an intelligent adaptation that changes the story and characters in ways that work well with the different medium and that compress for the shorter time well.

It's quite a moving film. Effectively, Paul Newman's character agrees to die, because he must to do what seems right, and also to please Diane Cilento's. She has the moral force to ask for that, and he the character (in the other sense) to respond. That's how I remember it. The book is rather different, but the film works.

Hobbit · Post by **Hobbit** » September 12th, 2013, 2:44 pm

gypsygirl wrote:I prefer the film adaptation of The Princess Bride to the book.

Oh, forgot that one. Ditto!

oofw · Post by **oofw** » September 12th, 2013, 7:13 pm

hi yall
woof here

i havent actually finished reading it but i'm pretty sure for "no country for old men" the movie is better than the book!

they seem to be trying to adapt more of cormac mccarthy's books... he seems really popular in hollywood right now! james franco is tryna adapt "blood meridian"... i doubt the movie would be better than the book in that case!

i havent read "the shining" by steven king but the movie seems to be pretty good.
the "god father" was based on a book too i think ?

i think for most adaptations the books are usually better (for example harry potter)! yall probably dont follow anime/manga much but i notice the animes are usually better than the mangas they're based on (opposite of how it's like in holly wood). it's kinda like toilets flushing the other direction in the east eh ? ? ? ? ?

thank you

Timothy Ferguson · September 15th, 2013, 7:17 am

The later Harry Potters. I thought they needed a hard edit, and in Goblet of Fire, the film, they received it.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (first version): Charlie wins by a positive action, not just being passive while the rest of the children destroy themselves.

fiddlesticks · Post by **fiddlesticks** » September 16th, 2013, 10:00 am

Kyriosity wrote:but Mary Poppins on screen is fun; on paper she's just weird.

I definitely agree with that! I did not even finish the book, only read...maybe half of it. but I used to watch the movie over and over with my brothers

Monaxi · Post by **Monaxi** » September 16th, 2013, 6:53 pm

Field of Dreams - I loved the movie, but was disappointed with the book.

Hazel Pethig · Post by **Hazel Pethig** » September 18th, 2013, 2:29 pm

The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

While the movie was great, nothing can come close to the book. Douglas Adams had such a unique way of thinking that no one can come imitate to his impressive talent. All 5 books of the trilogy are great, but nothing comes close to the first one.

enko · Post by **enko** » September 18th, 2013, 11:06 pm

Hazel Pethig wrote:The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

While the movie was great, nothing can come close to the book. Douglas Adams had such a unique way of thinking that no one can come imitate to his impressive talent. All 5 books of the trilogy are great, but nothing comes close to the first one.

Err.. Hazel. The thread is about movies being better than the books they were based on. Not the contrary.