Which Films were Better Than The Books?

[Denis Hard]

We've all watched adaptations and most of the time, they're pretty disappointing. For example, the whole Twilight franchise was atrocious.

However, there are a few movies that get to be better than the books. For me one of those movies has got be The Lord Of The Rings. Tolkien was rather ponderous [with his prose] but the guys who wrote the script went right to the heart of the story without meandering about.

Any other movies you think were better than the books?

 

[Sarah676]

I completely agree about Lord of the Rings. I tried reading the books and didn't really enjoy them, but the movies were absolutely amazing. Another movie I enjoyed a lot more than the book was the Shawshank Redemption.

On the other hand, I've been a huge fan of the Harry Potter books since I was a little kid, but the movies were completely terrible. It was like they just took random scenes from the books and arranged them in a random order, without caring about whether they included all the information necessary for the story to actually make sense.

 

[Denis Hard]

That's the bad thing about adaptations. It's hard to successfully write a great script from a great book because they have to cut out a lot of the good stuff. Most adaptations just fail to live up to the expectations of the target audience.

 

[Vajk]

The Green Mile. I don't know, I read the book(s) first and while they were good, they just didn't give me that internal implosion of emotions. The movie did. The actors did a fantastic job and I was thinking about the plot for days after I saw the movie.

 

[kaiuk]

I read forest gump although i don't know which came out first. The film was good but the book was a little far fetched. Agree with Lord of the rings but the books were great though. I read the whole lot which took AGES, but well worth it. Have to say i probably wouldn't have bothered with the books if i saw the film first. All 3 were amazing, but the hobbit film was a let down, book was great though..

 

[AUFred]

Lord of The Rings I was really disappointed in the last film of the series. It really did not follow the book as closely as I would have liked.

The case of a film being better than the book was "Big Fish" as adapted by Timothy Burton v. the book. The movie was filmed locally here so I had a real interest in it when it came out.

 

[ajdunn]

I read forest gump although i don't know which came out first. The film was good but the book was a little far fetched. Agree with Lord of the rings but the books were great though. I read the whole lot which took AGES, but well worth it. Have to say i probably wouldn't have bothered with the books if i saw the film first. All 3 were amazing, but the hobbit film was a let down, book was great though..

I was going to nominate Forrest Gump, too. The film was fantastical, but the book was ridiculous... he even went into space IIRC.

 

[pandandesign]

I would say the Twilight movies are better than the books. I have heard a lot of people prefer the books over the films, but I think the characters have done a great job playing their roles in the movies. Bella and Jacob have really put a lot of efforts onto the acting. I think the scenes in the movies are beautiful!

 

[Taraa]

I agree about the Lord of the Ring movies. I thought that they were excellent. It's easier to think of movies that didn't live up to the books than the other way around.

Now that I think about it, The Dead Zone was a great movie. The book was good, but the movie was great because of the acting skills of Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen.

 

[skeeterblood]

I thought "Fight Club" was a better movie than the book. There was nothing wrong with the book, but the movie put the words in front of our faces and changed the way people looked at the book. That rarely happens.

 

[BioLee]

Definitely the movie The Mist even the author agrees that movie was great and completely agreed with the changes they made. And that ending.. wow how can you even react too something like that.

You can check it here but well be warned.. spoilers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_b5mEFiFEs#t=58

 

[MindyT]

I cannot think of any movie that was better than the book! I am old-fashioned I guess. I would rather read the book than watch the movie. When I picture the characters in a certain way as I am reading the book, I usually become very disappointed in the movie.

I thought the producers of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter did a good job; I just like the books better.

 

[writeletters]

I actually haven't seen any movies of books that I found better than the originals. I think there may be one coming up though: Divergent. I thought the books weren't as good as they could have been, but the idea behind was quite interesting. Maybe the movie will be better.

 

[BioLee]

Just thought about other one " Fight Club", it's one best movies of all time and the book just doesn't do it for me. The impact the movie made on me was way bigger than the book.

 

[bethielol]

I have to agree with "Fight Club." I did see the movie first, so when the book didn't quite match up to it in terms of everything happening the same way and at the same time, it just soured me on the book. I do love Chuck Palahniuk and was disappointed that "Choke" wasn't quite as good as the book. But with Fight Club, it was all about putting a face to the names, and the casting was brilliant for the movie. I can't imagine a better Tyler Durden than Brad Pitt.

 

[Annetteb]

I think Interview With A Vampire was better than the book. I read the book before I saw the movie and I was happy when they said that Anne Rice was doing the screenplay. I think that that was the reason why the movie was so good. I didn't like Queen of the Damned because it was totally different from the book. I wish Anne Rice had done the screenplay for that movie as well. I think it would have been a lot better. I think that if they can get the author of the book to write the screenplay then the movie adaptations would be a whole lot better.