Support NeoGAF

[German Hops]

Many novel-based movies have failed to properly bring good books to life on the screen; a good example, at least in my opinion, is the Great Gatsby.. There have been many others, but this complaint is too easy because it's hard to take a book and condense it onto film without losing much of what made the book good.

However, there have been times when the movie has been better than the book it is based on, sometimes far better. My example would be The Godfather; an okay book, but an instant classic as a movie.

What are your favorite examples of the okay book - great movie?

 

[Cunth]

Arguably Blade Runner

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Arguably Blade Runner

Wow, nailed it with the first reply.

add/edit: and if we were to stay in PKD territory, Total Recall's and Minority Report's movie adaptations were a lot better than the short stories they are based on. Which are not that remarkable compared to some other of his works.

And I am saying this with PKD (along with Jack Vance) as being my favourite fiction author.

 

[mcz117chief]

Dune for me, I love Lynch's style of cinema.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Forrest Gump from what I've heard is vastly better than the book.

 

[Peggies]

Jaws! Great movie, mediocre book with an utterly useless lovestory in it.

 

[IDKFA]

Godfather.

Couldn't get on with the novel, but the film is one of the GOAT films of history.

 

[Elpidio Valdés]

The Da Vinci Code movie is incredibly faithful to the book. So I would say it's at least as good as Dan's book, if not better. Tom Hanks is just too good.

 

[slugbahr]

The Running Man

 

[Spaceman292]

Lord of the Rings dont @ me

 

[GreyHorace]

However, there have been times when the movie has been better than the book it is based on, sometimes far better. My example would be The Godfather; an okay book, but an instant classic as a movie.

Godfather.

Couldn't get on with the novel, but the film is one of the GOAT films of history.

Yeah. This has always been the consensus from what I've read. Francis Ford Coppola took what was essentially a potboiler novel and turned it into a really good movie. Though my mom insists the book was better.

Lord of the Rings dont @ me

I'm probably one of the biggest LOTR fans out there but I do agree with you after a fashion. Tolkien's novel is a classic but goddamn does it take forever for the plot to get rolling, especially in The Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson's film version of Fellowship does away with a lot of the filler and focuses solely on the main plot and quickens the pacing. It makes for a much more enjoyable experience without ripping out the soul of Tolkien's story. It's only with The Two Towers and Return of the King does Jackson stumble somewhat with the adaptation, which is why I think the book is still better. But what he did with Fellowship was fantastic.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

I just remembered my biggest movie>>>>>book experience ever..

I really loved the movie. Watched it two times in cinema and a few times at home.
Bought the book, and couldn't even finish it.

It's so fucking boring, and instead of a tragic love story it's mainly about an indian dude disarming bombs.

 

[IDKFA]

Lord of the Rings dont @ me

Heresy!

 

[AV]

A Clockwork Orange
I really like the book too, but you get everything you need from the movie without having to constantly figure out what exactly is being said. The gang speaks in "nadsat" which is a fictional Russian-English dialect, like "slooshying" in place of listening or "devotchka" for "young woman". The film makes it far easier to understand what exactly Alex is talking about at the time, although to be honest after a few chapters it does come more naturally, and it's only a short book. Also, the movie doesn't contain the epilogue which is frankly a bit of a wet fart thematically compared to the rest of the novel.

American Psycho
The entire point of this novel is that it's a slog. It's pages and pages of banal drudgery as Batman describes every single little facet of his fake existence, interspliced with brief moments of really shocking violence and sex. The book is way more graphic than the movie, so it wins points there, but you really have to wade through pages and pages of nothing to get there. If I remember correctly there's an entire chapter which is just an album review. The movies does a way better job of juxtaposing Bateman's regular life with his psychotic episodes while still being entertaining.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Arguably Blade Runner

Agreed. Granted the movie is pretty different.

 

[GamingKaiju]

The Mist.

I read the book and throughly enjoyed it but the ending of the movie just leaves you in a wtf state.
Even Stephen King loved the ending and regretted not doing that him self, Frank Darabont did his own thing with the movie and the cast did amazing job.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

The Shawshank redemption. Good novella. Fantastic movie.

Jurassic Park. Crichton basically never wrote a bad book, but the movie takes away all of Crichton’s usual infodumps and musings and just concentrates on telling an interesting story with good characters and, well... fucking dinosaurs. Genderswapping the kids was also a stroke of genius. Incredible how much The Lost World sucks after this.

 

[Jaxx_377]

I love Kings books and most of the movies were meh but both The Shawank Redemption and The Shining were better movies but mostly due to the performances.

 

[plushyp]

Drive (2011) and The Prestige (2006) were so much better than the books that they were adapted from. Took all the strengths and cut out the weaknesses.

 

[Spaceman292]

Yeah. This has always been the consensus from what I've read. Francis Ford Coppola took what was essentially a potboiler novel and turned it into a really good movie. Though my mom insists the book was better.



I'm probably one of the biggest LOTR fans out there but I do agree with you after a fashion. Tolkien's novel is a classic but goddamn does it take forever for the plot to get rolling, especially in The Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson's film version of Fellowship does away with a lot of the filler and focuses solely on the main plot and quickens the pacing. It makes for a much more enjoyable experience without ripping out the soul of Tolkien's story. It's only with The Two Towers and Return of the King does Jackson stumble somewhat with the adaptation, which is why I think the book is still better. But what he did with Fellowship was fantastic.

Exactly. Although I would say that it's the exact opposite in regards to The Hobbit. The book shits all over those horrible movies.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

The Running Man

Yep. The book has a neat idea but it's nowhere near the movie. Arnold really brought that movie to another level.

 

[MudoSkills]

I love Kings books and most of the movies were meh but both The Shawank Redemption and The Shining were better movies but mostly due to the performances.

Strongly disagree with The Shining. Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery and Kubrick having a good eye for carpets doesn't make up for the huge amount it drops from the book.

 

[GreyHorace]

Exactly. Although I would say that it's the exact opposite in regards to The Hobbit. The book shits all over those horrible movies.

The Hobbit trilogy is a perfect example of adding too much excess baggage to what is essentially a simple story. It's about a Hobbit and a company of Dwarves journeying to a mountain to kill a Dragon. Along the way they encounter many travails and dangers but ultimately succeed in their quest. It's not an epic narrative so it didn't need all these multiple subplots just to fill out three movies.

I don't think the movies are that bad as they did have some good stuff (like the perfect casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo). But I really wish they kept the 2 movie structure that Guillermo Del Toro had planned and kept the focus on Bilbo and the Dwarves.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

The Hobbit trilogy is a perfect example of adding too much excess baggage to what is essentially a simple story. It's about a Hobbit and a company of Dwarves journeying to a mountain to kill a Dragon. Along the way they encounter many travails and dangers but ultimately succeed in their quest. It's not an epic narrative so it didn't need all these multiple subplots just to fill out three movies.

I don't think the movies are that bad as they did have some good stuff (like the perfect casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo). But I really wish they kept the 2 movie structure that Guillermo Del Toro had planned and kept the focus on Bilbo and the Dwarves.

The Hobbit movies are the perfect example of studio greed. They were following a trend of milking known money makers. The last fucking Twilight book got split into two movies for Christ's sake. I think the Hobbit movies are perfectly fine for what it's worth. I was just happy to go back into that world again.

2001: A Space Oddessy is interesting to look at. I know the movie came first and Arthur C Clarke made a great adaptation and expanded upon it with sequels. The movie is damn near perfect for me but I do like the book a lot.

 

[Ornlu]

Starship Troopers the movie is completely different from the book. A campy action movie that's a great watch. I don't think a movie faithfully adapted from the book would have worked well, even if it was well executed.

Starship Troopers the book is a great read. A philosophy lesson with a military story tagged on.

-----------------

Ender's Game is better on film than on paper. The reveal is executed well, and the special effects were very well done. Mostly faithful adaptation.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

The Hobbit trilogy is a perfect example of adding too much excess baggage to what is essentially a simple story. It's about a Hobbit and a company of Dwarves journeying to a mountain to kill a Dragon. Along the way they encounter many travails and dangers but ultimately succeed in their quest. It's not an epic narrative so it didn't need all these multiple subplots just to fill out three movies.

I don't think the movies are that bad as they did have some good stuff (like the perfect casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo). But I really wish they kept the 2 movie structure that Guillermo Del Toro had planned and kept the focus on Bilbo and the Dwarves.

These movies should have never been a "prequel" to the old LotR movies first off. What a horrible idea.
The whole tone of the Hobbit book is so different to the LotR books.

It's a simple children's book. A lot more fairy tale'ish.
I'd even say they could have done it in one movie.

I would not want to watch these movies with my kids, with all the brutality and desperate feeling going on in them.

These movies are a complete and utter fail.

 

[Husky]

The Double (2013), based on The Double (1846)--which I first watched when I meant to see Enemy (2013), based on The Double (2002), and which released a day after The Double (2013) and at the same film festival--was leagues better than the original novella. The novella's pretty popularly disliked, and even Dostoevsky acknowledged his failures in writing it. The film's fucking excellent.

 

[GreyHorace]

These movies should have never been a "prequel" to the old LotR movies first off. What a horrible idea.
The whole tone of the Hobbit book is so different to the LotR books.

It's a simple children's book. A lot more fairy tale'ish.
I'd even say they could have done it in one movie.

I would not want to watch these movies with my kids, with all the brutality and desperate feeling going on in them.

These movies are a complete and utter fail.

Yes I agree. The scenes they did which tied directly to the LOTR trilogy were some of the worse (particularly with Legolas). We didn't need a subplot of the White Council hunting down the Necromancer (i.e. Sauron) bogging down the proceedings (although I thought the scene where the Council faced off against Sauron and the Nazgul was pretty cool). And we certainly didn't need that abomination Azog to be the main villain. The main villain of The Hobbit was always Smaug the dragon and should have stayed that way.

 

[sol_bad]

I read it a long time ago but I did not like the Silence of the Lambs novel. Was quite boring.

 

[Rubik8]

The Shining. People get mad about this one, but I’m right.

 

[kraspkibble]

one flew over the cuckoos nest.

 

[Jaxx_377]

Strongly disagree with The Shining. Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery and Kubrick having a good eye for carpets doesn't make up for the huge amount it drops from the book.

When I first saw the shining I was 9 years old and it just stuck with me. I didnt read the book until years later and it could just be that the movie was one of the first real scary movies I saw at a young age that the book could hold up to me remembering back when I was 9. I will always now read a book first if I get the chance

 

[Rayven_king]

Kick-Ass was way better than the source material

 

[Scotty W]

2001: A Space Oddessy is interesting to look at. I know the movie came first and Arthur C Clarke made a great adaptation and expanded upon it with sequels. The movie is damn near perfect for me but I do like the book a lot.

I recall reading an interview with Clarke where he said that they were written together, but that the Novel should be credited to Clarke and Kubrick, while the Film should be credited to Kubrick and Clarke.

Also, Starship Troopers.

 

[nkarafo]

How about The Excorsist?

 

[Stouffers]

The Shining
Garfield At Large

 

[Nymphae]

Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park. Crichton basically never wrote a bad book, but the movie takes away all of Crichton’s usual infodumps and musings and just concentrates on telling an interesting story with good characters and, well... fucking dinosaurs. Genderswapping the kids was also a stroke of genius. Incredible how much The Lost World sucks after this.

Yes exactly

 

[diffusionx]

Forrest Gump from what I've heard is vastly better than the book.

It is, the book is really bad.

I'm probably one of the biggest LOTR fans out there but I do agree with you after a fashion. Tolkien's novel is a classic but goddamn does it take forever for the plot to get rolling, especially in The Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson's film version of Fellowship does away with a lot of the filler and focuses solely on the main plot and quickens the pacing. It makes for a much more enjoyable experience without ripping out the soul of Tolkien's story. It's only with The Two Towers and Return of the King does Jackson stumble somewhat with the adaptation, which is why I think the book is still better. But what he did with Fellowship was fantastic.

Speaking as someone who just read FOTR and watched the movie again, I don't agree, although it's as good an adaptation as there can be. But I think the filler is really important in terms of setting place, showing how the past meets the present, navigation of a long-dead world and ancient ruins like Dark Souls, etc. I think it also messes up the ending slightly, although it is understandable since they incorporated bits from TTT to make it into a complete movie.

I can also see, though, how it can be a bit tedious if you've read the book a bunch of times. I last read it over 10 years ago so it was some fresh eyes.

 

[Birdo]

Most Steven King stuff. His ideas are good, but other people improve them.

Stand By Me.
Christine.
The Shining.
The Shawshank Redemption.
The Running Man.

 

[BigBooper]

The Watchmen. All these nerds saying they couldn't make a good movie about the book and I'm just thinking about flying squid monsters.

 

[Rentahamster]

I hear Fight Club was better.

I preferred JP the book.

 

[GreyHorace]

Speaking as someone who just read FOTR and watched the movie again, I don't agree, although it's as good an adaptation as there can be. But I think the filler is really important in terms of setting place, showing how the past meets the present, navigation of a long-dead world and ancient ruins like Dark Souls, etc. I think it also messes up the ending slightly, although it is understandable since they incorporated bits from TTT to make it into a complete movie.

I can also see, though, how it can be a bit tedious if you've read the book a bunch of times. I last read it over 10 years ago so it was some fresh eyes.

Let's just agree to disagree. Regarding the filler in Fellowship, I'm indifferent to the detour Tom Bombadil's house but he's certainly a interesting character that Tolkien created. The encounter with the Barrow Wights however was great and really creepy. It's one of the few instances that showed how good Tolkien was when writing horror.

Yet I'm glad that Peter Jackson chose to cut those scenes because it would have added to the run time of an almost 3 hour movie. Not to mention they would have been unnecessary distractions from the main plot and slowed the pacing to a crawl. Jackson wisely kept the focus on the two major elements, which was Frodo's journey and the Ring.

 

[p_xavier]

Brokeback Mountain, should have had more explicit anal sex though.

 

[diffusionx]

Let's just agree to disagree. Regarding the filler in Fellowship, I'm indifferent to the detour Tom Bombadil's house but he's certainly a interesting character that Tolkien created. The encounter with the Barrow Wights however was great and really creepy. It's one of the few instances that showed how good Tolkien was when writing horror.

Yet I'm glad that Peter Jackson chose to cut those scenes because it would have added to the run time of an almost 3 hour movie. Not to mention they would have been unnecessary distractions from the main plot and slowed the pacing to a crawl. Jackson wisely kept the focus on the two major elements, which was Frodo's journey and the Ring.

Like I said, I think the movie is as good an adaptation as can be. I probably would have made all the same decisions Jackson and his team made. I have no complaints about the movie, it's excellent. It was a lot better than I remember, actually. Just that I appreciate the elements of the book that the movie left out greatly.

 

[Happosai]

John Carpenter's "The Thing" versus the original movie and versus the book "Who Goes There?" I think John Carpenter took it a step farther than the original author had. Or this could possibly be due to the fact that many of the continuations for Who Goes There by John Campbell Jr. were lost until recently.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

Jurassic Park. Crichton basically never wrote a bad book, but the movie takes away all of Crichton’s usual infodumps and musings and just concentrates on telling an interesting story with good characters and, well... fucking dinosaurs. Genderswapping the kids was also a stroke of genius. Incredible how much The Lost World sucks after this.

You are correct that Crichton basically never wrote a bad book, and you are correct that the movie basically condenses down the book to remove the infodumps. But I love infodumps lol

It really is amazing how much the Lost World movie sucked, considering that somehow the Lost World book was even BETTER than Jurassic Park, which after reading Jurassic Park you would think is impossible.

 

[GnomeChimpsky]

And I am saying this with PKD (along with Jack Vance) as being my favourite fiction author.

Give me your best PKD recommendation pls

 

[BigBooper]

Give me your best PKD recommendation pls

I'll give you my favorite. The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldricht. It's not his weirdest story, but it's probably the weirdest one that is also told well.

 

[Whataborman]

The Exorcist.

William Peter Blatty wrote both the book and the movie, and the movie is an almost carbon copy of the book but it captures the essence of the horror and possession better. Plus, the casting is spot on.

The same can't be said for Legion and Exorcist 3. The book is 100% better than the movie, although the movie is still decent. Exorcist 2 is an abomination that never should have been made.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Give me your best PKD recommendation pls

As a whole book I'd go for 'the galactic pot healer' and as a short story 'faith of our fathers' is pretty amazing.