Films > Books?

[Fusilli]

It's no shock to any of us that 99.999999% of the time film adaptations are never as good as the original book, but were there any films which you watched where you thought they were BETTER than the book? Please give reasons why, of course.

I can't think of any right now though I'm sure there was at least one... but it's escaped my memory. I've recently finished reading Stardust though, and though I haven't seen the film yet I have a feeling that it wouldn't be difficult for it to be better than the book. It was a good story and all, but I just thought it was really badly written which sort of made the book kind of tedious for me.

 

[Mr.Stone]

Thats hard to think of,heard about halo?its a game series that got expanded in novels and then a movie that got scrapped.

Romeo and Juliet novel sucks but the movie,garbage.

 

[Relient A]

I cannot say for myself since I haven't read the book, but Chuck Palahniuk, author of Fight Club, said that the movie far surpassed the written work. I don't remember exactly what he said, but I think it was something along the lines of the movie being able to reveal certain plot points of the movie in a more streamlined/easy to understand way.

The author himself speaks!

 

[charliepanayi]

LA Confidential is a very good book but the film is brilliant, it perfectly distils a sprawling novel into its runtime, and the end result is one of the best films of the 90s.

And oh yes the obvious one - The Godfather. Pulpish novel becomes one of the greatest films of all time.

 

[xxJokingTokerxx]

the lord of the rings trilogy, books bored the fuck out of me.
films were utterly epic

 

[Franice]

I believe Star Wars was released as a novel before the movie. And the movie is better. I've never managed to get past like 100 pages into the book without getting bored.

Fingersmith was a miniseries, but I still enjoyed it more than the book. This is possibly because Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy are absolutely adorable, which kept me more interested through the boring parts than the book did. Eh.

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

I can't say I've read a book and found the film better. Films are just better because it's visual and people can find the special effects and acting inspiring whereas most would probably find that more difficult by reading text. All being said, books are far more detailed in terms of...everything, and you find half the time in the film parts of the books are missed out regardless of importance >.>

 

[Finnegan III]

I'm yet to see watchmen yet but Alan Moore wants nothing to do with it, but then he wants nothing to do with anything he's done, as he's mental.

I'm unsure if I want to watch it as well.

 

[Franice]

I don't see why Alan Moore would want anything to do with the extraordinarily shitty movie adaptations of his work. They totally missed the point of V for Vendetta, and I can't believe Watchmen would be any different. And even if it is, there's no way in hell I'm supporting a totally unnecessary adaptation made by a mediocre, asshole director.

 

[Relient A]

I believe Star Wars was released as a novel before the movie. And the movie is better. I've never managed to get past like 100 pages into the book without getting bored..

Lucas was still adapting the plot of the story while filming, which is why significant changes were made on set. Book came after.