The movie was better than the book

[public hermit]

We always hear that "the book was better than the movie." Somebody just said it to me, which prompted this question:

Are there any movies that were arguably better than the book?

I honestly can't think of one.

 

[bekkilyn]

Original Star Wars

 

[IceJad]

Any where the movie came out first before the book adaptation.

 

[Petros2015]

Are there any movies that were arguably better than the book?

The original Jaws probably; I read the novel by Peter Benchley don't remember too much about it (was probably a teenager at the time), but I'm gonna guess the movie was way better. I remember the movie, that's for sure.

 

[bekkilyn]

The original Jaws probably; I read the novel by Peter Benchley don't remember too much about it (was probably a teenager at the time), but I'm gonna guess the movie was way better. I remember the movie, that's for sure.

I had to read the book because my parents wouldn't allow me to watch the movie!

 

[IceJad]

I had to read the book because my parents wouldn't allow me to watch the movie!

I watched the movie because I didn't know there was a book. Just like Jurassic Park.

 

[bekkilyn]

I watched the movie because I didn't know there was a book. Just like Jurassic Park.

I knew there was a book because one of my uncles had it! (And I was the type who would read anything that was put in front of me, good, bad, or ugly!)

 

[Gundy22]

Last Of the Mohicans -- movie better than the book, cuz the book is in an old archaic style - I made myself read it because I liked the movie so much.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The Chosen ???

 

[IceJad]

The Chosen ???

Nah, the book is better . In fact the book covers more than the series. It contains the prequel & sequel. And I don't have to wait years apart to know the full story.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We always hear that "the book was better than the movie." Somebody just said it to me, which prompted this question:

Are there any movies that were arguably better than the book?

I honestly can't think of one.

Well, there's Tremors! The book couldn't have been better! (Probably isn't one).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Last Of the Mohicans -- movie better than the book, cuz the book is in an old archaic style - I made myself read it because I liked the movie so much.

I liked the book as a kid. The movie was kind of a let-down, actually.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

We always hear that "the book was better than the movie." Somebody just said it to me, which prompted this question:

Are there any movies that were arguably better than the book?

I honestly can't think of one.

I know this thing can actually be true when it comes to TV. TV series that are made from books or even comic books, can do better than the source material. The two examples that comes to immediate mind are Dexter and the Walking Dead.

There even is a name for this phenomenon apparently (big fan of TV tropes web site).

Adaptation Displacement - TV Tropes

 

[keith99]

The Four Feathers.

Well for the original movie. The remake, which added a Magic Negro, fell far short of either.

 

[Halbhh]

We always hear that "the book was better than the movie." Somebody just said it to me, which prompted this question:

Are there any movies that were arguably better than the book?

I honestly can't think of one.

Hopefully I won't get flamed for it, but the 3rd Peter Jackson movie of the Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King) I think was probably close in good quality to...maybe better(?) than the 3rd Tolkien novel. (ducks) (and the first movie was close too)

Also, the opening sequences of the 3 Peter Jackson movies there are really well done, and the novels just don't have that ability to do that. Lemme grab one on video.

Here's the longer than 5 minutes version of the opening sequence of the first movie

It's a good metaphor: the lust to power to dominate over other humans as one of the great evils.

 

[public hermit]

Hopefully I won't get flamed for it, but the 3rd Peter Jackson movie of the Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King) I think was probably close in good quality to...maybe better(?) than the 3rd Tolkien novel. (ducks)

Also, the opening sequences of the 3 Peter Jackson movies there are really well done, and the novels just don't have that ability to do that. Lemme grab one on video.

Here's the longer than 5 minutes version of the opening sequence of the first movie

It's a good metaphor: the lust to power to dominate over other humans as one of the great evils.

Wow. Yeah, that is quite a claim. The movie was better than Tolkien's book lol. But, yeah, that opening sequence is better than I could imagine just reading the book.

Generally speaking, I wonder if people usually think the book is better because what they imagine as they read is in some sense theirs, which it is.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Wow. Yeah, that is quite a claim. The movie was better than Tolkien's book lol. But, yeah, that opening sequence is better than I could imagine just reading the book.

Generally speaking, I wonder if people usually think the book is better because what they imagine as they read is in some sense theirs, which it is.

Well I can see both points of view. J R Tolkien is great but also very slow moving, reading his books on a few Christmas vacations I could find myself zoning out etc.

There is some great stuff that gets left out when things get adapted. Take the Ents for instance Tolkien is really great at explaining and illustrating how slow moving their ancient tree culture is, those people are, they are the types of people that would watch the grass grow as a fun time (something that would bore a human to tears), but all that depicted their slow paced culture helps to illustrate what a big deal it is when they get mad and suddenly attack Saurman's tower. It is like getting Ghandi mad at you and having him lead a crusade to have you removed from power.


Anyway I could first really appreciate the notion of "the book was better" when one of my favorite science fiction novel's of my teen years (The Stainless Steel Rat) was put in comic book form, and my best friend who sold comic books leaned on me to buy it. The comic book did it's best to be true to the book as far as the plot and gave you a better feel for the futuristic world it was set in. But if you were a big fan of the original work it was disappointing. Because there was lots of humor from the book that did not translate, the lead character often acted as the story narrator and dropped lots of impromptu humor in the book that did not make the cut of the comic.

And the same goes went with some of the favorite scenes in the book. The character a former high tech thief who is caught and given a chance to reform and join a elite law enforcement organization does so, but on his first assignment dealing with a beautiful psychopathic criminal realizes he cannot relate to her. So what does he do to try to figure out? Method acting of course, he takes this cocktail of psychotropic drugs that he brewed to mimic her symptoms to get her in her head so to speak. And I think the six pages of the book that deal with that scene were the favorite stuff that author ever wrote. You see the character start out dreading taking his shot glass of mind bending drugs, to him slowly transform in his hotel room that he is locked in and it was done in a very cool and humorous way, as a slow rolling progression. But all that brilliance did not make the cut of the comic book, but if it did I probably would have been a big fan instead of seeing the work as being a souless facsimile.

 

[renniks]

I liked the book as a kid. The movie was kind of a let-down, actually.

Fifteen pages of flowery description before anything happens? No thanks! You could cut 3/4 of the book and have a good novel.

 

[renniks]

When the book is written from the movie script the book generally sucks.
Who wants to read " Rambo"?

 

[Halbhh]

Wow. Yeah, that is quite a claim. The movie was better than Tolkien's book lol. But, yeah, that opening sequence is better than I could imagine just reading the book.

Generally speaking, I wonder if people usually think the book is better because what they imagine as they read is in some sense theirs, which it is.

I know! Books are better. I mean, they just are. I'd rather read a good novel most times over see a good movie.

But, here's another of those wonderful LOTR movie moments, where after Gandalf had gone missing, not shown up before what turns into a crucial battle with wraiths (the Nazgûl)..., and now finally he's there with Frodo after the danger passed...

Nice, right?

Well I can see both points of view. J R Tolkien is great but also very slow moving, reading his books on a few Christmas vacations I could find myself zoning out etc.

There is some great stuff that gets left out when things get adapted. Take the Ents for instance Tolkien is really great at explaining and illustrating how slow moving their ancient tree culture is, those people are, they are the types of people that would watch the grass grow as a fun time (something that would bore a human to tears), but all that depicted their slow paced culture helps to illustrate what a big deal it is when they get mad and suddenly attack Saurman's tower. It is like getting Ghandi mad at you and having him lead a crusade to have you removed from power.

Yah, the Ents! That was really fun in the novels.