Movies that are better than the book - Page 3

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by zipworth

OK, I really want to read Mary Poppins Now!!

Enjoy! My only caveat is to just speed on past the really awful "African" pidgin in the chapter where Michael finds the compass. A product of its time, unfortunately.

[Whistler]

Fried Green Tomatoes. I love that movie but the book was ho-hum to me.

[MysteryMama]

This thread is making me want to read Forrest Gump.

[Teensy]

Two movies come to mind that I liked better than the book: House of Sand and Fog and Cold Mountain. I also like the Ring movies better than the books. And I just couldn't read any of Robert Ludlum's books, but I enjoyed the movies (Borne Identity, etc.).

I've never read GWTW or The Godfather, but the movies are so amazing I can't fathom that I'd like the books better.

[loraxc]

Little Children. I thought the movie was great (it even made me feel sorry for the sex offender character) but the book was really flat and cliched and just bad.

This is the ONLY time I can ever remember having this opinion.

[SweetBetty]

I agree on the Lord of Rings Trilogy I couldn't get through the beginning with all the tedious details. Granted its an amazing rich world he created but the storyline is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWED because of it. Fight Club was also better. It seemed like the the writer took his idea and ironed it out. That's the way I feel about all his books though. Interesting ideas, interesting writing, but not fully conceptualized. Good question!

[Gremco]

I love both the book and movie version of The Princess Bride. They were both written by the same person so they both have the same feel and I didn't feel like they left anything out of the movie.


The only one that popped into my head was actually an anime. I like Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust (the anime) better than Vampire Hunter D: Demon Deathchase (the book it is based on.) They are actually pretty similar until about halfway through, then they both go off in different directions. I like the books in general better because D's character is much deeper than he appears in the movies, but there was one scene in the book that utterly disgusted me. It kinda ruined the whole book for me.

[Viola]

I saw Mary Poppins in the theater as a child, when I was about 6 years old or so--they must have rereleased it in the 70s. I LOVED it so much, I was enamored with Julie Andrews after that. Then when I was 10, I got a copy of the book and was so disappointed in it. Mary Poppins was old and ugly and I think one time she broke her finger off--it was sugar or something? I can't remember now. In any event, I kept reading it and ended up really enjoying it. I saw the movie again when I was in my 20s, and I didn't really like it at that age.

I thought that Twilight was more artistic as a movie than as a book and I loved Kristen Stewart as Bella, but I didn't like the way the vampires looked---they were freaky. But I think I did enjoy reading the book more than I did watching the movie, I think.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy? Well, my husband was one of the people who was obsessed with that series reading it over and over as a child. He was waiting anxiously to read the Silmarillion when it came out, but he was in the hospital at the time, so he had to wait a few days which was most distressing to him. It ended up being his favorite book of all times. He really doesn't like the movies. He thinks it's nice they were willing to put a lot of money into it, but he feels they changed things just for the sake of changing things--that there were grotesque changes to the plot for NO REASON.

I got interested in the books after seeing the movies, and I have to say that the books really hit me in a way that the movies didn't. I connected to the characters in a way I didn't in the movie, and I loved the language in the books. I did like that they brought the elves to fight in that big battle in the third book, however. I thought that should have happened in the book too.

My daughter is reading Coraline right now, and she hasn't said so, but I think she liked the movie better.

[Harper]

The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Granted I saw movie many times before I tried to read the book but I just couldn't get into the book. I so associated it with Daniel Day Lewis, Lena Olin and Juliette Binoche. Every time I tried to read it, I just wanted to stop and watch the movie instead.

[MysteryMama]

Originally Posted by loraxc

Little Children. I thought the movie was great (it even made me feel sorry for the sex offender character) but the book was really flat and cliched and just bad.

This is the ONLY time I can ever remember having this opinion.

Hmm. I really liked the book!

I thought of another one... The Memory Keepers Daughter. Actually, the movie was pretty lame, but the book was so bad that the movie was better.

[The4OfUs]

I loved reading Gone With The Wind, and I have a pretty darn good imagination to envision what was being written in my own mind , but the movie? My word, what a gem. Definitely liked the movie better than the book. I've read the book probably 5 times, but seen the movie dozens of times.

[Mechella]

I also thought of Twilight and Lord of the Rings. I may be the only one, but in some ways I enjoyed the Keira Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice better than that book. I know stuff was taken out and the dialogue was rushed in many places, but something about it makes the characters more "real" and endearing. I also loved the score!

I enjoyed the Watchmen book as much as the movie. There were many scenes in the film that were shot for shot the same as in the graphic novel, and the musical selection was great.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by Red Pajama

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, since I still think the book is better than the movie. But, for me, the Lord of the Rings trillogy is my favorite movie of all time. The books, while better than the movie, are not my favorite books.

:

Originally Posted by Sailor

I hated the Twilight books, but actually thought they did a good job with the movie. At least, Bella seemed to have more spunk in the movie.

Good to know. I may try them out when they get to the library on DVD.

Originally Posted by Viola

Mary Poppins was old and ugly and I think one time she broke her finger off--it was sugar or something? :

No, that was a lady who ran a gingerbread shop they visited.


And as someone who quite likes the MP books, I have to say Mary is a manipulative, secretive piece of work.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Viola

The Lord of the Rings trilogy? Well, my husband was one of the people who was obsessed with that series reading it over and over as a child. He was waiting anxiously to read the Silmarillion when it came out, but he was in the hospital at the time, so he had to wait a few days which was most distressing to him. It ended up being his favorite book of all times. He really doesn't like the movies. He thinks it's nice they were willing to put a lot of money into it, but he feels they changed things just for the sake of changing things--that there were grotesque changes to the plot for NO REASON.

I agree with your husband. There were changes I could understand, for pacing, or to make up for the lack of narrative or whatever, but there were a lot that just annoyed me. I hated Arwen's character with a passion, and all the "Arwen Evenstar is dying" crap got on my last nerve. I also didn't care for Aragorn as Superman. Oh - and he made Merry way too flighty and way over-exaggerated Pippin. There were tons of things like that.

I've been trying to think of one since I saw this thread, and I can't think of any. Mind you, I've seen a lot of movies based on books that I haven't read.

[annethcz]

Originally Posted by notjustmamie

I would also add Bridget Jones's Diary.

I have to agree. I enjoyed both the book and the movie, but Colin Firth tips the scale for me. The casting was just amazing.

Originally Posted by Teensy

Two movies come to mind that I liked better than the book: House of Sand and Fog and Cold Mountain.

Yes on Cold Mountain. Although the descriptions of the flora and fauna of NC mountains was awesome in the book, I enjoyed the movie more.

[hdeering]

I saw "PS I love you" the movie first and I loved it! I made DH buy it for me. I can only watch it sometimes though.

I read the book, and it just wasn't the same. I love Ahren's other stuff though.

I'm waiting for the next movie to come out based on "If you could see me now".

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by LaLaLaLa

The Princess Bride

Really? I LOVE the book. Of course I also love the movie but the book is awesome.

Originally Posted by New

And Clockwork Orange

My favorite movie (or one of them). Still need to read the book though.

Originally Posted by zipworth

OK, I really want to read Mary Poppins Now!!

Ditto!

Originally Posted by Whistler

Fried Green Tomatoes. I love that movie but the book was ho-hum to me.

Just when I thought I didn't have a movie I liked more than the book... Fried Green Tomatoes for sure! LOVE the movie. Book, not so much.

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I agree with your husband. There were changes I could understand, for pacing, or to make up for the lack of narrative or whatever, but there were a lot that just annoyed me. I hated Arwen's character with a passion, and all the "Arwen Evenstar is dying" crap got on my last nerve. I also didn't care for Aragorn as Superman. Oh - and he made Merry way too flighty and way over-exaggerated Pippin. There were tons of things like that.

:

I actually like the BBC's Pride and Prejudice (w/Colin Firth) which I suppose is a mini series but also Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility :

[KiwiZ]

For me it was "Sex and the City". The book seemed to me to be about stereotypes but the TV series/movies were about characters that became real to me, that I cared about. The chemistry, the writing for the TV show especially was just magical

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by HappilyEvrAfter

UWuthering Heights. The movie came across with the dark feeling I think the book should have had...the book was just creepy and disjointed for me...and not because of the writing style, I like books of that era very much.

That book is pure torture to read. The movie has Lawrence Oliver in it. I also like that movie better.

Originally Posted by Smokering

I remember really liking one chapter of Mary Poppins (it's several books, actually: haven't read them all). It was a chapter about how the baby (babies?) could talk to the sparrow on the windowsill, and it warned them that soon they'd grow up and wouldn't be able to understand birdsong anymore. And the baby was adamant that it would, but a few days later it had lost the ability and the sparrow was sort of sadly philosophical about it... Something like that, I read it a long time ago. But it was really well written, and I'm a sucker for the lost youth theme (Peter Pan makes me cry buckets), so I like the books for the sake of that one poignant chapter.

But yeah, I do remember Mary being very harsh and... odd... in the books. And wasn't there one plot about someone going to the moon, or... something? Man, it has been a while!

I bought all the Mary Poppins books when I was pregnant with my dd. That is a really lovely chapter. I do think they are good and the movie is good. Those two are both good on their own, maybe if one pretends it isn't actually based on Mary Poppins but there is another Mary and another Jane and Michael Banks??

They did go to the moon.

I LOVE the Princess Bride book. I love the movie more, because I saw it first and the actors are phenomenal (plus it's purer and less cynical), but the book is hilarious. I got such a kick out of people telling me they wanted to read the unabridged version.

I do love the book.

Originally Posted by Traci mom23boys

The only movie that I have ever loved more than the book was *Chocolat*.
The book just wasn't that good and the movie is one of my favorites.

I am always STARVING when I read that book. I do like it and all but it makesme so hungry. If they didn't describing food quite so well it wouldn't have been as bad.

Originally Posted by SweetBetty

I agree on the Lord of Rings Trilogy I couldn't get through the beginning with all the tedious details. Granted its an amazing rich world he created but the storyline is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWED because of it. Fight Club was also better. It seemed like the the writer took his idea and ironed it out. That's the way I feel about all his books though. Interesting ideas, interesting writing, but not fully conceptualized. Good question!

Fight Club is one of my all time favorite movies

I do really enjoy Chuck Palahniuk's writing but there is always something in his books you CANNOT UNSEE!!!! I will be reading along and "AAGGG!!!HHH!!! GGAAAHH!!! I need to bleach my brain now! UNSEE!!! UNSEE!!!"

He is an amazingly gifted storyteller. But man....you just can't unsee things ya know? I wish he could just give us ONE book without that.

Originally Posted by Mechella

I also thought of Twilight and Lord of the Rings. I may be the only one, but in some ways I enjoyed the Keira Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice better than that book. I know stuff was taken out and the dialogue was rushed in many places, but something about it makes the characters more "real" and endearing. I also loved the score!

I enjoyed the Watchmen book as much as the movie. There were many scenes in the film that were shot for shot the same as in the graphic novel, and the musical selection was great.

I was glad to see a movie from Alan Moore's work that wasn't completely obliterated. The studios usually trash his stuff but they did treat Watchmen well. I think it will stand the test of time much better than some of the other stuff they did.

Originally Posted by Viola

The Lord of the Rings trilogy? Well, my husband was one of the people who was obsessed with that series reading it over and over as a child. He was waiting anxiously to read the Silmarillion when it came out, but he was in the hospital at the time, so he had to wait a few days which was most distressing to him. It ended up being his favorite book of all times. He really doesn't like the movies. He thinks it's nice they were willing to put a lot of money into it, but he feels they changed things just for the sake of changing things--that there were grotesque changes to the plot for NO REASON.

I got interested in the books after seeing the movies, and I have to say that the books really hit me in a way that the movies didn't. I connected to the characters in a way I didn't in the movie, and I loved the language in the books. I did like that they brought the elves to fight in that big battle in the third book, however. I thought that should have happened in the book too.

I agree with your dh. But I too read the books as a child and still every year.

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I agree with your husband. There were changes I could understand, for pacing, or to make up for the lack of narrative or whatever, but there were a lot that just annoyed me. I hated Arwen's character with a passion, and all the "Arwen Evenstar is dying" crap got on my last nerve. I also didn't care for Aragorn as Superman. Oh - and he made Merry way too flighty and way over-exaggerated Pippin. There were tons of things like that.

I've been trying to think of one since I saw this thread, and I can't think of any. Mind you, I've seen a lot of movies based on books that I haven't read.

My problem was how he treated the characters. Many of their shining moments he failed them.

Arwyn never faltered from her choice of mortality. That was where she was brave, not taking Glorfindel's roll or keeling over with that "Arwyn's fate is tied to the ring" blah.

Tolkien said her tale was the saddest and she CHOSE it. It wasn't that he tried to make her part bigger or her braver but he completely missed the point. She was already brave.

Faramir was educated by Gandalf and in the books Frodo offers him the ring. Faramir said he wouldn't pick up the ring if he found it laying by the road.

That was the tragedy of Denethor, he sent the wrong son. Faramir is the one who should have gone and that is why Boromir died.His failure to see Faramir cost him Boromir. *Faramir had the dream several times before Boromir did*


I am really sorry for the tangent.

If you go to http://www.theonering.com/ they have changes described in detail.Some are a bit hilarious

FILMS: Legolas rides a horse with a saddle while in Helm's Deep.

BOOKS: When the Rohirrim gave him a horse to ride, Legolas removed the saddle because elves have no need for them.

PRO: This detail was not worth the problems of having Orlando Bloom attempt to ride saddleless with Gimli riding behind.

FILMS: Legolas stands on a discarded shield and surfs down a stairway while firing arrows at Battle of the Hornburg.

BOOKS: Tolkien is silent about that particular Elvish battle maneuver.

PRO: This change make Legolas' battles more exciting to watch.

CON: This change is silly and cheesey.

[Smokering]

Ah, TORn. My very first forum. Back when Mum was convinced everyone on the internet was an axe-murderer.

I agree about the book-to-film changes, BTW. Aragorn's near-death scene with the Wargs seemed particularly fatuous. It's not like Tolkien didn 't give us enough near-death scenes in the book! And the Arwen thing particularly galled me because I didn't like Liv Tyler's acting. I did love the flash-forward scene in TTT, though, that took material from the appendices - you know, the "He will come to death, an image of the splendor of the kings of Men in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world... But you, my daughter..." bit. Hugo Weaving acted his socks off there, and the cinematography was just lovely.

I do like the movies. Well, I love Fellowship, have SERIOUS issues with TTT, and really like some parts of ROTK. I was pleased with how they conveyed Frodo's gradual decline after returning to the Shire - the "How do you pick up the threads of an old life?" speech was really classy, I thought. And I was SO freaking thrilled they put in the lines from the end of the book about the Grey Havens - "white shores, and beyond - a far green country under a swift sunrise". I know they relocated the line (no way around it, really), but golly, it WORKED. That moment, and the moment right at the start of Fellowship where Galadriel takes Treebeard's line - "The world has changed...", sent shivers down my spine. Brilliant stuff.

Better than the books, though? Nah. In my opinion the goodness of the movies VERY closely correlates to their faithfulness to the books - with the odd exception, like the nuclear Galadriel freakout scene, which was technically faithful but executed very... strangely... visually. And I don't think I'm just saying that as a rabid Tolkien fan - the bits where the plot diverged seemed less artistically true in the films in their own right. I think. Hard to separate myself from the source material, though.