Movies that are better than the book - Page 5

[rhiOrion]

I agree about Fried Green Tomatoes. But not in the same way. I think the movie is better than the book, but the movie is my VERY favorite movie. The book is in my top 25 maybe.

[Viola]

Originally Posted by Teenytoona

OMG How can you not remember Uncas (Eric Schweig)? That man is my heart's desire. haha

My favorite part of the movie.

I enjoyed the movie version of About Schmidt way more than the book version. I may be the only one who like the movie, however.

[madskye]

I'll third Last Of The Mohicans...Daniel Day Lewis running through the forest with his rifle?

"No matter what occurs, I will find you!" --my old boyfriend used to quote that all the time. At the mall, in the parking garage, at the supermarket...it always cracked me up.

I also love it when the sister throws herself off the cliff in slow motion. I cry and cry, in a good way.

[beanma]

I'm going to agree with Last of the Mohicans. Beautiful film and the book, OMG, so dry dry dry. I had to read that thing in high school way back in the dark ages and could barely suffer through it. I'm sure I would probaby have more stamina for it now (no longer 17), but it was not a gripping read for me for sure. Even if the movie completely sucked (which it doesn't) looking at the beautiful Blue Ridge mountain scenery (and the actors) would make the movie better than the book IMO.

[minkajane]

Remembered another one. The Scarlet Letter. I've seen a couple versions of the story and love it, but when I try to read the book I about die. I guess because of the language. 17th-century English is tough.

[Starflower]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread yet, but I thought the movie "Stand By Me" was better than the book (a novella called The Body).

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by abimommy

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.

I could maybe see giving Arwyn a little more onscreen time, but the character in the movie sucked. I wanted to beat someone every time she came on screen. And, I have no idea why he put in that whole made up scene where she rescued Frodo, because her whole character otherwise came across as a particularly fatuous 14 year old fan of bad romances.

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.

I thought Jackson handled Boromir really well - managed to show the real underlying nobility of the character in his final confrontation with Frodo and his death. That made the way he savaged Faramir's character just annoying. That whole scene in Osgiliath when Frodo was standing there facing the Nazgul (who can sense the Ring, but didn't realize it was right there, and let Frodo go??) and all that was just sooooo annoying, in every way. TTT was a fiasco on the Frodo/Sam storyline, although the director's cut does a better job with Faramir, imo.

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*

All of which was left out, of course.

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

OMG - those are great. I can see where I'm going to be wasting time online once I'm done going through all the back articles on Cracked.com.

Originally Posted by Smokering

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

Totally OT, but I was just thinking of this the other day. The changes in the way people view the net over the last 5-10 years blow my mind.

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!

That entire sequence, from the moment he went off the cliff until he arrived back in Helm's Deep, made me want to tear someone's head off. And, that little romantic interlude with Arwen? UGH!

And the Arwen thing particularly galled me because I didn't like Liv Tyler's acting.

See...I didn't mind her acting, exactly. I think she played the character exactly the way Jackson wanted it. And, it was awful. She just...made her miraculous rescue of Frodo, then languished for two whole movies!

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'm about the same, except that I like almost all of ROTK...except that the "Oliphaunts" are stupid...absolutely stupid. I hate that kind of Hollywood-style overkill. If they'd actually been that big, there wouldn't have been anybody left on the Plain by the time Theoden arrived. Regular elephants, or even slightly oversized elephants would have been great. Those things were just asinine.

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.

Agreed. I like the sequences in the Shire quite well, in general.

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.

Yeah - that scene with Galadriel was way too weird for me. It was just so odd.

I do enjoy the movies. I tend to watch segments of them while doing step workouts and things like that. I just really don't like 99% of the stuff that was added, or changed.


And, on thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to say I do think The Princess Bride was a somewhat better movie. The book had the same feel, but I think it worked better as a movie.

[Smokering]

And, on thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to say I do think The Princess Bride was a somewhat better movie. The book had the same feel, but I think it worked better as a movie.

I don't feel too guilty saying I like the movie better than the book, because William Goldman wrote the screenplay. So any changes were HIS changes, not something done by a money-grubbing studio at the expense of the avant-garde starving artist. And it was a really good adaptation because he knew the medium of film; he wasn't just trying to cut and paste his immortal prose onto the silver screen. He left room for the actors to shine, for witty physical comedy... it was very un-ego-y, and it worked as an adaptation in a way that's extremely rare. Plus, Mandy Patinkin.

[gingerbane]

I agree with those who have said "Fried Green Tomatoes" and "Forrest Gump." I thought the movies were way better than the books. "Fried Green Tomatoes" was a dry book and the characters paled in comparison to how they were portrayed on screen. "Forrest Gump" was just a really weird book - and too long.

I highly disagree with those who have said the following movies are better than the books.

1. "A Clockwork Orange" I have seen the movie multiple times and only read the book about two years ago. I love, love, loved the book. It was so fun to figure out the language as you go along (author uses a made up language and you just have to learn as you go along what the words mean). Also, the movie has a lot of gaps and holes and leaves a lot of questions un-answered. In the book, everything is filled in and we learn a lot more about Alex's character. Lastly, the last chapter of the book, the redemptive chapter, is completely left out of the movie. I won't give it away for those who haven't read it, but the book ending is so much better.

2. "Lolita" Nabakov is a genius and his way with words is just breathtaking. I only read the book because I wanted to read, "Reading Lolita in Tehran" and DH said I should really read "Lolita" first if I wanted to understand it. I'm so glad I did. The book isn't anything like the movie. The characters and plot are crafted so meticulously. You just can't help but be moved when reading the book.

3. "The Godfather" Now, maybe it's because I read the book first but later, when I tried to watch the movie, I couldn't get through the first 10 minutes. The movie was so dated and boring. If they re-made the movie, I might give it another go.

4. "The Scarlett Letter" Again, I think the author is a genius. Nathaniel Hawthorne is a master at his craft and the intricacies that are weaved throughout the book are totally lost and cheapened on screen. I don't even think the movie is worth watching but would recommend the book to everyone with a serious interest in literature.

[nicky85]

Can I commit a heresy and say that I liked the movie of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince much, much better than the book? I felt like they did a better job with making Harry into the noble, likable hero in the movie. Not to slight anyone, who really loves the books, just my opinion. =)

[philomom]

Originally Posted by minkajane

Remembered another one. The Scarlet Letter. I've seen a couple versions of the story and love it, but when I try to read the book I about die. I guess because of the language. 17th-century English is tough.

The Demi Moore Scarlet letter movie is very much changed from the book. They made Hester into more of an Anne Bradstreet. If you want to see a better film version.. track down the Meg Foster version.

I loved the book. Poor Hester, punished for loving.

[katiecat]

My first thought when I saw the topic was The English Patient. I could not make it through the book but loved the movie. I mean - Naveen Andrews!!

I am not a fan of LOTR but I forced myself to read the books (which I know is a terrible thing for true fans to hear). I loved the movies much better.

I hadn't known Mary Poppins was a book either! I never really liked the movie as a child but do like it now as an adult.

I was very interested to read what some of you said about Wuthering Heights because I just started the book and O-M-G am I finding it difficult. Maybe I'll just get the movie. It's mostly the language - I find I have to concentrate to even understand what is going on. So far I like the story.

[JessicaS]

I didn't really like WH, I do like the other Bronte's books so I don't think I would say it is a language issue.

WH is about two completely selfish people destroying everyone who did not let them have their way.

Cathy is only slightly redeemed by dying halfway through.

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by philomom

The Demi Moore Scarlet letter movie is very much changed from the book. They made Hester into more of an Anne Bradstreet. If you want to see a better film version.. track down the Meg Foster version.

I loved the book. Poor Hester, punished for loving.

The Demi Moore version of The Scarlett Letter is the WORST MOVIE EVER MADE.

[KYCat]

I picked The Scarlet Letter for my bookclub this month because I'd never read it and I am having a VERY difficult time with it. I don't get long stretches of quiet reading time and the LONG drawn out sentences make it difficult for me to get through. It's not that I dislike what he's saying, it's just not something that I want to jump back into. Since it was my selection however, I guess I'd better finish it!

[Smokering]

I didn't really like WH, I do like the other Bronte's books so I don't think I would say it is a language issue.

WH is about two completely selfish people destroying everyone who did not let them have their way.

I agree! I loved Jane Eyre and liked several other Bronte books, but I read Wuthering Heights recently (when I finally realised I hadn't already read it!), and hated it. It was just nasty people being nasty to each other amidst a general atmosphere of nasty bleakness. I didn't see any redeeming features in it whatsoever. Most unexpected.

Can I commit a heresy and say that I liked the movie of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince much, much better than the book? I felt like they did a better job with making Harry into the noble, likable hero in the movie. Not to slight anyone, who really loves the books, just my opinion. =)

It's funny, I just watched it the other day and thought it was one of the weaker adaptations. I'm not a ravening fan of the books, though I like most of them well enough and Goblet of Fire quite a lot. But for me the movies get progressively more irritating as certain of the young actors get worse at acting (or perhaps more fairly, have their powers taxed by more difficult material). Even in the Deathly Hallows trailer, which is mostly really short clips, Harry's acting seems distractingly bad to me. He did have a few funny moments in Half-Blood Prince when he was "on" luck potion, but I find his serious scenes really grating. And the whole Horcrux sequence seemed very out of place in the film... oh, and various other things. I think I like Prisoner of Azkaban best of the film adaptations.

[lorijds]

I agree with Holes and The Last of the Mohicans.

I'd add The Milagro Beanfield War to the list. It's not that the book is bad...it just is bitter and too sad somehow. The movie is really very good. I love it.

[quest4quiet]

Originally Posted by katiecat

My first thought when I saw the topic was The English Patient. I could not make it through the book but loved the movie. I mean - Naveen Andrews!!

See, this cracks me up! I almost didn't read The English Patient b/c I hated the movie so much. I have now read that book at least 15 times. The language is gorgeous. More poetry than prose, imo. There are passages that I have to read aloud b/c the words just taste good....

With you on Wuthering Heights, though. Bleh.

[GranoLLLy-girl]

Originally Posted by Caneel

I thought of another one - The Bridges of Madison County.





Ick, I hated that book and wished I never would have read it.

Oh! I read this whole post just to see if anyone else would mention Bridges! YES! The book was shallow--but the movie made me cry like a baby!

The other one for me: The Lovely Bones. I would have never seen "heaven" as they created it in the movie--loved the movie, hated the book.

[anj_rn]

I think some of it has to do with which I do first. If I see a movie and love it, then go read the book. I might be disappointed, and vice versa. If I hated the movie, I probably would not read the book if I hated the movie.

That being said I agree with:
The Princess Bride
The Wizard of Oz

I would like to add:
The Shining
Schindler's List


I actually prefer the LOTR and HP books.