Tv/movie adaptation better than the book?

[joriemae]

Maybe it's because of the fact that the book versions are more detailed than the movies. But there are also movies that are more interesting to watch than reading the book which it was based upon. Such is the case with the "Stardust" film, wherein I enjoyed its plot way more than of the book.

[moderntimes]

No feedback here from juvenile fiction, since I only read adult novels.

The single best example of a film being better than the book is "All Quiet on the Western Front" (the original 1929 film) which is maybe the most powerful war film (anti-war, really) ever.

I also think that the film version of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" is superb, very accurate with the book and well done.

An argument could be made that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the finest SF film ever and taken from Clarke's "The Sentinel" short story but the film is far more extensive -- however, Clarke worked with Kubrick on the film so it's not exactly true that "2001" is a version of the story.

For less major films, I found the supernatural thriller film "Let Me In" (both the US and original versions) are far superior to the novel. I made the mistake of trying to read the novel, and for those who've made this mistake, you can understand -- there's a sequence in the novel which I found repulsive, and predatory to young victims, far beyond just the "shock" value and delving into the worst type of sadistic porn you could imagine. Disgusting.

[stfne1978]

I think they are good. But, there is nothing like reading a good book.

[moderntimes]

Agreed. But the topic is, which film versions are better than the books they were made from?

[wildrose]

I can only think of two books that did not live up to the hype the movies created for me. I didn't read Perks of Being a Wallflower until after I saw the movie, but the movie actually spoke to me more than the book did. I think it has a lot to do with the style of the book. It was written as though a teenager was writing letters, and to me, it showed.

The second one is definitely more biased. I grew up obsessed with the movie Practical Magic, and only about a year ago did I find out it was based on a novel. I read it recently, and while it was a very good novel, it didn't quite compare to the love I hold for the movie.

[jandsmommy2611+]

Shows can develop faster than the writer can write. Look at Martin and Game of Thrones. The show has surpassed the writer. My favorite novel is The Stand by Stephen King. The miniseries for what is was worth and for the time it was made was passable. My wish for it was better graphics. I heard rumor they are rethinking of making it. I can only hope if they do, it's better done this time around.

[SarcasticRaven]

It's Kind of a Funny Story is one where the movie was better than the book for me, but I did watch the movie first and loved it. When I read the book, I didn't get the same kind of enjoyment out of it. I love Lord of the Rings but do enjoy the movies a bit more since they bring the story to life. Odd Thomas was a close one for me, though I actually like both the movie and book equally in their own rights.

[RTA]

I loved the Chronicle of Narnia movies more then the books, the new ones and the old ones. I felt they gave the books more depth. I wish they would release a new one...

-- 28 Jan 2016, 18:52 --

Maybe it's because of the fact that the book versions are more detailed than the movies. But there are also movies that are more interesting to watch than reading the book which it was based upon. Such is the case with the "Stardust" film, wherein I enjoyed its plot way more than of the book.

Oooh I loved the Stardust movie! I read the book after I saw the movie and have to say I preferred the movie to the book. It was just so much for exciting!

[SparklingOne]

The movie version of "The Road" was excellent, but then again so was book.

No feedback here from juvenile fiction, since I only read adult novels.

The single best example of a film being better than the book is "All Quiet on the Western Front" (the original 1929 film) which is maybe the most powerful war film (anti-war, really) ever.

I also think that the film version of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" is superb, very accurate with the book and well done.

An argument could be made that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the finest SF film ever and taken from Clarke's "The Sentinel" short story but the film is far more extensive -- however, Clarke worked with Kubrick on the film so it's not exactly true that "2001" is a version of the story.

For less major films, I found the supernatural thriller film "Let Me In" (both the US and original versions) are far superior to the novel. I made the mistake of trying to read the novel, and for those who've made this mistake, you can understand -- there's a sequence in the novel which I found repulsive, and predatory to young victims, far beyond just the "shock" value and delving into the worst type of sadistic porn you could imagine. Disgusting.

[DATo]

((((YES))))

I have read all of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings books as well as The Hobbit and in fact, the only book of this series that I didn't read was The Silmarillion, which I have been led to believe is more of an encyclopedia of Middle Earth terms and definitions.

I absolutely hated Tolkien's writing style and found it very dry, tedious and distracting. I think Peter Jackson's movies were far, far better and though they did not (could not) include everything that was in the books, in my opinion, the movies presented the story better than the author did.

One example I could cite was that in the books the Hobbits return to the Shire and then have yet another battle to fight against some invader types which have taken over the Shire. I mean, after the main battle in Return Of The King anything more would be embarrassingly anti-climactic. Jackson ended the movies beautifully and in a much more endearing fashion. Jackson presented the movies like the rabid fan of the stories that he is - Tolkien wrote it much like the professor of Nordic history and language that he was: a bit too stiff and "proper" and lacking in the spicy flavor that makes for great reading.

I didn't see the movies, but I have read the books and loved them.

@gali - I didn't mean to suggest that the books were bad or that the story itself was not good. My complaint is primarily with Tolkien's writing style. I thought it was a bit too stiff, tedious and pedantic. It lacked the flow of, say, The Hunger Games. When I was reading Collins I was racing to keep up and eagerly turning the page. In Tolkien's case I was sitting in the same place seemingly for hours waiting for HIM to catch up *LOL*

[EmmaBookish]

I am going to say Game of Thrones. While I truly enjoyed the books...the HBO adaptation of the books has been visually perfect even if there have been departures from what was originally written.

I 100% agree. the GOT tv show is so much better than the books. GRRM has a habit of rambling on about insignificant things (a friend told me there was two pages written about mushrooms in one of the books!). The TV shows did a great job of grabbing the crux of the plot and characters and really fleshing it out in a believable way.

[The Fox Reads]

Like pretty much everyone else here, I generally feel that book>movie. That said, I was really surprised to find that I preferred the movie The Martian to the book. (I feel weird admitting it!?). Essentially, the book provided a really solid story - I enjoyed reading it, liked the characters, and was glad I read it... but the movie was startlingly enjoyable; in no small part due to the cinematography, but also in the nuances of the character development the actors brought that just didn't resonate in the same ways in the book. I recommend both!

[Taylor Razzani]

I heard the Jaws movie was better than the book, though I've never read it. I do have the e-book so I'll get to test that

[moderntimes]

Jaws the book was pretty good but the movie is a classic.

[k8gladstone]

I definitely agree about The Hobbit. I didn't read anything else of his because I couldn't stand reading it, but I genuinely liked the movies. I liked the Hunger games movies a ton more than the books as well because I think Katniss was much stronger on screen than how I read her. Besides that though I think I'd agree. It's pretty hard to get a movie as good or better than the books.