Tv/movie adaptation better than the book?

[Ashamtly]

Usually everybody talks about how the books are so much better than their tv or movie adaptations, so... I'm genuenly curious; have you ever found a case in which the opposite is true? Like.. a movie or tv show that was better than the original book.
For me "The Vampire Diaries", "Twilight", "Pretty Little Liars" and "The 100" are some of the cases where even if I don't particularly enjoy them, I found the movie and tv adaptations to be way better than the books.

[Colleen0701]

Dear Ashamtly
In 90% of the cases where a book has made to a movie or tv version I must agree with you. My opinion of Twilight is that the movies made them too gauche, the movie removed all imagination that the books still gave lee way to. But that's just my opinion, as literary art, the entire series still remains excellent reading or viewing for young adults. Game of thrones is an excellent tv series and compares well to the books. The tv series actually adds to the imagination, the books give a better background IE The origin and original Reek are left out. The exception for me where the movie is better than the book is the Hunger Games series.

[Elena_D]

As both of you, I myself had hard times finding a movie/tv show that was better, compared to their book versions. I think they did a great job with "the chronicles of narnia", they took the most important parts, but the book it's on an entire different (and higher) level. Same thing with the latest "Pride & Prejudice" (the one with Keira Knightley)...it was very good, but not excellent as the novel itself.
Anyway I think that "Suite française" is a wonderful movie, while the book is way too verbose and (God forgive me!) boring!

[Colleen0701]

I think another one we can add to tv being better than the book is Lord of the Rings. The books were excellent make no mistake, but the movies gave vision to what I could not imagine. And let's not forget Lemmony Snicket, I spent 90% of the movie hoping he would die. He was truly despicable on film. One day when I rule the world, they are going to redo all the classics like Tom Sawyer and Oliver Twist, I'd really like to see that.

[LivreAmour217]

Most of the time I prefer the books to movie/TV adaptations, but many moons ago I found that I preferred Disney's film version of The Princess Diaries to the novels (which were pretty good overall). Disney gets a lot of flak for watering down or "softening" stories, but in this case I think their meddling actually helped. The characters were far more likable in the movie than they are in the books.

[Destinywriter94]

I always believe that the Book is far better then the Movie adaptation, that'd just my opinion though. I say that because the Movie doesn't normally have all the details that the book has and they usually cut it important parts of the book to make it more 'People' friendly.
I think that, if they're going to do a Movie Adaptation of a Book then, they need to keep it as in the book. Like Twilight, they didn't make the Character(s) half as funny and Sarcastic as in the book. That was sad, not to mention that Kristen Stewart didn't show any kind of emotions, that was frustrating.
Anyway, that's my take on the TV/Movie Adaptation better then the book.

[Jojowrites4All]

Personally, I enjoy my imaginative spin. TV and movies are spoilers.

[DarkestbeforeDawn]

I feel that books always encompass more than tv and movie adaptations. The books have a lot more subtlety that I appreciate more as I mature and get older

[pjswink]

Movies are improving with 3D and other technology.
Books traditionally have ALWAYS been better than their movies.
Anymore? I think authors are going to have to step their game up to compete in the future.
I hate to see this, but believe the writing is on the wall.

[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.

[pjswink]

Yes, exactly....am glad you wrote those words DATo. That is precisely my feeling about Tolkien's books and Jackson's movies. The words had just not formed from the thoughts in my head yet. Thanks!

[DATo]

Yes, exactly....am glad you wrote those words DATo. That is precisely my feeling about Tolkien's books and Jackson's movies. The words had just not formed from the thoughts in my head yet. Thanks!

Great minds think alike *wink* [;- )

[gali]

((((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.

[SparklingOne]

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.

[LiteratureJunkie]

This is such an interesting subject to discuss because there are some many different faucets to consider. Does it depend on the genre? Is one genre more cliche than the other? Are older books excluded from the list because they have already had many adaptations? For me, like many others, I usually prefer the books over the movies. However there are many pleasant surprises that I have come across. Take the TV show Sherlock, which is a modern twist on the Sherlock Holmes novels. It is not verbatim with the original story but there is so much that is similar between the two that you really don't feel guilty for maybe liking the show a little better. Lord of the rings is another example of amazing story telling of an amazing story. This is not always the case, like the twilight movies that literally ruined the books for me or even Fault in our Stars, which wasn't as criminal but still didn't come close to the depth that the books had.