Films that are better than the books

OK so I had this discussion and was thinking if there are in fact ANY films that are actually better than the books they are based off?
What do you reckon guys? I'm really struggling to come up with anything (which is also partly because I haven't read a lot of the books of films I suspect would be candidates).


Blade Runner (1) might be one as that's a stunning film - but haven't read the original.
Shutter Island? Stephen King seems to be very uneven in his writing but again I haven't read the book and my girlfriend loved it when she did, so it's prolly good after all.





Obviously, if you're a person who just don't like books and by default will prefer a film (even if it's a shit adaptation), just because it's a film, it doesn't really apply to this discussion.

Blade Runner is a negative. I think that genre is going to be hard to surpass on film.

Maybe something by Elmore Leonard - did he write the book LA Confidential is based on? Edit, James Ellroy. Elmore is the Tarantino films guy - they might be a decent shout.

Even with wanky trash like Ready Player One the book is better than the film (although the film is a decent effort which is better than most manage).

That's the film/book that started this debate at my office, actually :nodd:

Haven't seen or read either myself mind you.

Films are just better than books. No effort involved.



.

Maybe Fight Club.

Books are always going to be better than their films because you can set the scene better and add a lot more nuance and detail to things. Film adaptations are just a greatest hits compilation.

Yes, that makes sense and that's probably why it's almost always like that. But, books can be quite shit too, but sell well and result in film adaptations that could in theory be better.

Stuff like Twilight. I haven't read the books, but I've seen some of the films.

Now, make no mistake - the films are really pretty shit. But, I could imagine the books being even worse.

Maz has it in general, it'll only be where the books are accepted as poor where the films win.

The Godfather. The book is an entertaining read but the film is a whole other level of brilliant.

A Scanner Darkly was great as they just did the book word for word right up until the final third which they completely skip. So close but so far.

Adaptions are successful if they understand what is good about the source material and present that in the foreground with a whole lot of editing. Le Carre and Elmore Leonard are good examples. Both are genre writers but they are better than most writers in their genres because they have specific points of view. Good adaptations of Leonard understand that he strips away everything he thinks the audience will skim and adds it all to the dialogue, so every conversation becomes a transaction even when it is about something utterly banal like a cheeseburger. Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, Out of Sight, or Justified get that and bad ones just do the plot. You can get a plot anywhere but for something to have impact there needs to be something else.

If all Cormac McCarthy's books are written in the same unnecessarily obtuse way as Blood Meridian then I'm prepared to accept that No Country for Old Men must be better than the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

The Godfather. The book is an entertaining read but the film is a whole other level of brilliant.

---

Ironically I read the book first and couldn't get into the movie whatsoever

The thing about books is that you're basically you're own film director in your mind. Everything plays out how you like it to (within the frame of the story mind).

You visualize every detail how you would want it visualized, so I'd imagine often that would take precedence over someone else's vision.

Lord of the Rings. What a pile of shit that book is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spikey M

Lord of the Rings. What a pile of shit that book is.

---

Same goes for the films.

Boring twaddle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian

If all Cormac McCarthy's books are written in the same unnecessarily obtuse way as Blood Meridian then I'm prepared to accept that No Country for Old Men must be better than the book.

---

Blood Meridian is the greatest book ever written and McCarthy is a God.

Also King didn't write Shutter Island smh for shame Maz

Audition is better than Murakami's book by a long, long way.

For all my John le Carre fanboyisms, I don't think I've cross-media'd any of his work from film to book. I've either left it at books or TV. I think The Night Manager was crap as a series. Hugh Laurie did Roper right but Pine's a much nicer bastard in the book. I should really pick up The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. I bloody loved that film so I worry the book's going to disappoint.

Grave of the Fireflies was based on a novella which is basically out of print now, so I'd imagine that fits the bill.

Cormac McCarthy is a good shout, I've only read and not seen 'The Road' but the film can't possibly be worse than the book.

The Road is the greatest book ever written and McCarthy is a God.

Would The Greatest Film Ever Made aka The Shawshank Redemption qualify?

Stephen King must have a few qualifiers for this.

Children of the corn!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Soldier

Blood Meridian is the greatest book ever written and McCarthy is a God.

Also King didn't write Shutter Island smh for shame Maz

Audition is better than Murakami's book by a long, long way.

---

Yep I stand corrected. Not sure where I got that from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shindig

For all my John le Carre fanboyisms, I don't think I've cross-media'd any of his work from film to book. I've either left it at books or TV. I think The Night Manager was crap as a series. Hugh Laurie did Roper right but Pine's a much nicer bastard in the book. I should really pick up The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. I bloody loved that film so I worry the book's going to disappoint.

---

Also being a huge fan of Le Carre - I can't imagine that you could ever properly translate his writing style to film - To me he is so great because his style is really subtle and witty in painting portraits of people, especially how he will describe a conversation rather than type it out many times.

I've never read the book but is Ready Player One in that category?

The books not great and the films worse.

The book is compelling trash (like Dan Brown with the Catholicism replaced with 80s pop/game culture) and the film is reasonably compelling trash but with a lot of the niche stuff taken out and replaced with car racing/other cgi wank.

On that note, the Dan Brown films are definitely worse than the books.

I've read a Dan Brown book and I struggle to imagine how any adaptation could be worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disco

I've read a Dan Brown book and I struggle to imagine how any adaptation could be worse.

---

Trust me.

The films are mega mate. Well, not that last one with the super-AIDS; but The Da Vinci Code was belting.

I only ever read the one with the Illumiati (is that all of them?) and the pope's sidekick jumping out of a helicopter at the end.

The film was worse than the book.

The Godfather is the quintessential bad book/great movie. Shawshank Redemption is good book/great movie. Does 2001 count if it was written at the same time as the movie?

Also, they made a baseball adaptation of Fever Pitch? God.

Blade Runner is tough because they're great in very different ways.