"The movie was better."

You know how it is: there's a movie based on a work of fiction and the most common complaint was "The book was better."

But what movies can you think of in which actually improved on the source material?

I'll also allow for "Just as good" for the sake of fairness.

edited 7th Nov '15 7:59:05 PM by HextarVigar

Your momma's so dumb she thinks oral sex means talking dirty.

I've heard that the book version of Snowpiercer is TERRIBLE.

That is the face of a man who just ate a kitten. Raw.

everyone seems to say otherwise, but Watchmen.

the squid was stupid. period.

the movie isn't perfect, not by a long stretch, but fixing THE major climactic plot point makes the movie much better, more than any smaller side points that you can argue against it.

Also, the opening credits song, absolutely perfect. you can't get that song on paper.

edited 7th Nov '15 8:28:44 PM by willyolio

Isn't this just a complaint thread?

I wouldn't say so.

That is the face of a man who just ate a kitten. Raw.

Since you're basing your reply on the source material, it's kind of hard to call it a complaint thread. At worst you're saying one version was better than the other.

Your momma's so dumb she thinks oral sex means talking dirty.

If the topic remains focused on movies which improved things in regards to the source, it's legit.

However, if things go down, I won't hesitate to holler the mods.

I wouldn't be so sure. Some threads went down the complaint road in spite of their lighter topics in the past.

---

So, I recommend that we keep it focused on positive stuff, everyone.

edited 7th Nov '15 9:17:27 PM by Quag15

Would it be bad of me to say that The Last Temptation Of Christ was better than the gospels? ;)

Though in a more serious manner, I honestly prefer the movie version of American Psycho to the book. While the book had better atmosphere, making you really experience the cold environment and Patrick's dull boring repetitive life, the movie was better in making the themes more accessible. I've heard quite a few people (and even myself at times) say that they couldn't finish the book due to its dullness. Not that it doesn't serve a purpose, but the movie just flows better. It also doesn't hurt that it manages to combine several Bateman rants with important scenes, not just having them being sputtered out of nowhere like in the book.

(Though I would've liked the movie to include the scene where Patrick tries to give money to a beggar...only to realize that she was a well off person just relaxing and that cup was full of coffee. )

Eh, that seems like too common a gag to do something like that.

That is the face of a man who just ate a kitten. Raw.

I'd say that the film version of Big Trouble is better than Dave Barry's novel. I felt it made the characters more interesting, and relied much less on the whole ranting-about-stuff-the-author-doesn't-like thing.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

Who framed Roger Rabbit. Even the author says so.

But to mention a more obscure example: Topkapi. If you have never seen the movie, I suggest to read the book first, because the movie spoils it otherwise. And after you enjoyed the book, watch the movie, which is telling the same story from an entirely different perspective. I think the movie is slightly better, because it is more fun to rewatch. But both are interesting approaches.

Eh, I'd still say that "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" has its merits. I do like that it goes all the way out with Film Noir tropes, and I do the like the surprise twist (or untwist) that in this version Roger actually did kill the murder victim and was using Edie Valiant as a patsy.

I think that while great literary books are hard to translate to film, cheesy pop fiction can translate well into film and make for a better movie than a book.

Jaws was first a novel. The novel has a wholly unnecessary subplot with a romance between Brody's wife and Hooper, and in general is pretty mediocre. The movie is an all-time classic.

Psycho started out as a novel by Robert Bloch. The movie is highly faithful, while also being an all-time classic in a way the book just isn't—Bloch's novel is mostly forgotten today and would be completely forgotten if not for the movie.

And let's be honest, Mario Puzo's Godfather novels are cheesy crap, but The Godfather and its sequel are two of the best movies ever made.

Arguably the Lord of the Rings movies, just for being a bit more easily digestible than Tolkien's books - not that they're bad, but Tolkien at times seems more invested in the mythos and history of his world than the story he's actually telling. I think the films actually make people like Frodo and Aragorn a lot more relatable, but at the expense of other characters like Legolas being reduced to The Stoic whereas Tolkien's Legolas was pretty chipper. I guess the films do a better job with the main characters and Tolkien does a better job with the supporting characters, strangely.

I think that Burton's reinterpretation of Catwoman and the Penguin in Batman Returns, while wildly different from the comics, are some of the best takes on the characters ever and home in on the psychological aspects of Batman that are glossed over in other adaptations.

The Shining makes a lot of scarier changes to the book for the better, i.e. an axe and instead of a croquet mallet, less exposition and more ambiguity, etc.

"A king has no friends. Only subjects and enemies."

The LOTR books also have tons of filler in them.

That is the face of a man who just ate a kitten. Raw.

I firmly believe that any movie adaptation is good

IF

after watching it you are perfectly satisfied and don't want to check the source material.

Such an adaptation is "as good", or "better".

If you are left dissatisfied, and wonder if "the original has more to offer", then the book was indeed better.

I never wanted to read Mrs Frisby and The Rats of NIMH, because I like The Secret of NIMH the way it is, and prefer to see it as "nearly perfect". And whenever people keep telling me to "check the book out it's so much better", I wish they would just stop talking and go away.

I never read The Mist, but I do know how the movie differs from it. And after watching The Mist I cannot imagine another version, since that adaptation was perfect.

edited 8th Nov '15 1:01:42 AM by KlarkKentThe3rd

My angry rant blog!

Nah, you can still find the original to be crap or meh in comparison to an adaption that may still be somewhat good.

I wholeheartedly agree about Watchmen. The movie captured the comic's tone almost perfectly and word for word in many cases. Changing the ending from a random ass squid monster to a much more believable framing of Dr. Manhattan makes way more sense.

I guess it depends on how close the movie is to the books. If it just takes basic ideas but tells their own story - as it is the case with The Secret of Nimh - it is simply a matter of taste. If it is an adaptation in name only - as it is the case with The Fox and the Hound - than the movie isn't a good adaptation for sure, but it still might be a good movie which tells the superior story. But if a movie is a more or less close adaptation and not reading the books means you are missing a large chunk of the story - as it is the case with the Harry Potter Movies or Watership down - I'll always say that the adaptation is missing something important. And I say that as someone who really likes Watership down. But I read the book after seeing the movie and I suddenly realized that I was just sitting near a candle the whole time even though I could have gotten the sun.

I agree that Watchmen had a more sensible take on the final threat. It draws on the natural and justifiable apprehension that people would have about an omniscient god-like figure in their midst.

The rest of it I suppose I'll defer to the comics.

Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project

I found First Blood to be better than the book, as it made Rambo more sympathetic. In the book, he seems like a dangerous animal that needs to be put down.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is different, but I'd say it's slightly better. Mostly because it's shown from the perspective of Only Sane Man, which makes the abuse by hospital staff much clearer. However, it kind of misses the point of the ending - only in the book it's clear why Chief decides to escape.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

While not exactly good, Sphere the movie is quite an improvement, IMHO, from the original source.

Also, Jurassic Park. The movie is a classic. The Book... isn't.

I think both are very even.

An obscure and utterly forgotten novel whose title I can't even remember off the top of my head was made into Touch of Evil, one of Orson Welles' best films.