Which film is better than the book?

[Johnny Canuck3]

Star Wars

 

[N_igma]

LOTR.

Love the book, but it, quite frankly, can be a bit tedious. I've only read the thing once. But I have watched the films many, many times and am still in awe at their awesomeness.

Bollocks, I suggest you read the books a few more times.

Haven't read that many books that have been adapted into films Trainspotting comes very close.

 

[vogonity]

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Movie was a vast improvement on the book.

 

[red rose]

Although the film of Captain Correlli's Mandolin leaves out loads of important parts of the book and changes things beyond recognition in cases I prefer the ending of the film to the ending of the book

 

[Kaka Tim]

Another vote for Lord of the Rings - Peter Jackson wisely cut out all the Tom Bombadil whimsy nonsense and and cut down on the annoying elves, the film is also a lot darker than thes books - and better for it.

Although the 'bouncing on the beds' bit at the end of the third film was a bit shit.


Slightly tenuous - Apocalypse Now is much better than Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'.

 

[Greta]

About Schmidt - excellent film when the book is almost unreadable. Jack Nicholson made the character dimensional.

 

[Paris Garters]

The Beach - moderately enjoyable film, crap book.

Eh???
The book takes far less obvious routes, eg the hero is not a hero at all, he's a naive self-involved arsehole, and he doesn't get the girl (over to Hollywood...). The last scene on the island left me completely shocked and feeling a bit sick, an impact which is absent from the film, and even has that stupid emailed photo of them all looking happy together, whereas the book details the terrible psychological legacy for various characters...all in all, I thought the book was deeper, darker and more interesting than the film by far.

 

[Lea]

Bridget Jones. I couldn't finish the book but I liked the film.

 

[Mallard]

The Talented Mr Ripley is a pretty forgettable book but a very fine film.

Agreed but the Alain Delon 'Plein Soliel' original film is better than both.

 

[oryx]

deeper, darker and more interesting than the film by far.

Teletubbies is probably deeper, darker & more interesting than the film, but I still reckoned it was better than the book.

 

[saucisson]

I prefer the film version of high fidelity to the book.

(if you are including TV adaptations then 'The crow road' was IMO really well done and preferable to the book).

 

[DotCommunist]

I prefer the film version of high fidelity to the book.

(if you are including TV adaptations then 'The crow road' was IMO really well done and preferable to the book).

Ian Banks is a god and Crow Road is one of his best!

 

[Greta]

Bridget Jones. I couldn't finish the book but I liked the film.

I agree. The book was good, but.... I also wonder if it makes a difference if you've seen the film first then read the book

 

[thefishdead]

Bullet. Crap book.
They changed alot but it was all the better for it.

 

[saucisson]

Ian Banks is a god and Crow Road is one of his best!

I didn't say it wasn't good. I just preferred the TV adaptation, thought it was done really well.

 

[belboid]

loads of classic noirs were based on pulp thrillers, enjoyable, but far far from great literature. big sleep, maltese falcoln, postman always rings twice, to name but three.

Talented Mr Ripley is a much better book than film.

 

[Reno]

Hannibal. Not a great film but an improvement over the novel, which was terrible. There were rumors that Thomas Harris hadn't even written it himself, because it's nothing like the previous two Hannibal Lecter books in style and content. At least Ridley Scott made a reasonably entertaining horror, leaving out the most unbelievable excesses from the novel and changing the silly ending to one that was slightly more believable.

 

[DotCommunist]

Hannibal. Not a great film but an improvement over the novel, which was terrible. There were rumors that Thomas Harris hadn't even written it himself, because it's nothing like the previous two Hannibal Lecter books in style and content. At least Ridley Scott made a reasonably entertaining horror, leaving out the most unbelievable excesses from the novel and changing the silly ending to one that was slightly more believable.

You are so wrong. The book pissed all over the film, finally revealed the mind of Lecter. And to say the ending was silly? what more silly than believing that a sociopathic genius would let his favorite object of affection ( and FBI agent) go? balls.

 

[8ball]

A Stir of Echoes - ropey film, awful book.

 

[jessie7]

Stephen Kings dreamcatcher.
The movie was awesome...the book was good to but...movie was better...

 

[Reno]

You are so wrong. The book pissed all over the film, finally revealed the mind of Lecter. And to say the ending was silly? what more silly than believing that a sociopathic genius would let his favorite object of affection ( and FBI agent) go? balls.

What's more silly then trying to make us believe that after all we had learned about Clarice, in the last chapter she'd suddenly also become a cannibal, fall in love with Lecter and that they'd live happily ever after. I also was glad Scott left out the ridiculous character of Vergers steroid addicted, baby crazed, ultra butch lesbian sister and her novel way of self insemination. It was the one book that I actually read to the end simply to find out just how idiotic it would get and on that level it didn't disappoint. I still think Harris was taking the piss.

 

[bus]

trainspotting. great book...better film.

Lord of the rings is a great book, though turgid at times (especially the 2 towers) - far too much "ismbang son of wimbibbly the mender of the spoon of stirring belonging to pombilddlypom the slayer of teh dog's mum's brother's cat". is the film better? not sure, but its a damn sigt more accessible.

v for vendetta's a great book...though i've not seen the film 'cos I'm not sure i can face it...

 

[gsv]

The Princess Bride
The book (yes, the abridged 'good bits' version) just lacks the zing and the joy of the ilm

GS(v)

 

[Dubversion]

The Princess Bride
The book (yes, the abridged 'good bits' version) just lacks the zing and the joy of the ilm

GS(v)

Bollocks

the book is fantastic - funny, clever, 'metatextual'. The film is a saturday morning kids tv movie. Only with a smaller budget and a worse script.

it's also not an abridged version, nothing of the sort. It has everything in the film - everything! - and a lot more.

 

[floopadelic]

The Jungle Book movie is so much better than the book.

 

[Reno]

The Princess Bride
The book (yes, the abridged 'good bits' version) just lacks the zing and the joy of the ilm

GS(v)

The film of The Princess Bride not only missed out all the best gags from the book (many of which are literary) but also never comes close at being as moving or exciting. I recently tried to watch the film again and everything about it looked dated and cheap.

 

[Dubversion]

The film of The Princess Bride not only missed out all the best gags from the book (many of which are literary) but also never becomes as moving or exciting. I recently tried to watch the film again and everything about it looked dated and cheap.

Would you also agree that the book is in no way 'abridged'?

 

[Reno]

Would you also agree that the book is in no way 'abridged'?

Yes, I took longer than you to post as I'm also working, so my attention is somewhat divided. Sue me for copyright infringement if you have to.

 

[Dubversion]

Yes, I took longer than you to post as I'm also working, so my attention is somewhat divided. Sue me for copyright infringement if you have to.

eh?

i'm confused. i was looking for backup, not criticising the content

 

[Reno]

eh?

I thought you was taking the piss because my sentiments echoes yours, no ?