Most of us know the feeling. One of our favorite books is being made into a movie. We go see it with breathless anticipation and... Oh what a disapointment! The film neither captures the tone, the feel or the scope of the novel it was based on.
My question is, has it ever happened where you actually liked the film better?
The only exapmle I can think of is "The Wizard of Oz."
2006-09-12 05:24:46 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Blade Runner i.e Do Androids Dream of Electirc Sheep. Possibly one of the best sci-fi movie ever.
2006-09-12 06:38:56 · answer #1 · answered by Ralph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The second Bridget Jones movie. The book had gone a bit too much over the top, and I was very pleased with the movie, because much of the craziness had been either left out or toned down.
I'll disagree on the Wizard of Oz, I don't think the movie was better than the book. In fact, I can easily imagine fans of the book being outraged when the movie came out. Still an excellent movie, though.
2006-09-12 05:41:27 · answer #2 · answered by nellierslmm 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I found "The Devil Wears Prada" movie to be better than the book. The plot turns are a lot more interesting, and the characters subsequently make more reasonable decisions and choices. The idea and tone were captured, but in a way that was more visual and less redundant than the book. Of course, there were things I'd improve about the movie, but . . .
I agree with another poster that the "novelization" of any movie is utter dreck and should be thrown into the trash with full force.
2006-09-12 05:33:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
jumanni The book was a small childrens book and I like the way they took a short story and made a whole movie out of it. It may not be the best movie in the world but I liked it.
Another good movie that was better than the book was HOOK. That was good
Princess Bride is another great example. The book is kind of boring because it goes into the heirarcy of the throne and and the decendants of the kings and things like that I love the movie. It is fen and campy and has action adveturea dn the actors are such a good mix for the characters.
2006-09-12 05:36:53 · answer #4 · answered by memorris900 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" was better than the book, which, allegedly, was written at the same time that the time was being made. (The movie and book are both based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story.) The book is pretty good, actually, but the movie is one of a kind.
"The Shining" is quite a bit different than the book, liked them both, but while the book is same old Steven King the movie is classic. (Speaking of Steven King, "Carrie" was probably a marginally better movie than book.)
2006-09-12 11:14:54 · answer #5 · answered by DR 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Psycho, 2001, The Birds, The Shining, The Exorcist, Cape Fear, The Ring.... strange enough, all of them Science Fiction + Horror, couldn't stand the books - loved the movies...
+ The Night of the Hunter (my all-time favourite movie)
+ The Wizard of Oz - YES!
Usually (USUALLY, there of course are exceptions to the rule), a bad book makes a good movie (in the hands of a good director) and good books make bad movies because the director tries to give HIS images and his thoughts and most of the time these won't do justice to what YOU loved about the book.
2006-09-12 10:21:23 · answer #6 · answered by msmiligan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When a movie is novelised afterwards, it often seems to be lacking something - the film relies heavily on the actors' personalities. Book and film are such different media that it is difficult for a story to work well as both. For example, thought, memory etc... Memory can be handled as a "live" flashback in film, but thought can't, unless you go the "comedy" way as the old Ally McBeel (sp?) series did.
2006-09-12 13:40:35 · answer #7 · answered by sallyotas 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not a movie but the BBC series of Gormenghast was better than the Mervyn Peak books. Even though they are considered to be classics I found them very long winded and overblown whereas the series was really good. The imagery was just right- a really magical series with some excellent points about the ridiculous nature of monarchy and ritual.
2006-09-12 08:44:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Natural - movie with Robert Redford, can't remember who the book is by. I thought the main character was a lot more likeable in the movie. In the book he was a bumbling idiot and it made me mad. Also, the movie had a way better ending than the book.
Circle of Friends by Maeve Binchy. Again, with the ending. The movie had a happy ending, the book was bittersweet. I like happy endings.
2006-09-12 07:05:12 · answer #9 · answered by sgmaluv 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only two example I can think of are:
1. As some one said, Blade Runner, though I did enjoy the book, and
2. The Godfather - which is a pretty tawdry read but an impressive movie.
2006-09-12 07:51:18 · answer #10 · answered by UKJess 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I thought "The Devil Wears Prada" was better as the movie, too. I actually read the book after the movie and didn't like it as much. I felt like Andy's character comes to a better turning point in the movie. And the conflict was tighter, better orchestrated. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
2006-09-12 05:51:06 · answer #11 · answered by dramaturgerenata78 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋