This - Stardust - is the one first one that came to mind when I saw the thread title. The book is too much of a downer for a light fantasy and the movie hits it just right.
I also think "The Godfather" was a better picture than Mario Puzo's book.
Movies that ARE better than the book
- Thread starter heybatter
- Start date
This - Stardust - is the one first one that came to mind when I saw the thread title. The book is too much of a downer for a light fantasy and the movie hits it just right.
I also think "The Godfather" was a better picture than Mario Puzo's book.
Rob, this was choice hands down. I never realised who Philip K. Dick was til a few years ago. When I was young I was really reading more fantasy stuff than pure science fiction. When Blade Runner came out I was jut short of eighteen years of age. I was too busy running around to pay attention to much of anything. Let alone who did or did not write a book or screenplay for a movie. Blade Runner registered just about nowhere on my scale. Then I subscribed to HBO and one of the movies that came on was Blade Runner. Hmm, with a name like that it had to be good. From first viewing I was hooked. From the film noir sets, cigarette smoking, background score, it was all a very retro forties vibe right down to Sean Young's hairdo. I couldn't believe it did not play well at the cinema.
Fast forward about thirty years and I had read so much about the author the book I had to try it out. I was well warned that it was not like the movie in many respects but it was good. Solid but not captivating like the movie was. Nearly thirty five years on I still see college students now and again with Blade Runner nostalgia like posters on their walls. Not often but enough to notice it. To me, the concept of the movie and how it compared Replicants to humans was far superior to the book.
3:10 to Yuma was based on a novella, if I remember correctly. I thought the movie was better.
My sister has read the entire lord of the rings books (about 4 times over, maybe more), and she absolutely loves the movies. Of course has a few gripes about the films but overall, she really enjoyed them.
Todd,
I have watched Blade Runner many times in one version or another. I completely agree that it is a great movie.
<I couldn't believe it did not play well at the cinema.>
I did not realize it hadn't, but I will take your word for it. In some ways it is not an easy movie. It takes paying attention to. It certainly has a good cult following! Count in as in the cult, I guess.
I have watched Blade Runner many times in one version or another. I completely agree that it is a great movie.
<I couldn't believe it did not play well at the cinema.>
I did not realize it hadn't, but I will take your word for it. In some ways it is not an easy movie. It takes paying attention to. It certainly has a good cult following! Count in as in the cult, I guess.
Rob, it was nearly considered a box office flop. It gained a nearly cult following almost immediately after it went to video. I am unsure why this happened but I guess it adds to the mystique. I read somewhere there was talk of a remake and to be honest, I don't know how it can be pulled off. There was something about the chemistry of the entire cast that doesn't happen too often in movies. They all fit their parts if that makes sense.
Last edited:
Not a movie but a TV show. I like The Dresden files much better as a television show than as a book.
And Jesus Christ SuperStar was more interesting than the Bible gospel telling because of the amazing music.
And Jesus Christ SuperStar was more interesting than the Bible gospel telling because of the amazing music.
As another hard-core Tolkien book lover, I couldn't stand the last Hobbit movie.
There is a reason that Tolkien's books are masterpieces of literature that have been cherished for decades. Whenever movie producers change things, it pisses me off.
That's one reason that I liked most of the Harry Potter movies. All of them, really. J. K. Rowling had creative control (I believe) and thus the spirit of the movies was similar to the books.
I have heard that Christopher Tolkien is not willing to sell the rights to the Silmarillion to Peter Jackson. An excellent decision in my opinion.
<end rant as I reread the Hobbit for the nth time with a mug of cocoa before the fireplace>
There is a reason that Tolkien's books are masterpieces of literature that have been cherished for decades. Whenever movie producers change things, it pisses me off.
That's one reason that I liked most of the Harry Potter movies. All of them, really. J. K. Rowling had creative control (I believe) and thus the spirit of the movies was similar to the books.
I have heard that Christopher Tolkien is not willing to sell the rights to the Silmarillion to Peter Jackson. An excellent decision in my opinion.
<end rant as I reread the Hobbit for the nth time with a mug of cocoa before the fireplace>
I agree with most people about The Hobbit. I've been a pretty hardcore Tolkien fan too. I've lost count, but I've probably read the 4 main books over 10 times now. Sure The Hobbit is a much more simplistic book than the LOTR books. I don't think that gives an excuse to bastardize the whole thing into 3 movies just because they knew they could make $$$$$.
I know most of the population are not die hard Tolken fans. Us long time fans WERE looking for something more in the spirit of the actual book.
I know most of the population are not die hard Tolken fans. Us long time fans WERE looking for something more in the spirit of the actual book.
Edcculus, I agree. The Hobbit was a story for children. It was not nearly as dark as the LOTR. While I had to see the movies, just because, I found myself glad it was ending by the time the third movie was half over. They could have made a nice three hour epic that would have encapsulated it well. Sorry OP, back on topic for here on out.
Which one? The classic version with Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, or the recent car chase on horseback disaster?
Yeah, he does. Its goofy and completely unnecessary.
Of course I read the book after I saw the movie, and the movie is one of my favorites, so my view as jaundiced to begin with as I read the book, but the movie is such a perfectly propulsive action movie that to read the book with its boring detours and affairs is just silly to me.
The James bond classic Goldfinger. Not only did it improve upon Ian Fleming's book, it was the movie that cemented the character of James Bond in the public's mind and served as the blueprint from which most future Bond movies were made.
I am not in favor of a remake! I agree that there was something about the chemistry of the cast that really helped this movie. I think the movie was also ahead of its time. I truly love it.
<the recent car chase on horseback disaster>
That one, I am afraid. I liked it. But I understand the criticism. Ben Foster as Charlie Prince was just amazing, I thought. I went back and watched the Glenn Ford one, too. I think I got it from Netflix in DVD version. I think it seemed dated to me. Particularly as to the treatment of the Prince character. But I love those classic westerns.
By the way, it was an Elmore Leonard short story. It was a pretty good short story, but I thought the movies were better.
Last edited:
As you may have guessed it is one of my favourites as well. When the multi disc limited version DVD set came out a few years ago I snapped one up immediately.
I feel you have hit the mark with your suggestion the film was simply ahead of its time. Star Wars brought the great FX for the first time and the adult scripting. Blade Runner brought all that and the sophisticated noir along with the elements of the gumshoe, femme fatale, detective genre, etc. It really was simply ahead of its time. One need look no further than 1997's Fifth Element to see the influence. Even though Blade Runner's FX holds up just fine I have always wondered how massive a blockbuster it would have been if made ten years later and not been released against E.T. and Star Trek II. I note at wiki there is a link to the 'best of' movie categories and Blade Runner is right at the top of the sci fi category.
Divergence....
Jaws was a much better movie than the book. National Velvet was a good movie made from a hideously bad book. For modern kid films, How to Train a Dragon is vastly better as a movie, since it has nothing to do with a terrible book. I preferred the first True Grit film to the book, which is why I preferred it to the second film as well.
Tolkien: I put up with Jackson's stupidity during the LOTR, but nearly walked out when he filmed "Bilbo Baggins and the Temple of Doom" in the first Hobbit film. I fell asleep midway thru the second film and won't bother seeing the 3rd.
Tolkien: I put up with Jackson's stupidity during the LOTR, but nearly walked out when he filmed "Bilbo Baggins and the Temple of Doom" in the first Hobbit film. I fell asleep midway thru the second film and won't bother seeing the 3rd.
The Shining. I love the early Stephen King novels, but Kubrick and Jack Nicholson made an unforgettable film.
I also agree that Fight Club was a much better film than the book.
I also agree that Fight Club was a much better film than the book.
Another Stephen King novel that's movie is better is...The Shawshank Redemption.
Here's another one: The Outlaw Josey Wales. A fantastic movie, based on a forgotten so-so western novel titled Gone To Texas. The movie blows the book away.
I also like the Bourne films more than the Bourne novels, but that is probably just because Robert Ludlum's writing style annoyed me to no end for some reason.
I also like the Bourne films more than the Bourne novels, but that is probably just because Robert Ludlum's writing style annoyed me to no end for some reason.
