Books that AREN'T better than the movie.
 

More often than not, the book is often said to be better than the movie, but there are rare occasions where the book isn't as good as the film adaptation. So what books have you read that you'd rather watch the movie?

For me Alias Madame Doubtfire is no where near as good as the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. I might need to read it again to refresh myself, but there were things I remember not liking in the book or that I felt were done in the movie. Like the reveal...in the book he tells the kids he's Mrs Doubtfire. The youngest calls him that because it's just easier for her little mind to wrap around. Also the big "change back and forth bit" is him at the house as a nude art model...'nuff said.

I just started Forrest Gump, and so far I think I like the movie better.

I've read that and the sequel, and I don't think either particularly struck a chord with me. I love the movie, though.

I've also read ET and the sequel to that (which is weird), and the same pretty much applies.

I haven't read it, but I hear Jaws the movie is way better than the book.

Well, that makes me feel a bit better...I love the movie, but the book just seems less "whimsical"...

Wait, E.T. was based on a book? And there's a sequel? Do the E.T.s bring a full scale invasion?

I've heard similar things about Jaws.

Phantoms


Shocking, I know...

Lord of the Rings...

I know Tolkien is a great writer and the books are classics but reading them compared to watching the movies, hands down I'd rather watch the movies.

-ms

Yeah, the Jaws movie was much better than the book. I felt the Jurassic Park movie was better than the book it was based on too.

There's a sequel to ET (I agree, better than the movie even though I still love the movie)?

Still "reading" Forrest Gump. (Listening to the audio book read by the author) Part of me wonders if it's the fact that Forrest doesn't seems as "childlike" in the book is what makes me like the movie more. That Forrest just is more likeable. The book's Forrest also uses harsher language than his movie counterpart. I mean he's not shot in the "buttocks," he's shot in the "ass" and he likes to use the "s" word... a lot.

I found The Lost World;Jurassic Park to be a better film than the novel.

Wasn't that novel essentially an after thought? I mean they practically resurrected Ian Malcolm.

It pretty much was.

I've never read The Princess Bride, but I can't imagine it being better than the film.

Ironic... since the movie is setup as being read from the book of the same name.

Also, The Natural and First Blood probably two of the most famous examples of people preferring the movie to the book. The print edition of The Natural deserves credit for its subtle weaving of classic mythology with the modern mythology of America's fascinating with baseball in the early 20th century. Yet, in the end it all ends horribly for Roy Hobbs when he takes the Judge's bribe only to try to redeem himself at the last moment but has an epic collapse. The movie, however, is "pure mythical hokum," and just about everybody loves it.

First Blood the book ends with John Rambo blowing himself away in an "artistic" statement about the tragedy of training young men to be the government's cold, efficient killing machines. Yet Stallone figured it would be a terrible message to send to America's Vietnam vets, so Rambo doesn't die in the final cut of the film. That movie probably established the modern action movie formula and Stallone's bank account got pretty full to boot!

ET was not based off a book, I'm sure Roseangelo was just referring to the novelization.

I love both the Forrest Gump movie and the original book. I love them both because I find them so wildly different. The book is much more vulgar and obsurd, while the movie is more uplifting and more of a nostalgic look at American history over the last 50 years or so.

And I thaught that Muppet Treasure Island was better than the book. The book didn't have Dead Tom.

Or Tim Curry, for that matter!

I know it's not technically a book but I've always preferred the original The Crow over the comic (of the same name) it was based on. The movie was just more coherent, well structured, and really made you feel for Draven. In the comic it was a lot harder to associate with him, and the crow itself talked, which was kind of weird.

Fight Club was a much better movie than book, as is Jaws, and Scott Pilgrim vs The World.

I've been told that Blade Runner is far superior to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" but haven't read it myself.

As a fan of both, I have to say that it's not really fair to compare the two. Blade Runner is loyal to the spirit of its source material, but is very different otherwise. I'd recommend giving both a chance.

Agree!!! 100% :tcool:

Wow, I think any Jurassic Park fan would highly disagree with all of you. The film Jurassic Park impacted me as a 7 year old and because of my attachment to it I can't make a good unbiased decision, I just love the film and nothing will ever top it not even the book. However the book is simply amazing in every way and is just as good as the movie if not better.

Now The Lost World is very different from the movie and actually a great sequel to the original novel. The same can not be said for the film The Lost World, which I still love because it's Jurassic Park but it has plenty of flaws which the novel does not have.

I'll go ahead and agree with Lord of the Rings. Love the movies, but the books are boring as hell and a real endurance test.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

:twink:

But it encompass several issues, though.

Are we talking comics, or the **** books based on the movies?

Interesting question...but should movie novelizations count?

Ultimately your call, but I'd say novelizations shouldn't count. If you're going to say a movie is better than its source material, then a book based on the movie isn't that.

Exactly my thought.

I would say that I enjoyed Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula was much better than the book. Improved the characters, added a nice back story between Mina and Drac.

and Van Helsing...Anthony Hopkins was also the priest at the beginning...all 3 were tied to each other from the start

LOTR

http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imag...0460664-42.jpg

I enjoyed the novel just a little more than Blade Runner. I struggled through the first chapter, but after that, I enjoyed the stuff about Mercerism and the artificial animals.

It's a graphic novel example, but I think the Kick-Ass movie is quite a bit better than the comic book series. I prefer that the Kick-Ass movie is more upbeat and not so nihilistic.

Although the Kick-Ass comic does go into more detail on why Dave's decision to be a superhero was so stupid, when he spends that time in the hospital and thinks about the consequences of his actions (like the hospital bills and how he could have ended up a vegetable). That was one thing from the comic that they shouldn't have left out.

"The Shining".

Wrote an extended review explaining why in detail.

But baiscally, the Kubrick movie was genuinely tense and suspenseful while King's novel was filled with unintentional hilarity, complete WTF moments and lots of stupid, stupid dialogue.

Many films based on King stories are improvements or at least good in different ways. In the case of "The Shining", though, the source material was just a bad, wasted concept.

Jack killing himself at the end by bonking himself on the head with a mallet Bugs Bunny-style then coming back to life as a zombie possessed by a giant evil manta ray...

God, that's how many hours of my life I'll never get back?

I hope that silly yet scary face is a joke. LotR will forever be my favorite movies, but to say they are better than the books shows a seedling to a tree. In other words, you're no Tolkien fan.

I second the Crow, although the comic wasn't have bad. I did read it before the movie came out still prefer the movie though..

JAWS and THE SHINING are what instantly come to mind.

Wouldn't really say AMERICAN PSYCHO was a better movie than it was a book .. it was very different approaches to the material. Both the book and film are filled with dark humour, but the violence in the film is more implied where in the book is incredibly more explicit.

Some of Kings' novels translate better as movies. As is the case of Green Mile and to an extent Thinner.
I gotta disagree about the Shining though. Although there is some laughably bad dialogue I prefer a total mindf**k over watching a good hour in which nothing happens. Granted it builds suspense but one can only take so many shots of Jack looking off into the distance. I really like the movie I just like the book more, and a Zombified Jack Torrence that smashed his own face open is the icing of the cake. Plus the way that Jack dies in the movie is hilarious

Green Mile is probably one of the most faithful adaptations of a King novel to film...not sure how it's better. It's practically the same.

The Godfather. The book was good, the movie is perfect. Just really stellar work on the part of all the actors.

Plus, we lose that weird vagina subplot. What the hell was that about?

The actor's portrayals, the set and the music really helped. While I enjoyed the serial, I think the movie took it to another level. More than anyhing though, what I meant is that it translates better as a movie.

So...you can't imagine that as you read? Maybe that's the upside of watching the movie, then reading the book, you have all the "imagination" work done for you.

That's why I HAVE to read the book before I see the movies. HAVE to. After the film, I always imagine the characters in the book as the actors, the settings as they were portrayed on screen, etc.

That's why I haven't seen a minute of Harry Potter.

Yeah...that may have hampered my enjoyment of Forrest Gump. It was hard to not imagine Tom Hanks, despite the fact that they describe a much larger man.

Though....I was kinda disappointed by the lack of a detailed description of the monster in Frankenstein.