What movies are better than the book?

Greensawmill

Greensawmill

New member
When I was in 7th grade, my English teacher first introduced me to the concept that the book is always better than the movie. He had us read Shane the 1949 western by Jack Schaefer, and then we discussed the book, and then took a class period to watch the 1953 movie of the same title. The movie doesn't begin to do the book justice, and shows pivotal events without explaining them at all, underdevelopment of characters, and changes to the storyline. I remember discussing with my classmates afterward the drastic difference, and I began to have a new appreciation for books. I don't remember much from 7th grade English, but this one lesson has remained with me through the years since. A couple of years later, I decided to tackle one of my mother's favorite stories, Gone With The Wind. She watched the movie every year as it was broadcast on TV (this was back when you had to watch a movie when it came on TV or lose the opportunity) and I would usually watch most of it with her. It was a big read for a 16 year old, but it proved again the lesson that books are better than movies, even when the movie is an award-winning classic, considered by some to be the best movie ever made. I felt after reading the book that someone who has only seen the movie really does not understand the complex Scarlett O'Hara.

So here's the real question of the thread: What occasional movies are out there that are actually better than the book? Rare as they might be, there are a few.

I believe the 1968 musical Oliver! is better than the original Dickens' classic-- any others?

P.S. Sorry if this topic has already been discussed, I searched and couldn't find a thread, although I vaguely remember it being briefly discussed, probably in some other thread, or else I dreamed it. :cool:
 
Oh, dear! this is a challenge. I can thing of plenty of bad movies of good books but the reverse? Hmm....

I'll come back if I can think of any. I do think that Mary Poppins (1964) was better than the book, but I read that in elementary school and my opinions have drastically changed since then. I really need to reread them.
 
Since I've read A Christmas Carol three times, I feel like I can say this with justification: the 2009 version was probably almost better than the book. It was clearly by far the best adaptation becuase of how close it was to the book.

Most of the other film adaptations of books that I've seen were terrible in doing justice to the books....so you don't want my opinion on those. :p
 
If fairy tales count, I think many of the film versions are way better than the originals.

Also, Disney's The Great Mouse Detective is, in my opinion, much better than the book series it was based off. Maybe it was because they were written for younger readers, but they were pretty dull. The characters had no personality and nothing much seemed to happen, although some books were better than others. "The Pygmy Cats" was probably the worst.
 
Last edited:
TO ME-I thought Prince Caspian(the movie) was better than the book
-well besides the last part :cool:

I HONESTLY think the movie is more enturtaining than the book :)


*Hannah prepares herself from any attacks* :p
 
I agree with Princess Bride, the movie for me is better than the book.

Also, True Grit. I found the old John Wayne version preferable to the book - the new version that came out this year (or late 2010?) was closer to the book, and still very good, but to my mind, the JW version, which differed from the book, was better.

Also Cape Fear, if you can stand that sort of psychological suspense thriller and violence in a movie, which I could somehow handle better back in the day. The Cape Fear film with ... was that DeNiro? ... much better than the book. The book was a yawn by comparison.

We could have a whole different thread on books that were better than their movies, and as much as I love GWTW film, the book is much, much better, I agree GSM.
 
I read quite a bit but there are not many books that I have read that are movies. There are still books I need to read that I have already seen the movies of. I have not seen the most recent Pride and Prejudice but the older BBC version I though was better than the book.
Mostly though the books are much better than the movies. LOTR didn't do a bad job but the books are still better.
 
SoA: Mary Poppins

GSM: You know, I've never read the book, but you're not the first person I've heard say that the movie was better.

Aravis Kenobi: A Christmas Carol

GSM: I haven't seen the 2009 version, however I can agree with you on this, some versions can portray exactly the book but with more power because of visual stimulation. The George C. Scott version is my personal favorite, but a local Salt Lake City family theater does A Christmas Carol every December, and it is a very powerful experience for me every time. We've made it a family tradition

SeaStar: fairy tales and Great Mouse Detective

GSM: Hmmm.... good thought on fairy tales, I haven't really read a lot of the originals, although I do know that Disney started showing them in a much more positive light, and those are the versions most of us are now in love with. I bet you're right. Haven't ever read or seen GMD

narnia ice cream: Prince Caspian

GSM: I have to disagree on PC. The book was a powerful experience for me, especially the scene where the children are trying to find their way to Aslan's Howe, and coming to see Aslan with the children, one at a time, first Lucy, the most child-like, then Edmund, the truly penitent who most deeply understands forgiveness, then Peter, the faithful who sometimes relies too much on his own skills and talents, but humble enough to realize when he's strayed too far, and finally Susan, the one most prone to selfishness, most prone to complain about trials, but even she eventually sees Aslan. This scene is among the most powerful in the Narnia Chronicles, and it was completely overlooked in the movie. I DID like the movie, I just have to look at it as a fun story without much relation to the book it was based on. Your statement was "more entertaining" and perhaps you're right... but not more powerful.

Miss Reepicheep: Princess Bride

GSM: Never read the book but the movie is definitely a classic. For me, Mandy Patinkin made the movie truly unforgettable. I loved his character.

Inky: True Grit and Cape Fear

GSM: Never seen either movies or read the books, can you highly recommend either? The recent Jeff Bridges version of True Grit which I didn't see because of how much violence I heard it contained kind of turned me off of that story.

Queen Wylla: Pride and Prejudice and LOTR

GSM: PP- An interesting choice... I think I've seen all the movie or TV versions from the black and white Greer Garson version to the most recent Kira Knightley version and I've read the book twice. The 1996 Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle A&E miniseries was by far the best screen version, with amazing acting, and I do agree that it had some parts that were superior to the novel. I can't give it a higher overall rating though, the novel is such a delight to savor... I like to read it slowly as if eating strawberry shortcake and enjoying every bite to the very last.

LOTR- Books are definitely better, although at least the scene with Gandalf fighting the Balrog in Moria is so powerful in the movie, probably better there than the book... I still have a hard time with the alteration the movies made in Faramir's character.

Miss Reepicheep: How To Train Your Dragon

GSM: Like narnia ice cream, I didn't know there was a book until you made this post, I looked up the series and it looks intriguing. Have you read all seven?

How about The Maltese Falcon? I've read the book and pretty well hated it, but haven't seen the movie which I hear is a true classic.
 
The book, True Grit, is quite good because of the very interesting style of the narrator, which is, of course, the little girl Maddie. Her rather innocent/starry-eyed ideals contrasting with her tenacity and very realistic grasp of the world make it such an odd contrast, and that particular contrast played out well in both film versions. You are correct that the Jeff Bridges version had unwarranted violence, and less of a fairy tale/happy ending quality than the John Wayne version did. I was happy the new version stayed close to the book, but I just really prefer the John Wayne version of the film to both the book and the Bridges version -- although Maddie in the new version, that actress, does quite a remarkable job. I guess a Cohen Bros version of the film was bound to lose the light-heartedness of the John Wayne version, and that, to me, was what made it better than the film.

I would not recommend the Cape Fear book; it was rather dull. The movie is one of those that's viciously interesting but also disturbing, so I wouldn't really recommend it, either. I used to be less sensitive to stuff like that, but now I am kind of squeamish. It is good if you can stand it, I guess. Like watching Heath Ledger in Dark Kight?

I am a great Jane Austen and Tolkien fan and cannot allow that any film so far has been better than any book, but of the adaptations I've seen, the BBC version of P&P with Colin Firth is far and away the best -- but it was a miniseries and took the time to tell the whole story.
 
Miss Reepicheep: How To Train Your Dragon

GSM: Like narnia ice cream, I didn't know there was a book until you made this post, I looked up the series and it looks intriguing. Have you read all seven?
Click to expand...

No, I have not- I only read the first one. I fully expected the books to be delightful and humorous, but I couldn't bear the first, and gave up halfway through. I didn't like the writing style at all, and all the things I loved best about the movie were absent in the book. But maybe it's just me. Others might enjoy the book.
 
Greensawmill said:
Miss Reepicheep: How To Train Your Dragon

GSM: Like narnia ice cream, I didn't know there was a book until you made this post, I looked up the series and it looks intriguing. Have you read all seven?
Click to expand...

I've read the 1st and 3rd ones (the library loan refused to let me have the 2nd one :rolleyes:) and I agree 100% that the movie is better than the book. And the movie barely follows the book- the battle scene to the part where Hiccup wakes up afterward follow the book a little, but not much.... and I'm kinda glad of that. haha....
(the only thing I sort-of wish they'd kept is that in the book Hiccup can talk to the dragons, but it kind of works in the movie that he can't.)

edit: PS. Miss R- I thought the 3rd book was better than the first one. :p But I honestly didn't think the first one was all THAT bad....
 
Last edited:
This is a really interesting thread! Thanks for making it, GSM!

MissReepicheep said:
The How to Train your Dragon movie is MUCH better than the book.
Click to expand...

Was the movie based on the book or vice versa? If it's the latter, then that would explain a lot :p

I thought that the movie My Sister's Keeper was better than the book. I'm sure most people would disagree with me, and I understand why; still, I think the onscreen adaption was more poignant (for me, at least). It simplified the original story a TON, which I actually thought was a great decision on the filmmakers' part. It made the plot so much easier to follow by eliminating superfluous characters and events. The ending was completely different from the book, which made it a lot more emotional for me. The actors were wonderful, too. I just thought it was crafted more seamlessly than Jodi Picoult's novel.

Another movie that I enjoy more than the book is The Princess Diaries. It's one of those films from my childhood that I'll never get tired of. It's much easier to take seriously than the book - which is entertaining; don't get me wrong. It just seems to have less substance.
 
narnia ice cream said:
TO ME-I thought Prince Caspian(the movie) was better than the book
-well besides the last part :cool:

I HONESTLY think the movie is more enturtaining than the book :)


*Hannah prepares herself from any attacks* :p
Click to expand...

I agree that in some parts, the PC movie was better than the book. I liked that the girls got to Aslans How rather than romped around with Aslan. To me, that part was extremely boring, and I normally skip over it. I loved the Castle Raid, it was a cool scene, though it was not really neccessary. I thought that Peter's attitude could have been done without, but since I prefer to be an optimist, and it was a very interesting way of showing him and so forth, I enjoy it.
I do not know what you mean, though, by not liking the last part. I thought that was one of the best parts...

In all, I will not attack you. :)
 
SeaStar said:
If fairy tales count, I think many of the film versions are way better than the originals.

Also, Disney's The Great Mouse Detective is, in my opinion, much better than the book series it was based off. Maybe it was because they were written for younger readers, but they were pretty dull. The characters had no personality and nothing much seemed to happen, although some books were better than others. "The Pygmy Cats" was probably the worst.
Click to expand...

Depends on the tale.

*everybody groans from SoA's fairytale talk*
I prefer the Anderson Mermaid to Disney's as she doesn't get the happy ending, and it seems to be a warning against idolization of one's dreams or desires.(http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/littlemermaid/index.html)
I also prefer the German version of Cinderella, than the Disney film or the French tale it's based on:
French:http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/cinderella/index.html
German:http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/cinderella/stories/german.html

The Disney version of Sleeping Beauty is nearly a carbon copy of the Grimm's tale (though they credit the very strange french version, ogre mother in law, eating Sleeping Beauty's children? yep totally the Disney version).
weird french tale:
http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/sleepingbeauty/index.html
BTW all the links but the german cinderella are annotated. Very interesting and educational ;)
 
MissReepicheep said:
No, I have not- I only read the first one. I fully expected the books to be delightful and humorous, but I couldn't bear the first, and gave up halfway through. I didn't like the writing style at all, and all the things I loved best about the movie were absent in the book. But maybe it's just me. Others might enjoy the book.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you or anyone else, but if I see a film before I read the book(s), the book(s) can very easily disappoint me. Case in point: the Anne of Green Gables series. Really liked the first 4, then after that I can't stand them. It was all I could do to make it through the series. And it was because I saw the films that I disliked the books so much.

narnia ice cream: nobody has a right to attack you for mentioning that you personally found PC the movie better than PC the book. I myself think it's a very good film, as a film. Not as an adaptation.
 
Last edited:
Aravis Kenobi said:
I don't know about you or anyone else, but if I see a film before I read the book(s), the book(s) can very easily disappoint me. Case in point: the Anne of Green Gables series. Really liked the first 4, then after that I can't stand them. It was all I could do to make it through the series. And it was because I saw the films that I disliked the books so much.
Click to expand...

I almost ALWAYS read books before I see the corresponding movie. It's a rule in my family. ;) I'm not sure why I didn't read the book first this time... But if I had, I probably would have not wanted to watch the movie. :rolleyes: So it's just as well.
 
Back
Top