Novels that can't beat their movies.

For me, preferences for one or the other are often driven by whether I read a book before it was made into a movie or not. If I see the movie first, I tend to be more tolerant, even accepting, of the changes.

I read Jurassic Park before I saw the movie, however, and I knew without any doubt that it was going to be made into one. I could see how the writer was structuring his scenes with this in mind. It didn't make for the most immersive reading.

Jamesaritchie said:

Jaws would be my number one pick. To me, the book was pretty plain, not exciting at all, and not particularly well written. The movie, however, was great.

Click to expand...

I'd agree, even though I read the novel first (swiping it from my babysitter). I was young enough to be intrigued by all the "adult" stuff in there that didn't make it into the movie, however.

Another one might be One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. I saw the movie first, but when I tried to read the book, I got really bogged down and didn't finish it.

Some of the Stephen King based movies would be on my list as well.

Roxxsmom said:

Some of the Stephen King based movies would be on my list as well.

Click to expand...

Definitely Shawshank. I read the book years before the movie came out, and didn't think it was particularly riveting. But the movie was awesome, mainly due to great casting and direction. Plus a great score.

Green Mile is fantastic too, but I've never read the book.

Jaws
The Godfather
Bladerunner / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
The Spy Who Loved Me (admittedly nothing whatsoever like the book, but better none the less)
Dune (ducks and runs!)

PeteMC said:

Dune (ducks and runs!)

Click to expand...

Actually, I could see that. The movie had some serious flaws, but it was visually spectacular. The book (to me) was really interesting but didn't have the same "Wow!" factor the movies had.

Admittedly, I'm a sucker for gorgeous visuals. For example, I had noooooo problem with the whole bloated three-movie version of The Hobbit because ooh-lookit-pretty-shiny! Lookit, lookit, hot/evil elf-dude is riding a moose!

PeteMC said:

Bladerunner / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

Click to expand...

I'd agree, though the movie was so different from the book it almost doesn't count. It's one of my all-time favorite movies, though.

I didn't love the book Dune as much as many people did. I read it and liked it well enough, but the writing and story didn't pull me in enough to want to read the rest of the series. The movie was campy, but it was at least entertaining. The attempts to insert the italicized internal dialog, which Herbert made heavy use of in the book, was amusing.

It's a hunterseeker. (sweat trickles down temple). Must. Not. Move. A. Muscle...

That scene has provided hours of nerdy amusement in my family.

Forrest Gump is one of my favorite movies - all those absurd historical tie-ins, all of Gump's sweetness and magnanimity, Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan! - and I couldn't see much resemblance in the novel at all. I abandoned it about halfway through, in fact. It lacked charm, it lacked focus, it lacked everything that made the movie great. If anyone's read all of it and can tell me it gets significantly better, I'd like to hear.

The Hunger Game Movies- I could barely make myself read them ( But I really dislike present tense ) I found the movies enjoyable and much better than the books.

Ender's Game as well. Yes the book was far more comprehensive than the movie and I can understand if you liked the book better- but there's that present tense again- I don't know why it ruins a book for me. my daughter had me read these books because she loved them- I read them for her. Glad I saw the movies though.

My personal list:
The Hobbit, Battle Royale, Starter for Ten, I Capture the Castle, Harry Potter Series, His Dark Materials (Golden Compass was appalling), Great Gatsby, Anna Karenina, Picture of Dorian Gray, Revolutionary Road.

PeteMC said:

Dune (ducks and runs!)

Click to expand...

I know it's cheezy, I know it's not faithful to the book, but I love the movie. It's epically silly!

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

I liked the Hunger Games movies better than the books. However, I have only read the first two and I saw the movies first, so I may be bias. There are some things I liked about the books better but on the flip side, I liked a lot of things about the movies better. They were faster paced and didn't drag on as much as the book did, and I liked some of the character relationships better in the movie, but there are some things that they took out that I wish they would have left in/not changed. Such as how she really got the mockingjay pin and how much more time she spent with Peeta in the first book. They also took out Katniss losing hearing in her ear and Peeta getting a metal leg, which would have been an interested addition to the films.

I don't have any problem with present tense. In fact, that's what I naturally write in. I just had trouble getting into the books, but it could be because I saw the movies first.

I kind of wish in the Hunger Games movies they mentioned such concepts as Tesserae. In the books, they mention that in exchange for a select amount of grain and cooking oil, you get your name entered into the drawing for each Tesserae you ask for. That of course means children from poor families are more likely to be in the games. Also every year you're in the range to be drafted which is 12-19, you're odds go up because they enter your name again. So if you're twelve, your name is only entered once (unless you accepted Tesserae) but when you're thirteen, it's entered twice, and so on and so forth until you've passed the age limit.

I also kind of wish they'd mention the whole Avox thing, but I kind of understand why they left out all this little stuff. You kind of have to streamline a story in order to make it into a movie. I do wonder how they're going to do the second-half of Mockingjay. The book makes it clear early on that Alma Coin isn't much better than Snow, but she comes across as more sympathetic in the movie adaptation. They're going to have to do something so her "Kick the Dog" moment doesn't come way the hell out of nowhere.

I liked The Man Who Laughs silent (sorta) film a lot more than the book. I'm glad the movie changed the ending too.

Tailcoat said:

I liked The Man Who Laughs silent (sorta) film a lot more than the book. I'm glad the movie changed the ending too.

Click to expand...

I've never seen the movie, but I think the novel (by Victor Hugo) is one of the most underrated great classic novels of all time. And, given the success of adaptations of Les Miserables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame to screen and stage, I'm surprised no one has tried a lavish remake of this third great sprawling Hugo novel.

caw

Bram Stoker's Dracula is wayyyyyyyy better than Dracula.

The Harry Potter films are largely better than the Harry Potter books.

Apocalypse Now is better than Heart of Darkness. Maybe not as "important." But surely more entertaining, at least.

I haven't read/seen Requiem for a Dream in a while, but I'd still add it here

I'm half and half with Hunger Games. Parts 1 and 2, I'll go with the books. Mockingjay, I'll take the movie. I did at least enjoy the movie. The book to me was brutal. I don't think I had any fun reading it. Halfway through I was ready for Katniss to just die already or go kill something.