Is the book always better than the movie?

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

There are people who say "The book is always better than the movie". I don't believe that's always true. I think whether the book is better or whether the movie is better depends on four factors:
1. The quality of the book.
2. The quality of the movie.
3. The person who has both read the book and seen the movie.
4. The limitations of books and the limitations of movies. (For example, has reading a book ever made you jump out of your seat? I didn't think so.)

There are instances where the movie was better than the book. I have heard that Dodie Smith enjoyed the 1961 Disney animated movie version of "101 Dalmatians" more than the book she wrote that the movie was based on. Conversely, Stephen King absolutely hated the 1980 movie version of his book "The Shining", directed by Stanley Kubrick.

So for this thread, let's talk about movies that were better than the books they were based on, and vice versa. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Doomhunter]

Most of the times I’d say the book is better, Games of Thrones books are 1000x better than the show. But take something like Logan’s Run. The book was not very good at all, but the film was very good. And while for instance The Samurai Trilogy is excellent, I’d still have to say the book (Musashi) was better. Awesome book for those who haven’t read it.

[Prohibida]

Red Dragon being closer to the book than Manhunter is highly exaggerated.

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by Prohibida

Red Dragon being closer to the book than Manhunter is highly exaggerated.

I think the film Silence of the Lambs was almost as good as the book and that shocked me because I didn't think that was possible. Hopkins brought Lecter to life right off of the page for me. It was so spooky and really made the film work for me. What a performance.

I agree about Manhunter. Manhunter is GOOD. I like it. But the book is GREAT.

A Simple Plan also was pretty much equal to the book, imo.

[DR Herbert West]

No.

[GaragePoet]

Forrest Gump was better than the book

Fight Club was better than the book

[Damon1281]

No, The Godfather is much better as a movie.

Usually, though, the book is much better

[BloodshotUSA]

Most of the time the book is better. But not always.

I just read The Fellowship of the Ring for the first time and I liked it, but the movie (especially the extended version) is an improvement in my opinion. In the book it takes so long to get Frodo's journey started and then there is all this stuff with this character they meet Tom Bombadil that has nothing to do with the rest of the story.

[Cremildo]

No.

Sometimes the book is mediocre as a piece of literature and the movie is great as a piece of filmmaking. Case in point: The Silence of the Lambs.

[Steedeel]

Nope, two different art forms. Film always best for me.

[Damon1281]

Originally Posted by BloodshotUSA

Most of the time the book is better. But not always.

I just read The Fellowship of the Ring for the first time and I liked it, but the movie (especially the extended version) is an improvement in my opinion. In the book it takes so long to get Frodo's journey started and then there is all this stuff with this character they meet Tom Bombadil that has nothing to do with the rest of the story.

Strongly disagree with that, but to each his own.

[BloodshotUSA]

Originally Posted by Prohibida

Red Dragon being closer to the book than Manhunter is highly exaggerated.

Both have better endings than the book does. The book ends with Will Graham getting stabbed in the face by The Tooth Fairy and running away, leaving his wife and son to fend for themselves. The wife runs into the house, grabs their gun and kills the Tooth Fairy right as he comes through the door after her.

After seeing both movies, and liking them, I couldn't believe that Thomas Harris wrote that as the book ending. But then again, Harris' original ending for the book Hannibal had Clarice Starling becoming falling in love with Hannibal Lecter, becoming a cannibal and then the two of them going on the run together as a couple. Like WTF. Ridley's Scott's movie adaptation of Hannibal wasn't great but at least he knew enough to change the ending.

[Prohibida]

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

I think the film Silence of the Lambs was almost as good as the book and that shocked me because I didn't think that was possible. Hopkins brought Lecter to life right off of the page for me. It was so spooky and really made the film work for me. What a performance.

I agree about Manhunter. Manhunter is GOOD. I like it. But the book is GREAT.

A Simple Plan also was pretty much equal to the book, imo.

I think the only major change they did with The Silence of the Lambs, from book to film, are the Red Dragon references were removed in the film. Mostly because most people didn't watched Manhunter at that time. It undererformed.

[sleeperbloke]

The Shining is arguably better than the book depending on who you ask.

Sleeping With The Enemy is much much better as a movie, the book is a real slog to get through.

I Know What You Did Last Summer is a million times better than the book which seems anaemic in comparison.

Disclosure is definitely better than the book, but the same goes for a lot of Crichton adaptations, his books always had great ideas and plots but some of his dialogue was downright awful.

Under The Skin is better than the book, it streamlined all the novels best ideas and imagery just about perfectly.

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by sleeperbloke

The Shining is arguably better than the book depending on who you ask.

This is a great example.

Another one where I really like the movie a lot, but the book is fantastic.

[Jay H.]

No.

[Uncle Bud]

Not always. I thought Rambo (1982) was better than First Blood (1972), and that Blade Runner (1982) is better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968).

[RalphoR]

Originally Posted by sleeperbloke

The Shining is arguably better than the book depending on who you ask.

Sleeping With The Enemy is much much better as a movie, the book is a real slog to get through.

I Know What You Did Last Summer is a million times better than the book which seems anaemic in comparison.

Disclosure is definitely better than the book, but the same goes for a lot of Crichton adaptations, his books always had great ideas and plots but some of his dialogue was downright awful.

Under The Skin is better than the book, it streamlined all the novels best ideas and imagery just about perfectly.

I haven't read the book but it's pretty hard to top seeing all of Scarlett's skin.

I liked the movie The Relic quite a bit but the book Relic is a lot better. It probably should be remade using the true main character in AXL Pendergast.

[AKORIS]

No.

JAWS

end of discussion.

[Prohibida]

Originally Posted by BloodshotUSA

Both have better endings than the book does. The book ends with Will Graham getting stabbed in the face by The Tooth Fairy and running away, leaving his wife and son to fend for themselves. The wife runs into the house, grabs their gun and kills the Tooth Fairy right as he comes through the door after her.

After seeing both movies, and liking them, I couldn't believe that Thomas Harris wrote that as the book ending. But then again, Harris' original ending for the book Hannibal had Clarice Starling becoming falling in love with Hannibal Lecter, becoming a cannibal and then the two of them going on the run together as a couple. Like WTF. Ridley's Scott's movie adaptation of Hannibal wasn't great but at least he knew enough to change the ending.

Also in The Silence of the Lambs (book, not movie) revealed Will Graham became an alcoholic in the aftermath of Red Dragon.

I know people hate the ending to Hannibal (book), but kinda worked in the TV series. I mean, it also had changes, but it was a better executed version of the same concept.