Novels that can't beat their movies.

NoahS · Feb 3, 2010

Krintar said:
Alien has the interesting quality that the movie came first, yet the novelisation was worlds better. I read a single book containing the novelisations of the first three Alien movies and loved it so much I was desperate to find the movies. Still haven't got around to watching the second and third, though, because the first one was quite dull by comparison...

As far as movies that are actually better? I'll tell you when (if) I finish reading LotR

The first one was all about the unknown alien hunting those people, and naturally that wouldn't be scary a second time. Instead, the second movie is a war-movie. Just replace nazis, communists, vietcong etc with aliens, and there you go. Naturally, it's not exactly dull.

Wavy_Blue · Feb 3, 2010

bluebell80 said:
I'd have to say most of the Jane Austin books make for better movies than reads. I've read the books, didn't hate them or anything, but the reading was tedious and works well to put me to sleep. Watching the film adaptions are more entertaining for me.

*sharpens pitchfork*

bikerwriter · Feb 3, 2010

I will second the Jaws comment. I loved the movie, read the book in college, and wondered how the movie was ever made. I thought the book was pretty bad because of the plethora of unlikable characters and worthless ending. Still, wish I'd gotten paid for it!

Phillip K. Dick is the same. His books seem underwhelming now but they were turned into great movies (Blade Runner, Total Recall).

Margarita Skies · Feb 3, 2010

I always prefer the book to the movie, especially Stephen King's works. He lets you in on what the character is thinking and feeling and he gives you so much detail that I just don't see in the movie because you can interpret what the character's feeling by the look on his or her face, but you don't know exactly what they're thinking or feeling unless they think out loud. I don't know, that's my personal preference.

Ellefire · Feb 3, 2010

In Stephen King's case, I'll take his book overs the films almost any time. But 'The Shawshank Redemption' was a fantastic film. That one is a tough one to call.

WWZ, a must for any zombie fan. It's horrifying in a way a film can't capture (although I have my hopes). It's not a gory, throat-ripping scary book. It's a truly sinister horror. Because when you read it, you just know it would go down how he describes it. The innocent people abandoned to the zeds, the screw-ups that made the situation worse and how human nature made something that could have been easily controlled into Armageddon. It's the realism that is horrifying, not necessarily the shambling corpses.

Caitlin Black · Feb 3, 2010

Am I the first to mention the House Of The Dead games? Loved them. They made a movie version, and it was pretty good. There was a bit where the camera went through a maze of tunnels, with just the guy's gun showing and zombies everywhere, just like in the game. Awesome.

Not sure if it's a book or not. Fairly standard sort of storyline.

kdbeaar · Feb 3, 2010

Hate to say I liked any movie version of the book version, but I'd have to vote for Inkheart the movie over Inkheart the book. They had to change the movie a lot to fit it in under 2 hours, but the book just went on and on forever, until you just wanted to say, enough already!

Albedo of Zero · Feb 3, 2010

King's The Green Mile, Shawshank, and Lean On Me (adapted from The Body short)...Whereas Christine, Pet Semetary, and The Stand flopped.

I could never get into Tolkien's books but the movies LOTW were pretty good.

Katrina S. Forest · Feb 4, 2010

DeleyanLee said:
For all that The Princess Bride novel and screenplay was written by the same man (William Goldman), I think the movie was much better. I think the framing story in the movie was a lot less intrusive than the book. But I adore them both.

I second this completely. The idea behind the novel is fun, the way he keeps denying he wrote any of it, but it starts to drag on a bit. Having the grandfather there in the movie was a brilliant substitute as an excuse to keep interrupting the story.

I think it's great when an author can write their own screenplay, though I know I'm not one of those people. ^_^;;

jerry phoenix · Feb 4, 2010

i am reading 'the godfather'. it is a good read but not a classic, the film however is. i much prefered the book 'the andromeda strain' to the film.

i dont think you can generalise on this as it is all quite subjective

kal-el · Feb 5, 2010

Sideways is much better than the book. Paul Giamatti is the most underrated actor in the world.

Hittman · Feb 5, 2010

I'd have to say most of the Jane Austin books make for better movies than reads. I've read the books, didn't hate them or anything, but the reading was tedious and works well to put me to sleep.

I went to see Sense and Sensibility with my wife and daughters. It was excruciatingly dull, the theater wasn't near anything open, and we only had one car, so my only method of escape was to take a nap.

When they were commenting on it on the way home (they loved it) and I said it was boring they said, "But dad, you slept through it!" I answered, "Did you think that was an accident?

Sleepyhead · Feb 5, 2010

The Forsyte Saga, though that's a miniseries. It is so beautifully done. John Galsworthy's trilogy is a masterpiece, but is was written before "show, don't tell" was the convention. He can spend three pages explaining how entrenched Soames's ideas are, when the later action explains it quite well. (I guess it would be fair to say Galsworthy shows and tells.)

kaitie · Feb 6, 2010

I wanted to agree with Shawshank as well. I forgot that one earlier, but without a doubt. The movie is one of my all-time favorites, and the book just didn't really do a whole lot for me.

I can't agree with the Lord of the Rings just because of the second movie. My favorite character was royally screwed in movie form, and that really annoyed me. Other than that they were awesome, of course.

knight_tour · Feb 6, 2010

While I liked Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? okay, I absolutely loved the movie Blade Runner.

defcon6000 · Feb 6, 2010

I equally love Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner; the stories are hardly the same anyways and each have their own point to make.

The Shining movie (the one with Jack Nicholson) was terrifying, so much more than the book.

I also prefer The PrincessBride movie to the novel as well; the novel just had too much fluff.

Renee Collins · Feb 6, 2010

Most Shakespeare plays.

*ducks*

And understand, this is coming from an avid Shakespeare fan, who has read every single play (most of them several times,) acted in several of them, and loves them all. That said, I prefer watching the movie versions to reading them.

Except for Titus Andronicus. Reading it was weird, but entertaining. Then I rented the movie version with Anthony Hopkins. GEEZ. I had to turn it off. Not only because it was just plain gross, but because I really, really didn't want to watch the part where Titus bakes Tamora's sons into a pie.

NoahS · Feb 6, 2010

Cliff Face said:
Am I the first to mention the House Of The Dead games? Loved them. They made a movie version, and it was pretty good. There was a bit where the camera went through a maze of tunnels, with just the guy's gun showing and zombies everywhere, just like in the game. Awesome.

Not sure if it's a book or not. Fairly standard sort of storyline.

I was gonna let you be the first and only to mention that horrible movie, but wanted to warn you that there are two of them. Yeah, that's right. They made a sequel. :evil

Lyra Jean · Feb 6, 2010

Lord of the Rings and The Princess Bride. I prefer the movies over the books.

I couldn't stand the Princess in TPB, she was such a snobby bitch.

LOTR, I read the first book and it bored me to tears. I have the extended movie versions of the film.

Jane Austen movies compared to the books. I love the movies way better. I tried reading Sense and Sensibility. Do you really need three pages to describe a hill in the countryside. Really, three pages.

shaldna · Feb 9, 2010

NomAnor said:
I just couldn't find any kind of thrill in Jurassic Park when I read the novel. You'd think people being eaten by dinosaurs would be exciting, but it just seemed dry to me. I think the movie is much better.

I loved Jurassic Park, it's one of my favourite novels. That said, the second JP novel 'the lost world' was so much better than the first (but the first film was awesome while the second film sucked big time)

willietheshakes · Feb 9, 2010

Renee Collins said:
Most Shakespeare plays.

*ducks*

No need to duck -- shouldn't the hallmark of a successful play be that it's MORE powerful performed (either staged or filmed) than on the page? After all, the basic reason the text exists is to provide information to the performers.

To my mind, saying one prefers to read Shakespeare over seeing it is akin to saying "I love the blueprints, but the building... not so much."

willietheshakes · Feb 9, 2010

kdbeaar said:
Hate to say I liked any movie version of the book version, but I'd have to vote for Inkheart the movie over Inkheart the book. They had to change the movie a lot to fit it in under 2 hours, but the book just went on and on forever, until you just wanted to say, enough already!

Wow. Apparently mileage DOES vary significantly. I thought the Inkheart movie was a travesty.

shaldna · Feb 9, 2010

kdbeaar said:
Hate to say I liked any movie version of the book version, but I'd have to vote for Inkheart the movie over Inkheart the book. They had to change the movie a lot to fit it in under 2 hours, but the book just went on and on forever, until you just wanted to say, enough already!

that was totally the problem I had with inkheart. It just seemed to try and build and build and build to a climax that never really happened, and when did come it was so hyped that it wasn't really a surprise.

Renee Collins · Feb 9, 2010

willietheshakes said:
No need to duck -- shouldn't the hallmark of a successful play be that it's MORE powerful performed (either staged or filmed) than on the page? After all, the basic reason the text exists is to provide information to the performers.

To my mind, saying one prefers to read Shakespeare over seeing it is akin to saying "I love the blueprints, but the building... not so much."

lol, good point.

lucidzfl · Feb 9, 2010

bikerwriter said:
I will second the Jaws comment. I loved the movie, read the book in college, and wondered how the movie was ever made. I thought the book was pretty bad because of the plethora of unlikable characters and worthless ending. Still, wish I'd gotten paid for it!

Phillip K. Dick is the same. His books seem underwhelming now but they were turned into great movies (Blade Runner, Total Recall).

Starship troopers!

Novels that can't beat their movies.

Adventure is out there!

Citizen Of Planet Random

Wild one

Trying to finish at least 1 ms!

That didn't hurt

Almost expert!

Odd user title happenings.

With great power comes

Fantasy Tourist

Plotting . . .

Two years old now.

The cake is a lie. But still cake.

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

The cake is a lie. But still cake.

Plotting . . .

Back from the dead