Social Question

keobooks's avatar

What movies did you think were better than the book?

Asked by keobooks (14322points) August 19th, 2012

This question was asked back in 2009. But a lot of new movies have come out and many new Flutherers are around.

Here are my picks:

Awakenings- The movie was touching and bittersweet. It was Oliver Sack’s first book and reads more like a medical journal article than a story. Sacks gets much better as he matures are a writer.

Stardust by Neil Gaiman- The book was OK, but I thought the movie had a more interesting plot to it and the visuals were more exciting to see on the screen rather than just read in the book.

The World According to Garp by John Irving – I really liked the book, but I think I fell in love with Robin Williams as Garp more than I actually liked the character himself. This was Williams’ first dramatic role and I thought he brought an earnest quality that I loved to it. Also John Lithgow as a MTF transexual was awesome.

So what are your picks?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

It is not a new movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I enjoyed Doctor Zhivago on the screen better than in book form.

filmfann's avatar

Silence of the Lambs was just way creepier as a movie than the book.
I really didn’t like the first The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo book, but the Swedish movie was good. I still haven’t seen the Daniel Craig version.

DigitalBlue's avatar

Fight Club. I really like Palahniuk’s books, but Fight Club (the movie) had powerful lines and dialogue that the book didn’t even come close on. It was a good book, but the movie packed more punch. No pun intended.
I know this isn’t a “new” movie, but apparently I missed the earlier version of this question.

Sunny2's avatar

Like Water for Chocolate. I didn’t understand what was going on until I saw the movie. But the movie didn’t have recipes. Those, I understood.

keobooks's avatar

@Sunny2 – Thanks for mentioning that particular movie. It aggravated and angered me and I wondered if the book would have more insight into why this inexplicable situation existed in the family. Now I see that it probably just would have confused things.

Maybe I don’t have a romantic bone in my body, but I just hated most of the characters and the entire premise of the movie. Rather than weeping at the ending—I guffawed out loud and almost shouted ‘Seriously.. give the audience some #$*#(#$*ing credit. What a load of horse crap.”

janbb's avatar

I would have to say that the movie of “To Kill a Mockingbird” was as good as the book; not sure if it was better.

keobooks's avatar

@janbb – I am mixed on it. I thought because they offered very different perspectives on the same story. And while I loved the movie, lots of what the Chief does doesn’t make any sense – but when you read the book and see everything from his perspective – it makes sense.

At the same time, the Chief was almost too freaking insane in the book. There were lots of times I just skipped over the hallucinations and the odd flashbacks. If I hadn’t seen the movie, I am not confident I would have had much of a clue what was going on. He was not a reliable narrator.

That character IS Jack Nicholson. Like Garp, I have a hard time removing him from the character.

janbb's avatar

Aha – haven’t seen or read either in a long time so can’t comment.

MilkyWay's avatar

All the Harry Potter movies.
Lemony Snicket.

filmfann's avatar


@MilkyWay You are saying you thought the Harry Potter movies were better then the books?
I have never, ever heard anyone say that.

jordym84's avatar

@Sunny2 I read Like Water for Chocolate junior year of high school and just saw the movie for the first time last night. I loved the book but thought the movie was just ok. I don’t think the movie makes much of an impact or sense, for that matter if you haven’t read the book.

fundevogel's avatar

@filmfann I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies, but not as much as the books. I will put myself on the line saying I enjoyed the LotR movies infinitely more than the books. I stand by my claim that the books are more of a rite of passage than entertainment.

MilkyWay's avatar

@filmfann I even surprised myself to be honest, as I’m an avid book lover. The Harry Potter movies are the only movies I liked more than the books themselves… except for Lemony Snicket.

Kardamom's avatar

I liked the Disney cartoon of Alice in Wonderland better than the book. The Johnny Depp version was a little odd, so I’d say the book was better than that.

I loved Like Water for Chocolate the book, didn’t like the movie at all.

I agree with @MilkyWay about the Harry Potter movies. I really don’t care for that magical genre at all, but then I saw Alan Rickman as Snape and I was hooked. Also loved Maggie Smith.

The first Superman movie with Christopher Reeve. I don’t like comic books , but he was just so charming. I haven’t enjoyed a super hero movie since.

The original Little House on the Prairie movie, was really good and truly captured the essence of the book(s). It was a combo of Little House in the Big Woods, Little House on the Prairie and On the Banks of Plumb Creek.

SuperMouse's avatar

Fast Times at Ridgement High

Roby's avatar

The Godfather 1

mazingerz88's avatar

Can’t think of any right now. Only one who was as good as the book. Patriot Games.

GracieT's avatar

Twilight. I didn’t see the movies, but a friend whose opinion I trust told me that the books were not better than the movies. I can’t believe that she actually read the books, though. I did, kind of, and I’m ashamed to admit it.

keobooks's avatar

@GracieT I never saw the movie, but I read the first book. I’ll tell you, the movie couldn’t be any worse than the book. It was one of the most poorly written books I’ve ever seen published. I’ve seen fan fiction better than her books. Heck I’ve seen BAD fan fiction better than her books.

The only good thing about her writing is that it gives me hope as a writer. If she can get published – I most certainly have a shot at it.

GracieT's avatar

@keobooks, like I said I am ashamed to admit that I actually (kind of, I think that I may have read every fourth or fifth word!) I looked at them because I wanted to see what all of the fuss was about. I read once that Stephen King said that JK Rowlings has more talent in her little finger than Milller has in her entire body. I have to say that I agree.

GracieT's avatar

@keobooks, What kind of literature do you write?

keobooks's avatar

I have two YA fictions that I could probably start submitting if I got them out and really worked on them for a month or so. But it’s been a while since I worked on them and I don’t feel the mojo. But I know at least one of them is fairly close to “done”

I have one YA fantasy that I am currently in love with, but it isn’t going anywhere and I should probably scrap it for a while but I can’t. There’s not enough plot to entertain anyone but me. And I basically have five characters running around in a forest yelling at each other for no good reason.

Juels's avatar

All of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies are better than the books.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther