Six Films Better Than the Books They’re Based On
-
For me it has to be Forrest Gump.
I was really surprised this wasn't on the list. First thing I thought of too. The movie is pretty good, while the book is awful in my opinion.
-
We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
Starship Troopers
But mostly because it isn't really based on the book at all. Paul Verhoeven famously tried to read the book, got immediately bored and decided to make it his own thing.
-
@memfree I am going to make angry a lot of people but here I go. The Shinning by Kubrick of course. I personally dont care for Stephen King Literary work I think in the whole context of human literature is absolute TRASH. But in the History of world Cinema Kubrick is up there in the mount Olympus of the Best of the best. The fact that Stephen king cannot understand a medium like Cinema made me choose this one even more. PLUS the fact that Stephen King Made a TV series because he didn't like Kubrick version and is ABSOLUTE FORGETTABLE TRASH is the cherry on top. Im not sure if Kubrick did the same with Eyes Wide Shut... that is debatable.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well, if you're going to go there, then A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can easily complain that Anthony Burgess wrote a better book filled with imagery and politics (and a glossary!) which Kubrick failed to capture, so that one might be arguable. On the other hand, while Arthur C. Clarke wrote a good book that Kubrick largely ignored, the result was one of the most innovative films in history. The film brought space to life in a way that printed words could not. Sure, Kubrick's work can now be easily CGI-ed up, but he thought to do all of it and he did it the hard way before we had computers.
As far as Eyes Wide Shut goes... I kinda hated it because it felt like the default daydream of old men fantasizing about what they wish they'd done back when they couild still get it up. I read an article years ago about how for years Kubrick had script readers who would read hundreds of books and scripts to give him recommendations for what to make into his his next movie and they were all terrified of recommending something beneath The Master, and then he didn't like the things he did see, and this went on and on, and I feel like he was stuck with material that a concensus would find acceptable/interesting rather than anything that was more avant garde.
-
No Country For Old Men was such a masterpiece that it managed to be better than the book, which is a feat given it was written by Cormac McCarthy.
The whole bit with the hitchhiker being condensed into that woman at the pool was substantial edit and an improvement.
-
We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Oldboy. The ending of the manga is just so unbelievably stupid.
-
Starship Troopers
But mostly because it isn't really based on the book at all. Paul Verhoeven famously tried to read the book, got immediately bored and decided to make it his own thing.
Ehh I liked the book more.
-
We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
Annihilation by Vandermeer/Garland. I really loved the Southern Reach trilogy but the film did a great job of capturing a book that was mostly vibe and reflection and used striking visuals to condense it and keep it powerful. Neither were perfect but I’m so glad both exist.
-
Well, if you're going to go there, then A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can easily complain that Anthony Burgess wrote a better book filled with imagery and politics (and a glossary!) which Kubrick failed to capture, so that one might be arguable. On the other hand, while Arthur C. Clarke wrote a good book that Kubrick largely ignored, the result was one of the most innovative films in history. The film brought space to life in a way that printed words could not. Sure, Kubrick's work can now be easily CGI-ed up, but he thought to do all of it and he did it the hard way before we had computers.
As far as Eyes Wide Shut goes... I kinda hated it because it felt like the default daydream of old men fantasizing about what they wish they'd done back when they couild still get it up. I read an article years ago about how for years Kubrick had script readers who would read hundreds of books and scripts to give him recommendations for what to make into his his next movie and they were all terrified of recommending something beneath The Master, and then he didn't like the things he did see, and this went on and on, and I feel like he was stuck with material that a concensus would find acceptable/interesting rather than anything that was more avant garde.
2001 wasn’t based on the book. The book and movie were written in parallel.
-
The Hunt For Red October
You can't be serious... Sean Connery playing a Russian with his thick British accent?
-
Ehh I liked the book more.
The book certainly has its moments, but the movie is much more entertaining. 'The moon is a harsh mistress' is a better book imo
-
Well, if you're going to go there, then A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can easily complain that Anthony Burgess wrote a better book filled with imagery and politics (and a glossary!) which Kubrick failed to capture, so that one might be arguable. On the other hand, while Arthur C. Clarke wrote a good book that Kubrick largely ignored, the result was one of the most innovative films in history. The film brought space to life in a way that printed words could not. Sure, Kubrick's work can now be easily CGI-ed up, but he thought to do all of it and he did it the hard way before we had computers.
As far as Eyes Wide Shut goes... I kinda hated it because it felt like the default daydream of old men fantasizing about what they wish they'd done back when they couild still get it up. I read an article years ago about how for years Kubrick had script readers who would read hundreds of books and scripts to give him recommendations for what to make into his his next movie and they were all terrified of recommending something beneath The Master, and then he didn't like the things he did see, and this went on and on, and I feel like he was stuck with material that a concensus would find acceptable/interesting rather than anything that was more avant garde.
Burgess is a TITAN of literature, Stephen King wished he was half as good as Burgess.
Having said that I don't think Kubrick made a better film but god dam his film is so good.
-
2001 wasn’t based on the book. The book and movie were written in parallel.
I wasn't gonna split that hair because it was based on some of Clarke's shorter works that were optioned for the basis of the film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)
-
We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
I'm going to keep adding:
Stalker by TarkovskyAnd I will say that every work of Tarkovsky that is based on literature with the expiation of Solaris (it's my personal take). I believe that if Tarkovsky had a better budget Solaris would be the best sci fi film of all times. Some production of that film distracts me from the geniality of Tarkovsky.
-
I wasn't gonna split that hair because it was based on some of Clarke's shorter works that were optioned for the basis of the film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(novel)
Sure, maybe it is a tad hair-splitty, but is it? Clarke was hired to write an original screenplay; it wasn’t meant to be based on another story. And the book wasn’t even meant to exist, initially. My understanding is that it does exist only because Clarke found script writing clunky and unnatural.
Although — even if the movie was based on a book — Kubrick would have done his own thing, and he wouldn’t have been wrong to take those liberties. Why faithfully remake a book? I can read a book. Give me something new.
-
I'm going to keep adding:
Stalker by TarkovskyAnd I will say that every work of Tarkovsky that is based on literature with the expiation of Solaris (it's my personal take). I believe that if Tarkovsky had a better budget Solaris would be the best sci fi film of all times. Some production of that film distracts me from the geniality of Tarkovsky.
I've only seen four Tarkovsky films, but yes, he's a fabulous director. I've not read the book and don't know if an English translation would do it justice, so I'll take your word for it that the extremely good movie was better than its source.
Note that I didn't make that list of 6. I just thought the movie community might like to read the article. Y'all don't have to call me out with all things they skipped because I'd have put stuff like the Wizard of Oz and Ran on there (and then quickly ducked because no one gets away with saying a movie is better than Shakespear's original work).
-
The book certainly has its moments, but the movie is much more entertaining. 'The moon is a harsh mistress' is a better book imo
Both were entertaining, but the movie was more of a popcorn action flick while the book tried to explore the realities of war and a warrior led culture.
The Heinlein estate holders didn't like the movie so much, they have refused selling movie rights to any other book. So you won't see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because of Starship Troopers.
-
We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
Under the Skin. I love the movie. It is so evocative, and some of the imagery is incredibly disturbing without depicting traditional screen violence. The book isn't bad, but it's much more straightforward and simple by comparison. I think Jonathan Glazer really elevated the material, as he does with every movie he makes.
-
Oldboy. The ending of the manga is just so unbelievably stupid.
The original Korean Oldboy is in my top movie recommendations to anyone.
Had no idea it was based on a Manga. Thank you for learning me something good today.
-
We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
Idk I quite liked the book Jurassic Park, moreso than the movie I think but tbf it is a great movie too.
-
We asked The Atlantic’s writers and editors: What’s a film adaptation that’s better than the book?
The article explains why they consider the movies Jurassic Park, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Devil Wears Prada, The Social Network, and Clear and Present Danger each to be better than their source material.
Tinker Tailor is not better than the book. The Alec Guinness version comes close but the book really stands above.
