Six Films Better Than the Books They’re Based On
-
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.
-
Tinker Tailor is not better than the book. The Alec Guinness version comes close but the book really stands above.
I think my view of the English came from a cross between Monty Python and the Alec Guiness in both Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Bridge Over the River Kwai -- maybe with an unrelated bit of The Man Who Would Be King thrown in for good measure. Anyway, I only have the best things to say about the TV version, and I'm only now realizing that nere in the U.S., we missed 25 minutes of it to editing.
-
Jurassic Park the novel is superior to the film, and by a large margin. People who say this are either viewing the movie through a nostalgia filter or haven't read the book.
One thing in particular that is obnoxious about the film is the messy themes. The book critiques capitalism just as much as irresponsible scientists, which is completely lost in the movie. Movie John Hammond is practically the good guy and suffers no consequences, which is makes it feel like borderline capitalist propaganda.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Agree with you. The book was much better--and the movie is one of the top 5 action movies of all time for me. Maybe it helps I read the book before I saw the movie, which not many had the chance to since the movie was and always has been an insta-classic.
-
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.
It looked like a bit of softcore with scarjo. No?
-
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.
Blade Runner. I recently read through Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and really didn't like it much but the movie is phenomenal.
-
I think my view of the English came from a cross between Monty Python and the Alec Guiness in both Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Bridge Over the River Kwai -- maybe with an unrelated bit of The Man Who Would Be King thrown in for good measure. Anyway, I only have the best things to say about the TV version, and I'm only now realizing that nere in the U.S., we missed 25 minutes of it to editing.
Really? Got both series on DVD at a thrift store and not sure which I have
-
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.
Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk, perhaps? Not that it's a bad book by any means, and the idea is superb, but the execution isn't quite so great - it was his first published novel. The film is exceptional, though.
-
Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk, perhaps? Not that it's a bad book by any means, and the idea is superb, but the execution isn't quite so great - it was his first published novel. The film is exceptional, though.
Broadly correct but I like the ending in the novel better.
Always thought Survivor would make a great film too but the whole flying a plane into a skyscraper part kinda put the studios off.
-
Better than the comic BOOK's?
The books's what?
-
Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk, perhaps? Not that it's a bad book by any means, and the idea is superb, but the execution isn't quite so great - it was his first published novel. The film is exceptional, though.
One should read his other works, it's been a while so not super fresh in my memory but I remember being enthralled by them at the time. Not exactly kid friendly stuff though, do be warned.
