NationStates Jolt Archive

Following on from Dempublicents' worst adaptation thread here's a more tricky poser: can anyone think of films that were better than the source material? Here's a few I can come up with:

Requiem For A Dream (stripped of all that On The Road-esque crap writing disguised as stream of consciousness)

The Shawshank Redemption (see the "official" version for further confirmation)

The Shining (what is it with Steven King hating only the really good adaptations of his work?)

I know I'll get lynched for this but...

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy (I mean, there's only so many hundred pages of walking you can get through before you get bored).

but LOTR wasn't all fighting, like in the movie

Fight Club: I know many here will not agree with this

LOTR for me, the book seemed quite repetitive sometimes, whereas the fight scenes, and special effects were incredible.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, barely.

I cant answer here, because I have never read a book ;)

Not better, not worse, just different: Forrest Gump.

Fight Club: I know many here will not agree with thisAre you joking??
The book was in fact so much better than the movie I can't even watch the movie again... For those of whom who liked the movie, spend the 10 bucks to buy it, read the book and then let me know how much better it was then the movie. (even though the movie was very good)

LOTR, DeFiNitElY!! Though I wish they have more singing in the movies.

WTHeck is Tom Bombadil!?!?!?!??!
-----------------------------------------

Forrest Gump (In the book, he's a genius mistaken as a retard *And he went to the moon, starred in a movie and all sorts of weird stuff*.
In the movie, he's a retard, but a lucky retard)

Are you joking??
The book was in fact so much better than the movie I can't even watch the movie again... For those of whom who liked the movie, spend the 10 bucks to buy it, read the book and then let me know how much better it was then the movie. (even though the movie was very good)

Watched the film then read the book (after reading Survivor which I loved). Here's my 0.02 from another thread:

Fight Club is an interesting one. It's the only case I'm familiar with of a book to film adaptation where the film deviates significantly (not in the sense that there's a lot of changes, just that those there are are significant) from the book yet it's still hard to judge which is better.

Or as Torching Witches (much more succinctly) put it:

Not better, not worse, just different

Forrest Gump (In the book, he's a genius mistaken as a retard *And he went to the moon, starred in a movie and all sorts of weird stuff*.
In the movie, he's a retard, but a lucky retard)

Um, he's an idiot sauvage in the book. That doesn't really come across in the film, but in the book you're reading his thought processes, so his logic makes more sense, that's all.

LOTR for me, the book seemed quite repetitive sometimes, whereas the fight scenes, and special effects were incredible.
Wow your so retarded, there are no movies better than the books they were based on, in the fantasy/sci-fie genre, at least, because basically they're only limited to your imagination.
The battle of Helms Deep and the Black Gate in LOTR were much more impressive in my mind based on the book than in the movies for instance.

Wow mommy look at the pretty flashing lights 1111!!!!

:: waits to be flamed ::

Wow your so retarded, there are no movies better than the books they were based on, in the fantasy/sci-fie genre, at least, because basically they're only limited to your imagination.
The battle of Helms Deep and the Black Gate in LOTR were much more impressive in my mind based on the book than in the movies for instance.

Wow mommy look at the pretty flashing lights 1111!!!!

:: waits to be flamed ::
LOTR reads like a history book, not a story book. It's a great story, but a dreadful novel.

LOTR reads like a history book, not a story book. It's a great story, but a dreadful novel.
That's what you get when the writer is a historian

LOTR reads like a history book, not a story book. It's a great story, but a dreadful novel.

Well no, not really, it reads like pretty much any other adults fiction...
Maybe that's the problem. :rolleyes:

Pornography, Shakespeare, and the Bible

Shakespeare, and the Bible
they suck on both mediums

they suck on both mediums

I called it better than the books because
they were a little more understandable on film.

Dune, because it didn't have the huge rambling mystical nonsense in the middle.

I called it better than the books because
they were a little more understandable on film.
Yeah, but Shakespeare isn't meant to be read. It's a script.

I would have to say that I enjoyed the LOTR more on film than in the books. I tried to read them (couldn't do it.) So I went to the library and rented them on tape to see if I could do better listening to them. None of it worked. And I usually LOVE reading. But I just couldn't get into those books, too repetative.

Wow your so retarded

Ah irony, how I adore your sweet caress.