Films that are better than the books they're based on

[DarkKnight]

The books are not great but I still remember enjoying them. Especially the prologue to the 1st book, which I hope they kept for the film. No spoilers here.

I may give them a go. I'm hooked on Crichton books right now. But ready to give something else a try.

 

[DarkKnight]

I ordered the first MEG book. It was the new deluxe addition with the 80 page "Meg Origins" mini book added to the first novel as a "prequel".
So I'll give this a read then see the film. Or who knows If
I enjoy it I may read the entire series first.

 

[wampa1]

Die Hard

 

[DarkKnight]

Die Hard

So funny you said that. When I ordered the first MEG book I also ordered "Nothing Lasts Forever" (the book Die Hard is based on for those not aware). I decided to read it first before MEG since it was the shorter book of the two I purchased. I'm halfway through it. I'm just not a fan of the Author Roderick Thorp. His writing style is not for me at all. Poor descriptions and probably one of the worst Authors I've read in character dialogue. Several times I've had to stop and go back a paragraph to figure out who is saying what etc. I'll finish the book, but this will be the last Roderick Thorp book I'll ever read. The action is decent so I'll push on through it enjoying what I can.

 

[Herofan]

Planet of the Apes (1968). The book was a bit more plausible (mostly just the Apes not also speaking a human language) but the movie was a lot more focused and intense especially in the themes and conflicts, Taylor was a better protagonist, pretty much all the relationships were a lot better.

 

[Batmannerism]

Lord of the Rings trilogy (books were a chore with all the unneeded camping and such)
Blade Runner
The Shining

These are the ones I am immediately thinking of. Will try to come up with more.

This is a complete non-point, as obviously for a movie adaptation to be made, there has to be a book to adapt it from

As for LOTR being a "CGI-fest", actually that fits The Hobbit trilogy better. In LOTR Jackson was pretty adamant on heavy use of actual elaborate sets and practical effects a lot of the time.

Obviously there is significant amounts of CGI (which given the material is kind of inevitable), but calling it a "CGI-fest" like you're trying to compare it to Transformers or something is just an uneducated comment.

LOTR isn't CGI fest by any stretch of imagination. They're brilliant adaptations (theatrical versions). But I don't think they're superior to the books.

Okay dudes, lots of book vs film debates are good, but IMHO none are as intense as LOTR books v films.

Time for me to weigh in, those films have a special place in my heart because they were made down here, near my home and because I was an extra in the Hobbit ( and I can't resist the chance to drop that in whenever I can).

As for CGI what IMO makes LOTR films superior to the Hobbit was the use of practical locations - yes folks parts of NZ are that beautiful. The Hobbit used a ton if CGI locations, trust me I worked on one of them.

Now as for books v film, with the Hobbit I prefer the book - I have fond memories of having it read to me by a teacher when I was 7, and when I used to be a school-teacher I read it to at least 10 different classes. The films were too drawn out. Yes, a lot happens but there was no need for 3 x 3 hour films - and the over use of CGI diminishes my enjoyment.

LOTR is a bit different. First, while Tolkien's ideas were amazing ( although reworking of classic myths) his narrative style has some weaknesses. Don't get me wrong I love the books, but I find his use of flashbacks a bit heavy handed and there are a lot of characters who are mere plot devices ( e.g. Erkenbrand, Glorfindel).
However I put that down to Tolkien being an academic rather than a novelist and also that he was writing at a very different time - before TV was widely available, so people were used to slow narratives in books. Some parts of LOTR are beautifully written with wonderful language, and I would suggest that Tom Bombadil was a bit unnecessary but otherwise the narrative is solid - no disrespect to Peter Jackson but the second book has a much stronger ending than the second film. Like any great books they take an effort to read, but they're worth it.

Having said all that I love the LOTR films and the books equally and I can't honestly say which are better.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

And besides that, the CGI in Lord of the Rings was and still is amazing. I love the books too, but it can't be denied that Tolkien went into far too much detail about the most minute things, like Tom Bombadil. As long as they were, the movies kept a much tighter narrative.

The first half of "The fellowship of the Ring" is a chore. Tolkien, as much as I love him, is more of an academic than a novelist IMO. The level of detail and background he put into his creation is astounding, but just talking about pacing I would say the movies win.