Films that Transcend the Book

[Simbob4000]

The Lord of the Rings. The movies are just way easier to watch the the books are to read. Especially the Return of the King movie over the book.

I really need to go back and read the rest of The Lord of the Rings. From what I read I thought it was much better than the movie, the book actually had funny stuff in it, like Frodo's horrible family; and the story of Gollum being right at the start gave it a much better pace.

[kane]

Ah, those young people now i swear. What are we going to do with you ?

I am 36 And I tried to read the books 3 times or so since I was 14, but I never managed. As far as I remember they did not even leave the hobbit village in the first 50 pages.

[edhopper]

In the Bedroom
In Cold Blood
To Kill a Mockingbird (great novel but Gregory Peck transcends the written word with his performance)

A great movie yes, but 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is one of the greatest American novels of the 20th Century.
The movie does not transcend it.

And "In Cold Blood" was revolutionary. The film was not better either.

[edhopper]

I disagree about TLOTR. The movies were amazing, but I am sorry if peoples ADD stop them from reading such a monumental work. They are seminal.

[David Walton]

While I agree, I would say the comics did a good job capitalizing and catching up on it.

They did, but I still don't feel compelled to read an Iron Man comic these days! I liked how the Mighty Avengers cartoon drew inspiration from RDJ.

[passer-by]

Whoa, talk about different strokes...

For films that I consider better than the literary original - of the ones I've watched: The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, RED and Stardust.

I'm of the opinion that in the immense majority of cases the adaptations are weaker than the novel/short story/comic book they're based on and it's better to consider the films on their own, because as a rule they suffer from the comparison with the literary work.

And I will politely, but strongly disagree that Jurassic Park is better as a film than as a book. In the Michael Crichton novel the story was much better told both from a scientific and an ethical POV and the characters were WAY better developed, especially the two kids. The film was okay on its own, but as an adaptation it was shallow.

As for the Bourne Trilogy, it has almost nothing to do with the books except the names of some characters and a few opening scenes in the first film.
I enjoy the films very much and consider them to be some of the best action spy thrillers of all time - especially Bourne 2 and 3 directed by Paul Greengrass.
The books are excellent, but again, they tell an entirely different story - where the Big Bad is Carlos the Jackal, by the way. I enjoyed them too.

About Blade Runner - same thing. The Philip K. Dick novel is very different from the Ridley Scott film. And again I enjoy them both.
Funny thing - I just watched a PKD documentary a few hours ago and it was said there that Philip K. Dick saw some preliminary clips of the film (he died before it was completed) and was extremely pleased, even amazed with how well Ridley Scott made the vision and atmosphere of the world. As for the characters and dialogues in those clips however he found them too Hollywoodized and was bitter about them.

About LOTR - I liked the films without being wowed by them (the only scene I still remember vividly was the defenders of Helm's Deep preparing for the coming battle, specifically the parts with the boy and the old man - an incredibly strong scene).
The books I tried to read several times at various periods, but never could get past even the end of Fellowship - too dull, sorry. (And I'm used to reading much longer works, so it's not about ADD ;) ).

[Flyattractor]

I really need to go back and read the rest of The Lord of the Rings. From what I read I thought it was much better than the movie, the book actually had funny stuff in it, like Frodo's horrible family; and the story of Gollum being right at the start gave it a much better pace.

Of the 4 booiks. The Only one I would reccomend is the Hobbit. That is by far the Best of the lot. It had humor action and depth but didn't get logged down by expanding into any of the catergories. As for the other 3 I rate them 2 Towers/Fellowship/Return.

[kane]

I disagree about TLOTR. The movies were amazing, but I am sorry if peoples ADD stop them from reading such a monumental work. They are seminal.

No need to be insulting, because not all people share your taste in books.

I have read many doorstoppers, the difference was that I found them less boring than LOTR.

[edhopper]

No need to be insulting, because not all people share your taste in books.

I have read many doorstoppers, the difference was that I found them less boring than LOTR.

I meant that tongue in cheek, should have put a little smiley. apologies

[DebkoX]

We need to talk about kevin.

[kane]

I meant that tongue in cheek, should have put a little smiley. apologies

Ah, okay, no problem. Without a smiley it is sometimes quite difficult to realize if someone is serious.

[Personamanx]

Lied to myself about it for years but the Lord of The Rings film trillogy is far better than the books. Tolkien was a piss-poor story teller with a knack for world building, and flowery language. The films trimmed all of the overly descriptive fat from the story and worked much better for it. Tolkien could have been a much better story teller if he was familiar with the phrase "Brevity is wit."

That being said I'm very skeptical about "The Hobbit" films. It's really the only Tolkien book that works as a story and from what I hear Jackson is doing all he can to make it as unnecessarily long as LOTR. I'm sure it will be well made though.

[Alex]

Lied to myself about it for years but the Lord of The Rings film trillogy is far better than the books. Tolkien was a piss-poor story teller with a knack for world building, and flowery language. The films trimmed all of the overly descriptive fat from the story and worked much better for it. Tolkien could have been a much better story teller if he was familiar with the phrase "Brevity is wit."

That being said I'm very skeptical about "The Hobbit" films. It's really the only Tolkien book that works as a story and from what I hear Jackson is doing all he can to make it as unnecessarily long as LOTR. I'm sure it will be well made though.

The funniest thing is, the lord of the rings movie took a very slow moving book and made it go faster.
According to reviews and the one person i talked to who saw the hobbit,it takes a very quick book and makes it too slow.

[Omega Alpha]

The Godfather, for sure.

While the books are also excellent, I prefer the film adaptations of No Country For Old Men and Mystic River.

[Simbob4000]

My first thought was Jurassic Park: The Lost World, but there's certainly something to be said for the improvements made in the first film as well.

What kind of mess was the book The Lost World if the movie was better?