re: When the movie is better than the book

The movie version of Fight Club is definitely better than the book. I know the board has been divided over A Christmas Story in the past, but it is so much better than the book it is based on: In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash.

I AM LEGEND




Just Joking!!!!

The Hunt for Red October
Minority Report

Good books, but I found the movies to be quite a bit better on several grounds.

Pelican Brief might be another, though I have to admit that the stories are so different that I'm not sure it's fair to compare. I personally like the movie Way better than the book, but it's apples to oranges.

The Red Badge of Courage. Again this one might be a matter of taste, but I found that book dreadfully depressing. The movie is excellent - I dare say even ahead of its time in some ways.

quote:

---

man, i really really want to agree with you because i like books way more than i like movies, just in general. but i read all of the books for the first time kind of recently (2021-22) and i just did not get the "greatest books every written" vibe. much like Dune, i totally understand their importance and what they did for their respective genres, but man...some of it was really hard to get through. maybe i'll appreciate them more with a second time through.

---

What part of it was a slog for you? I get someone struggling with the Tom Bombadil part because it's just random, especially if you waw the movies first it's probably a "wtf is this guy" moment, but it's pretty short. The majority of the story is pretty enthralling. .

The movie The Godfather was a good example to me for this topic. They took the base of the story, great characters, and just told the good parts and improved on it in large part by cutting out all the crappy parts of the book. It's not like that with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson didn't improve on the books at all. He simply took what is great from the books and put it on screen. Which is what a good director should do to great books. The cinematic scope of it was pretty incredible but he simply told Tolkiens story, unlike some of the other examples given in the thread where they improved on the story. The parts Jackson did change, for the most part, did not improve the story (Sarumon's death for example), they just told them in a different way. Certain character changes (Farimir's especially) were not nearly as well done and there were incredible parts of the book he left out (scourging of the Shire, though understandably).

Again, I love the movies. I'm glad PJ brought them to screen. But they still don't compare.

quote:

---

What part of it was a slog for you? I get someone struggling with the Tom Bombadil part because it's just random, especially if you waw the movies first it's probably a "wtf is this guy" moment, but it's pretty short. The majority of the story is pretty enthralling. .

---

i dont know exactly. no one certain part. perhaps it was just victim to the fact that i had seen all of the movies multiple times over the years before i read the books. i suspect if i had read them multiple times growing up like many of you all have, i would feel differently.

quote:

---

The Natural is a much better movie than book. Roy should be the hero, not the goat, and that Randy Newman score is iconic. Roy running the bases as the sparks rain down and that song playing in the background. Epic.

---

I'll also add Field of Dreams is better than it's book Shoeless Joe. I'll have to read the Jaws book since everyone hates it so much.

quote:

---

Which audio version did you listen to, Andy Serkis recently re did them as the narrator and did a great job. Better than the original in my opinion. Serkis is a very talented dude.

---

I haven’t heard the Serkis version. I may have to check it out cause the unabridged Rob Inglis version is phenomenally done.

A Christmas Story
Field of Dreams
A Walk in the Woods
Master and Commander

Shawshank Redemption for me.