Famous Movies Better/Worse than Books They Were Adapted From

[CMonster]

I can't remember where I heard this, but I did hear that they shot I am Legend with the proper end and meaning to what the title actually is...but it confused test audiences so they went with the trash they actually used. Such a disappointment from what could have been.

[snallygaster]

Is that the "alternate ending" on the DVD (BluRay?)? If so, it certainly doesn't redeem the film (although I liked it fine until the baddies showed up).

[TheDenizen]

Test audiences are probably the worst thing to ever happen to the movies...not counting Will Smith's career, that is.

[lilalex666]

Is that the "alternate ending" on the DVD (BluRay?)? If so, it certainly doesn't redeem the film (although I liked it fine until the baddies showed up).

I have heard about the alternate ending but havent seen it. though I cant see it improving the film in any way. I also cant see how the alternate endning could be closer to the novel, because it wouldnt make any sense to the rest of the movie. the bad guys are just these white skin zombies that set on boobie trap and hide behind walls. the vampires from the book were physically mutated humans, but with no changes to their mental or emotional states. in the movie they were just random monsters. super lame

[Spanks]

This is a topic that has always interested me, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents for some recent adaptations.

Films that were better than the book:
Drive – A very close call on this one, but ultimately the decision to cut out the Driver’s backstory and strip the film to its bare essentials in regards to dialogue, story, and character was a very smart move on Refn’s part as it further added to that heavy mood and eerie silence that Gosling and the film captures so perfectly. The novel also comes off as study into violence, whereas the film plays with the concept of redemption through violence, making it so that when something bloody does happen, I, as a viewer, wanted more of it, rather than simply turning the page, wondering who the Driver was going to assault next for some miniscule reason. [spoiler](Spoiler) – the kid and the woman also die somewhat early on in the book, and developing Driver’s relationship with them both added the much needed dramatic emotion that the novel lacked.[/spoiler]
No Country for Old Men – Currently on my third re-read of McCarthy’s novel, which is still fantastic, but doesn’t quite have the “it” factor that Javier Bardem pulls off when portraying Anton Chigurh. McCarthy doesn’t quite capture the American southwest like he does with his other works, something the film did exquisitely. The Coen brothers also managed to tighten the story and focus more so on the pure action sequences rather than bringing in Sheriff Bell’s personal demons, which read as McCarthy trying to send a cluttered message to his audience.

Books that were better than the film:
Brokeback Mountain – Despite it only being a short piece (running just around 12,000 words), Annie Proulx manages to capture the spirit of a romantic tragedy within the Old West in a rather contemporary story that the movie just could not live up to. The filmmakers managed to drag two and half hours out of this framework, making a lot of interactions between characters feel like filler in an otherwise very focused story. Jake Gyllenhaal’s character (Jack Twist) missed the mark completely for me (regardless of the Oscar nomination); his acting felt bland and lifeless, whereas the fictional Jack Twist is animated and informative of his tragic situation. I basically never got past the fact that I’m watching Gyllenhaal try to play a repressed homosexual cowboy, rather than fully becoming one.

The 25th Hour – Adapted by Spike Lee and starring a couple of my all-time favorite actors in Ed Norton and Philip Seymour Hoffman, the film still can’t live up to Benioff’s (relatively unknown) debut novel. The characters are younger in the book and the sense of nostalgia for what could have been far outweighs how any of that was conveyed in the film. Plus Benioff’s prose is just pure magic; as powerful and as exciting as the ending was in the film, it still doesn’t compare the novel’s final pages.

[mattorama12]

Jurassic Park — The book was solid. An interesting and at least plausible scientific premise about how we could bring back dinosaurs, and the inevitable monetizing of that that breakthrough before it was really appropriate.

However, the movie brought the terror and exhilaration of seeing the dinosaurs in a way that a book simply wasn't capable of doing. Though the effects aren't groundbreaking by today's standards, it's one of only a few movies I remember seeing and feeling like movie magic had taken a giant leap forward. Not only did the movie bring the visual and auditory experience that a book couldn't, but it also treated the story and characters well. In disaster movies in particular, I feel like movies don't earn our interest in the characters well enough. Jurassic Park did a great job of establishing the characters and earning the stakes when everything started going to shit.

[ShogunRua]

Jurassic Park — The book was solid. An interesting and at least plausible scientific premise about how we could bring back dinosaurs, and the inevitable monetizing of that that breakthrough before it was really appropriate.

However, the movie brought the terror and exhilaration of seeing the dinosaurs in a way that a book simply wasn't capable of doing. Though the effects aren't groundbreaking by today's standards, it's one of only a few movies I remember seeing and feeling like movie magic had taken a giant leap forward. Not only did the movie bring the visual and auditory experience that a book couldn't, but it also treated the story and characters well. In disaster movies in particular, I feel like movies don't earn our interest in the characters well enough. Jurassic Park did a great job of establishing the characters and earning the stakes when everything started going to shit.

Interesting choice. I thought the movie was crap when I watched it as a kid, and my opinion would likely be even harsher as an adult. And while I'm not a huge Crichton fan, it kept me from trying the book.

[MacSwell]

I preferred the ending of the film version of A Clockwork Orange to the book's - in the book he kind of just realises that violence isn't fulfilling anymore and he ponders starting a family.

Also, Touching the Void is a great read but the documentary is even better.

[bowfinger]

I preferred the ending of the film version of A Clockwork Orange to the book's - in the book he kind of just realises that violence isn't fulfilling anymore and he ponders starting a family.

Not sure about the ending, but I read the book first and then watched the movie, and man, did the movie feel inferior. The droogs' nadsat, the nuances, and generally, the atmosphere was not there. And I clearly remember that I felt like the wind got knocked out of me half way thru the book when I learned how old he was. The movie does not even compare, and I think it is way overrated.

Here is a joke I like that I think is generally true.

Two goats are out behind a movie studio eating old movie film.
One goat says to the other, "Pretty good, huh?"
The second goat says, "Yeah... but it's not as good as the book."

[rklenseth]

My biggest pet peeve with movie adaptations is when a fantastic story is taken, and turned Hollywood for easier audience consumption. Biggest example of this in my opinion is I am Legend.
such. A. Terrible. Movie. So...bad... *spoiler alert*
the novella was probably the coolest horror story Ive ever read. Such a believable character for the situation that is painted for the reader. Such an amazing ending that really makes you go "wow" in one of those jaw dropping, why didn't I think of that? Sort of ways.
and the movie? Sucks. Its not even close to being good, or even watchable as a stand alone. If you have never read the book, the movie still sucks. The bad guys arent scary. They arent anything really. Ive spoken to several people that watched the movie that decision ribbed the bad guys as zombies. Zombies. And then to have Will Smith become "a legend" for saving the world? Garbage. I was so excited to see this adaptation, and so angry, that at the end, when the credits read "based on the novel by Richard Matheson" I started screaming in the theatre "Lies! This is not true! Liars!" Until my friend dragged me out of the theatre, apologizing to the other patrons.

There is always "The Last Man on Earth" (1964) with Vincent Price or "The Omega Man" (1971) with Charlton Heston. I haven't seen the Vincent Price version yet although I have heard that film is the closest to the book. Charlton Heston's version gets the message right but goes off the book quite a bit and many people consider that film B-movie horror. "I am Legend" (2007) only really borrows the disease turning people into vampires and the supposed last man on Earth trying to find a cure. They completely ignored the message from the book which was [spoiler]that Robert Neville had become the monster and the legend as humanity's time on Earth was up and the vampires were now the new norm.[/spoiler]

The one movie that goes by the book completely (for the most part) that I have ever seen is "Gettysburg" (1993). Pretty much the book, "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara, and movie go hand in hand. It also explains why that movie has a 4 hour running time (5 hours for the Director's Cut; they did have to cut some fluff from the book).

One movie that ruined the book for me was "Children of Men" (2006) which I loved and went out and picked up the book, "The Children of Men" by P.D. James, after seeing the movie. While they both have the same message, they were completely different stories and atmospheres. The movie was a tense, dark thriller while the book was more of a mystery novel taking place in dystopian world.