Current Events > Movies better than their source material

(+) Yeah! (+)

Source can be books, comics, video games etc. Ill start.

Kick-Ass

Hunger Games

Big Fish

Jumanji

The Shawshank Redemption.

Lord of the Rings

Pirates of the Caribbean

I mean the ride is decent but you get the gist of it after the first time.

The Shining

Rampage

I'd argue LOTR.

Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park
I definitely enjoy the book, but the movie is so great that it is kind of hard to top.

googs19 posted...

Jurassic Park
I definitely enjoy the book, but the movie is so great that it is kind of hard to top.

The only thing missing from the movie is raptor rocket launcher

Casino Royale

I'll probably catch some heat from purists for saying this, but it's worth noting that I read the full comic series/graphic novel before seeing the movie:

Watchmen. Specifically the director's cut.

The graphic novel is amazing and thorough and has a ton of significance, and obviously without it the movie would never have existed...but it also has a lot of fat, and a fair number of silly quirks that the movie ironed out of it. The movie's version of the antagonist's plot makes much, much more sense in-universe than the graphic novel version. While yes, the giant mutant space squid with a psychic's exploding brain is iconic and memorable, and some of the resulting panels are aesthetic as fuck...it's just so, so dumb. It relies on more than one silly concept: First, that a Hollywood prop production crew, even with limitless funding and the help of scientists, can design a creature of such a scale and with such detail that even a close examination wouldn't reveal any flaws or points of earthly origin...And second...Where the fuck did the psychic's brain come from and how exactly does one prompt it to explode and kill that many people? That kind of seemed like a major hole in the plot...just..."Oh, yeah, by the way. Psychics in this universe really exist and if you science their brain the right way, they fucking explode and kill millions."

The movie tied it in with the main plot and gave a much more convincing explanation for world peace, as well as for Manhattan leaving forever. Framing Doctor Manhattan for the destruction by utilizing the very energy he was donating to the infinite power source project makes much more sense than inventing some kind of ultra-realistic psychic-brain-exploding space squid that only affects America. In the movie, the attack was carried out on multiple major cities across multiple nations, which actually makes sense to motivate the world to unite. In the real world, if the United States was suddenly attacked in a major way by some kind of interdimensional alien squid, then its enemies would take full advantage.

The graphic novel is amazing, don't get me wrong. I just think the movie did a better job of telling the main story. It didn't help that the "IT'S A METAPHOR" comic-within-a-comic kept popping in and out. The Black Freighter definitely felt extraneous and pulpy, which I guess was part of the point, but it dragged the pace.

Resident Evil

Forrest Gump
The Wizard of Oz

Jurassic Park

I really disliked that book.

The Godfather. Thankfully there was no big vagina drama in the movie. No bowels being unleashed either.

There are bits of LOTR that are better, but overall the books blow them away.

theAteam posted...

The only thing missing from the movie is raptor rocket launcher

This.

I'd possibly add Silence of the Lambs but I enjoyed both a lot.

Stardust. I absolutely love the movie, but the book is such a bore.

Southernfatman posted...

The Godfather. Thankfully there was no big vagina drama in the movie.

I couldn't finish reading it. Puzo was a creep.

Stand By Me

Lol at the LotR nonsense. They did a good job at cinematography and whatnot, but as far as plot/anything else was concerned they were worse.

The Princess Bride, The Godfather, and Silence of the Lambs are what I think of when talking about movies better than their book counterparts.

RobertDoback posted...

I couldn't finish reading it. Puzo was a creep.

There's a lot of good stuff in it and they used most of it for Part II, but there's a some really cheap and trashy stuff in it too that made me wince and feel gross reading it and I'm far from being a prude.

I dunno, bloodrayne?

Watching the movie now and its not awful, the amount of nudity and the softcore lesbian sex scene surprised me though.

au_gold posted...

Casino Royale

fuck no. sorry but absolutely not.

au_gold posted...

Casino Royale

Guerrilla Soldier posted...

fuck no. sorry but absolutely not.

Missed that post. I agree. While CR was pretty good (though a bit overrated IMO), the novel, while not as "exciting" as the movie, is on a different level and I much prefer it to the movie. I prefer some of the other JB novels to the movies as well. Moonraker especially.

I came here to jokingly post Lord of the Rings only to find out half the thread is serious about it.

Avatar the Last Airbender

American Psycho is my first thought. Christian Bale brings so much to that role.

A number of Stephen King novelettes/short stories. Shawshank Redemption, The Mist, Stand by Me (The Body).

Jurassic Park. The book was awesome but the movie was groundbreaking. Movie Hammond is way better.

Norman_Smiley posted...

A number of Stephen King novelettes/short stories. Shawshank Redemption, The Mist, Stand by Me (The Body).

And Green Mile imo, but only slightly.

Hard disagree on everyone saying Jurassic Park. The movie's a classic, and the visuals still hold up incredibly well, but the film's plot is a shell of the book's. Tons of stuff left out, tons of stuff changed just for the action.

TheOtherMike posted...

And Green Mile imo, but only slightly.

Hard disagree on everyone saying Jurassic Park. The movie's a classic, and the visuals still hold up incredibly well, but the film's plot is a shell of the book's. Tons of stuff left out, tons of stuff changed just for the action.

Did the movie ever explain what was wrong with the poop? I remember Elle digging in it in the book/movie...

nuclear take:
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Tons of stuff in the JP book was trash to be left out.

Like how at the end Grant won't leave until they napalm some underground nests or something. It was utterly nonsensical and not no chance in all of hell of keeping the dinosaurs from multiplying even if successful.

Ruvan22 posted...

Did the movie ever explain what was wrong with the poop?

Iirc there was a line where she said the triceratops was eating berries that were toxic to it.

TheOtherMike posted...

Iirc there was a line where she said the triceratops was eating berries that were toxic to it.

Ahh maybe I missed that

MabusIncarnate posted...

Avatar the Last Airbender

This man knows his stuff. Aint nobody got time to sit through a years worth of a Nickelodeon cartoon when you can get the whole story in an hour and a half.

Fight Club, Gone Baby Gone, Shutter Island, Dune, Fantastic Mr. Fox

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'll probably catch some heat from purists for saying this, but it's worth noting that I read the full comic series/graphic novel before seeing the movie:

Watchmen. Specifically the director's cut.

The graphic novel is amazing and thorough and has a ton of significance, and obviously without it the movie would never have existed...but it also has a lot of fat, and a fair number of silly quirks that the movie ironed out of it. The movie's version of the antagonist's plot makes much, much more sense in-universe than the graphic novel version. While yes, the giant mutant space squid with a psychic's exploding brain is iconic and memorable, and some of the resulting panels are aesthetic as fuck...it's just so, so dumb. It relies on more than one silly concept: First, that a Hollywood prop production crew, even with limitless funding and the help of scientists, can design a creature of such a scale and with such detail that even a close examination wouldn't reveal any flaws or points of earthly origin...And second...Where the fuck did the psychic's brain come from and how exactly does one prompt it to explode and kill that many people? That kind of seemed like a major hole in the plot...just..."Oh, yeah, by the way. Psychics in this universe really exist and if you science their brain the right way, they fucking explode and kill millions."

The movie tied it in with the main plot and gave a much more convincing explanation for world peace, as well as for Manhattan leaving forever. Framing Doctor Manhattan for the destruction by utilizing the very energy he was donating to the infinite power source project makes much more sense than inventing some kind of ultra-realistic psychic-brain-exploding space squid that only affects America. In the movie, the attack was carried out on multiple major cities across multiple nations, which actually makes sense to motivate the world to unite. In the real world, if the United States was suddenly attacked in a major way by some kind of interdimensional alien squid, then its enemies would take full advantage.

The graphic novel is amazing, don't get me wrong. I just think the movie did a better job of telling the main story. It didn't help that the "IT'S A METAPHOR" comic-within-a-comic kept popping in and out. The Black Freighter definitely felt extraneous and pulpy, which I guess was part of the point, but it dragged the pace.

I don't mind the change to the ending in the movie, makes a lot more sense in the film for Doctor Manhattan to be framed instead of the Squid. Although I thought the squid worked just fine in the comic. I do like the change to have Dan attack Veidt at the end, but hate how they cut out the final conversation between Veidt and Dr. Manhattan, where Adrian finally shows a lot of vulnerability, asking Jon if in the end he did the right thing, where Jon leaves him with the "Nothing ever ends" riddle. He also admits he is basically tortured mentally by his guilt for murdering so many people and can hardly sleep. Also the scene on Mars is a lot better in the comics, none of the magical memory powers Dr. Manhattan uses to force Laurie to remember.

My biggest problems with the movie are that Rorschach's hunt for the Mask Killer wasn't quite the driving force of the movie as it was in the comic. The book does a really good job of establishing a very real ticking clock that Nuclear War WILL happen in a few days, unless Rorschach (and the other heroes) can stop it. This is a little lost in the movie, like I don't feel the same sense of impending doom or urgency in it. The plot in the comic is very driven by the characters and their actions, while in the movie it just feels like the characters are being carried along from scene to scene. Kind of hard to explain.

Also the Comedian pretty much disappears in the second half of the movie, while the book brings him back to the center at the end when Veidt explains that the whole reason he even came up with his plan was because of the Comedian, bringing everything full circle.

Did this mfer say dune?

Seriously?

TLA was a better answer than that, at least it was funny...

Southernfatman posted...

There's a lot of good stuff in it and they used most of it for Part II, but there's a some really cheap and trashy stuff in it too that made me wince and feel gross reading it and I'm far from being a prude.

I feel you. There was a lot about it that had me 100% in the "book is better" club, but feeling gross and wincing describes my feelings very well and I guess I just couldn't hang lol. I might go back to it some time.

The Warriors

Bourne Identity

The Mist, just for the ending

Guerrilla Soldier posted...

fuck no. sorry but absolutely not.

Vespers character alone makes the movie more engaging than the book.

1998 Tarzan

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



I'm glad to hear you say this. I loathed the movie as a kid and that hasn't changed as an adult. However, the book interests me. Might pick it up some time.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World