I searched this; if there is already a thread for this, please direct me to it.

What films do you consider to be an improvement over the book? These seem to be quite rare, IMO. The only one I can think of is The Fellowship of the Ring.

I don't generally like questions like this because I like to view them as separate entities. I love the Harry Potter movies for example, and I loved the books, and I understand why the changes they made were done. They are completely different mediums.

The Hunger Games movies overall are almost all better than the books that they are based on though.

The Shining, Jurassic Park, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Fifty Shades of Grey ( ) also come to mind.

I liked the Paper Towns movie more than the book.

Every film that was adapted from a book is, by its nature, better than the book.

No, just no. The Hunger Games butchered the finale, and the Mockingjay movies proved the book was too thin for two movies. Even Catching Fire had some changes I did not like.

And while the Harry Potter films are satisfactory, they in no way compare to the awe and wonder and complexity of especially the later novels. The only ones that are completely satisfactory as adaptations are the first two, but the direction and acting by the children does lack. Harry Potter should be made as a TV show, with the first two books as one season of 10 episodes, and each of the other books getting its own season of 7-10 episodes each.

This question is for people who value both mediums.

The Mockingjay movies are my least favorite of the series but the book sucks and is boring as hell. The movies are good.

And I wholly disagree about the Harry Potter films - the later ones are the best and most complex in the series. And the things they get right, they really get right (the cave scene in Half-Blood Prince is, in my opinion, one of the most faithful book-to-movie sequences EVER - it's exactly how I pictured it in then book). I don't give two shits that some minor character wasn't included as much or something like that, the movies would have been 4 hours long and would have suffered.

I've seen the argument about the TV show but I think it's unnecessary. The stories are not that complex that they need what would amount to like 70 hours of television.

I do value both. Just not written fiction.

I can't even think of a logical response.

They could have at least made each one as long as a Lord of the Rings film. It's also not like they haven't made 4 hour films before (Deathly Hallows is technically one 4 1/2 hour film and it is satisfactory apart from a few things). The central good vs. evil narrative of the Potter books is not what made them great. What made them great is the world building and character development, which is what went out the window starting with Goblet of Fire. You can argue that subplots and minor characters weren't necessary to the main plot, but they do add to the world building and character development.

I guess I'm what you call a purist. I want almost every damn thing up on the screen. I love every part of those books, there is not one thing I would excise in any of the seven. Book Five is my favorite because it is the longest, darkest and most complex. The fourth film just kept the action sequences.

This might be a turning point in your young life. One where you accept someone else's way of looking at things. It's ok, you know.

Drive the novel is a lean, solid, tough piece of crime fiction, but the style, sweep, and...neon melancholy Nicolas Winding Refn brings to the material elevates it even further.

For a perhaps controversial choice: I enjoy Bram Stoker's epistolary novel Dracula, and I respect its incalculable impact on popular culture, but Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula is how the story and characters live in my mind. I miss, for example, the idea of Mina being Dracula's suicidal lover reincarnated in the Stoker text, which I read in full for the first time in college after seeing Coppola's film 25 or 30-plus times during my adolescence.

I thought Neil Gaiman's "Stardust" was better as a movie, but then again, he had a hand in the production and made some script changes that improved it. Similarly with "Princess Bride" which is an excellent book and an even better movie (but with the author writing the screenplay).

I'll agree with LOTR as well.

I remember reading "To Have and Have Not" years ago -- rambling book that goes nowhere -- and then seeing the film with Bogart and Bacall and thinking it was nothing like the book and much better.

I found this list but I have never read any of those particular books except LOTR, so can't agree with any of these choices. Still, it's a good starting point for discussion.

http://www.gamesradar.com/50-movies-tha ... the-books/

american psycho
gone girl
harry potter and the half-blood prince
harry potter and the deathly hallows
the prestige

That was an improvement? Damn, the book is pure crap then.

No.

No.

I can believe that.


Yikes! That's a scary thought.


Ummm, no. The book is way better than either American or Swedish movie.


Gone with the Wind is way better as a movie than as I book. The book's first sentence is classic though. Cracks me every time even though it's not that funny.