Film Adaptations That Were Better Than The Books

[Cena's Little Helper]

Which films have been better than the book, play, or graphic novel they adapted? I have seen many adaptations, and there is only one that sticks out in my mind that proved to be better than its source material:

La Pianiste/The Piano Teacher (2001) - What makes this film, in my opinion, so much better than Elfriede Jelinek's novel is the fact that it is more of an interpretation than an adaptation. The novel, just like the film, is about a middle-aged pianist and conservatory teacher who still lives with her mother and who has unusual sexual fantasies that are beginning to revolve around a young man that is pursuing her. However, unlike the novel, the film paradoxically gives us the benefit of not knowing the thoughts of Erika Kohut (the pianist). Thus, we don't see her as the innocent, sexually repressed, and emotionally immature "woman-child" that we infer her to be from the novel's narration of her thoughts. Rather, we see her as a cold, calculating, and manipulative psychopath whose overbearing mother has probably benefited society by preventing her daughter from inflicting psychological and physical harm upon others (although, as the film's ending shows, Kohut does have some vestiges of sanity).

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Tough one. I can't actually think of anything. I'd say something like Trainspotting. But that's not better, it's different.

Books have more detail and film is a medium for lazy people. I'll check out The Piano Teacher and if I like it I'll give the book a whirl. I can't do it the other way round, book before film, I'm not wasting my time on a book when I can watch what is apparently a better film.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Thank you! There was another film I couldn't remember the name of that I thought was better than the book, and it was Trainspotting. For the longest time, I didn't see the film because I thought that nothing could have stayed faithful to the book. However, I saw it and thought it was actually better than the book. Although Danny Boyle pretty much omitted everything that didn't have anything to do with Renton, Spud, Sick Boy, and Begbie, I was astonished by the fact that he could make a whole film that revolved around just these four characters. So, props to him for doing that.

However, I must admit that I wasn't the biggest fan of Welsh's Trainspotting. I thought it was a solid book (I would give it a B+/B), but I definitely didn't think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. So, if I loved the book more, I probably would not have thought that the film was better.

 

[Mr. TM]

Babe

I have had this discussion before, and although mine was the wildcard pick of the group back in high school, I picked it and a lot of people agreed. We had to read Babe and then compare it to the movie. The movie I felt was much more charming than the book ever was. The movie was really good, the book was only decent. And although most have never heard of the book (though it did get a rising) the movie is pretty well known.

 

[jmt225]

I wouldn't say it's better, but the only thing that comes close to me liking a film as much as I liked the book was The Rules of Attraction.

All of the books I've read that weren’t school required were autobiographies, and Bret Easton Ellis novels. Ellis really is the only fiction writer I've become a fan of. I've read all his books and I loved them all.

American Psycho was a great remake of the book, but it didn't come close to being as good as the book, whereas I thought the The Rules of Attraction by Roger Avery came very close to being as good as Ellis’ book. He got a PERFECT set of actors to play these wonderful characters, and he shot the film in such a beautiful, realistic way that kept true to what you would picture when reading the book. There were some things I didn't like about the film, like making Lauren a virgin and keeping out the Cafeteria scenes and Sean's flashback "Hippie" story, but everything else was as perfect as I could ever hope for.

Now, if Avery can get the financial backing to make Glamorama into a film, and also if Quentin Tarantino pursues, like rumored, remaking Less Than Zero that's more true to the book then the other film adaptation was, then I think those two could end up being fantastic and just as good, if not better, then Ellis' books.

 

[NSL]

My first choice was an easy one, if only because I could stomach the movie, but the book put me to sleep. That would be Of Mice And Men. The acting was pretty good for a simple story, and the filmmakers made sure to include all of the important parts of the book.

Another one, would be Forrest Gump. I'd bet most people didn't even know it was a book. It helps that I took a Novel & Film class in school. The book is good, but it's completely different from the movie. It's slightly darker, and in my opinion, has a much different depth to each character. I like the characters in the movie. they're relatable, and tell the story well. The acting is phenomenal, and is some of Tom Hanks' best work.

Another easy choice, is Shawshank Redemption. It's my favorite movie of all time, and is probably why I am partial to the movie over the story. The short story Rita Hayworth And The Shawshank Redemption was good, as are all of Stephen King's works. But, the movie was much more. The book told avery compact version of the story, whereas the movie made sure to expand on every detail. The acting of Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins really took the movie over the edge.

The last one I'm going to list is The Godfather. We all know the movie was great. I won't beat this to death, I just wanted to list it.