Plan B Forum

...a TV series, or movie, based on a book, which has been better than the original book?

A post in the "anti-hero" thread got me thinking, though I cannot think of one of the top of my head.

By this BTW, I do not mean better than "the book of the movie/TV show", but better than the original/inspiration.

Blade Runner? nah..

The best adaptation of a Book to a movie is Hellraiser based on "The Hellbound Heart" By Clive Barker (this does not include any of the sequels)

Two spring to mind...

The Godfather & One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I'm sure there are others. I'll have a think...

I tend to fall into the camp of generally feeling a movie/tv adaptation was good (or great) but 'wasn't as good (or great) as the book'; however, I think because 'better than' is a very subjective standard, one way to broaden the discussion might be to entertain suggestions of movie/tv adaptions that did the book justice versus those that dishonored or even betrayed the author's vision.

I'm still seeking the recesses of my brain to determine whether I can think of any movie/tv adaptation that I actually thought was better than the book. Part of the reasoning that goes into such an analysis for me is that reading is such a different experience - in particular when I was younger, I enjoyed the imaginative stretch of the mind that accompanied reading a good work of fiction, and often found the vision committed to film didn't square with what I'd imagined during the reading process.

I can think offhand of a particular instance where I saw a film I really enjoyed, then read the book and was dismayed to find a very different story which the film had brutalized. The Man Without a Face, Mel Gibson's directorial debut, in which he fundamentally altered the author's core vision/story in making his film adaptation - he readily admits to this fact. The film was good - my enjoyment of it was what led me to seek out the book. The book told a different story and after reading it I definitely felt the film betrayed the author's vision.

eta: SPOILER ALERT: The book The Man Without a Face explores pedophilia and homophobia. It is unsurprising to me that Mel Gibson chose to largely whitewash that from the film adaption. His hero (his character) is suspected of pedophilia but is innocent; in the book it's clear that the adult male does in fact groom and sexually victimize the boy.

I thought "Name of the Rose" made a fair fist of trying to get the novel on the screen, but didn't quite get there. The book was too richly detailed to translate.

Okay, I've got two:

I would argue that the film versions of Stand by Me and The Shawshank Redemption actually outshine Stephen King's novellas upon which they are based. I'm a huge fan of King's writing and feel that many of the film adaptations do terrible injustice to the stories/characters, but in the case of these two, the movies actually got it perfect.

The Shining and Misery were two other King stories I thought were handled quite well on screen.

We won't talk about The Running Man though...

Went an'read Forrest Gump, which was far superior to the movie...

The Pillars of the Earth

I am a fan of Ken Follett and normally get engrossed in his books, and love the way he intertwines a real historical backdrop into his stories. But there was something incredibly plodding for me about the way this one was written that made it incredibly difficult for me to get through. So when the miniseries was broadcast I almost gave it a pass, and just happened by chance to tune into the first episode because I had been watching something on the same network just before, and I got hooked immediately and watched with rapt attention all the way through. I think it really was a question of a picture being worth a thousand words, in that there are huge sections of the novel that describe the finer points of cathedral architecture and medieval battle sequences in what felt like excruciating detail, that instead come to life in a rather fast paced way when seen on the screen. So it was quite a faithful adaptation that appeared to be quite a different (and better) work.

Best adaptation I can think of was, hands down, The Hunt For Red October.

Worst...probably the mutilation of Clive Cussler's Sahara.

I Robot is up there with the worst of them...

Sahara was so bad that Cussler sued to stop the release.

HUH?

I think he's talking about the Mattew Mcaunehy (no idea how to speell it nor to I care) penelope Cruz abpotion that not even steve Zahn could save.

Yeah, that disaster!

Perry Mason
James Bond (decent books but the best of the movies are very good)
Terms of Endearment (the only McMurtry movie that I like a lot more than the novel)
MASH, movie and TV show
Jaws (I liked the book, but the suspense of the movie was sensational)

Mixed response:

Just now getting around to watching the acclaimed HBO miniseries John Adams.

Some really wonderful scenes, most particularly John Adams' audience with King George III. Aside from my puzzlement as to why the writers did not stick to the exact language exchanged betwixt the two as recorded in Adams' letter to Secretary of State John Jay, I considered the scene so pitch perfectly depicted I watched it several times.

However, overall I am very disappointed in the many historical inaccuracies portrayed in the film and frankly confounded as to why the screenwriter(s) felt it necessary to alter basic facts of American history when the truth is quite simply compelling enough.

At one point Adams is depicted, during his Vice-Presidency, as casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to ratify the Jay Treaty; it takes a 2/3 majority to ratify treaties. WTF? Alter the Constitution for dramatic effect? There are many other examples some of which are even more egregious. I'm frankly now surprised at the number of Emmy awards garnered, but I guess the entertainment industry cares little for such concerns.

Here's one from left field- Shrek. Yes, It's based on a book;