The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsName an instance of a story where you liked the book, but you loved the movie more.
For me, it would be Cloud Atlas.
In full disclosure, I saw the movie first before reading--or even hearing anything about--the book. I immediately fell in love with it.
I then read the David Mitchell book.
It was well-written but I still preferred the movie. I enjoyed the whiplash styled transitions between the stories of the movie more than the more structured components of the book. And the book occasionally goes off on tangents that make the stories a little pointless (namely in the Sonmi story).
Not sure whether or not my opinion on book vs. movie would have been different if I had read the book first.
Zoonart
(11,855 posts)I loved the book, but I adore this movie. THE RIGHT STUFF.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,177 posts)The book was great. The movie was divine.
Zoonart
(11,855 posts)I can't help but tear up every time I watch this. I am so very sad at what this nation has lost.
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)Read the Stephen King novella "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" and thought it was very good. I like most of his stuff. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman knocked it out of the park! Should have won Best picture
Zoonart
(11,855 posts)Great movie.
forgotmylogin
(7,527 posts)The story was barely an episode, but the movie brought across dread in a creature flick where "humans are the scariest monster" with a shocking, ironic, and sad finale - which Stephen King praised as being better than the ending he wrote.
ExciteBike66
(2,340 posts)scared the crap out of me.
Midwestern Democrat
(806 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,527 posts)I also probably would have to say the same about Pet Sematary which ends abruptly and ironically like an episode of the Twilight Zone - which was disappointing and frustrating after spending so much time reading a novel but made much more sense content-wise in the quicker length format of a movie.
More concisely: The Mist was better as a movie because it was longer, Pet Sematary was better as a movie because it was shorter!
lame54
(35,285 posts)It lost to Forrest Gump - A movie which was also better than it's book
ExciteBike66
(2,340 posts)I have read the books, and I also have heard some of the audiobook. The audiobook voice guy makes Tyrion sounds like an elderly leprechaun (no offense to elderly leprechauns).
Peter Dinklage makes the Tyrion character so much less buffoonish in my mind.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,407 posts)Peter Dinklage drinks and knows things. Regrettably, I feel like his character has been kind of sidelined with less to do since seasons 4-5 but I agree that his GOT version of his character has been much better than his book character (at least through A Clash of Kings).
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)To be fair, I saw the movie first and the book is so completely different, it's essentially a different story altogether.
Can't think of any other examples. No matter which order I experienced them, I always preferred the book.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe .....by Fannie Flag
and The Color Purple......by Alice Walker
sagetea
(1,368 posts)by Richard Matheson. The book was extraordinary, the movie, for me, was awesome! Robin Williams did and incredible, believable, passionate, and compassionate portraying the main character.
backtoblue
(11,343 posts)I never read the book, but that was a good movie.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)I stayed awake for the whole movie.
lame54
(35,285 posts)Pharlo
(1,816 posts)1. Portrait of Dorian Gray
2. A Time to Kill
backtoblue
(11,343 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,527 posts)I caught that in the middle randomly and was fascinated and surprised when I saw his name on the commercial bumper. I can usually take or leave Koontz in book form.
Phantoms was a rare book that made me put it down for a bit cause it gave me the willies - the opening was so good. Strangers was like "anything going to happen in this chapter? No? SnnnzzzzZZzzzz..."
backtoblue
(11,343 posts)I read Koontz and King mostly mostly as a teenager. His books are hit and miss. I really liked "Doorway to December" and "The Bad Place" .
"The Darkest Evening of the Year" was really boring.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Than the book, is Ben Hur. The 1956 William Wyler version was magnificent (there was an early silent version). The book is awful. The writing is florid and practically unreadable. It was a written as an explicit tract for Christianity. The WW movie was not.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,407 posts)I usually see the movie BEFORE I read the book, so I generally treat the movie as a "cliff notes" version of the story and go back and read the book to help understand some things better. I think that, in general, the Lord of the Rings movies were more exciting and interesting than the books, which were a lot slower and packed with a lot of superfluous side characters and plot lines.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)Plus the whole genre of Clockwork UK punk it spawned
Wolf Frankula
(3,600 posts)Great book Wonderful movie.
Wolf
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)"Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining" for sure. "Lolita" would be the major exception here.
forgotmylogin
(7,527 posts)They're both good, and I think Kubrick is a genius that he remade that story to work visually as a beautiful film of an unfilmable book made up mostly of interior monologue.
sweetloukillbot
(11,009 posts)The movie came first - Clarke wrote the screenplay them adapted it into the movie, drawing ideas from some of his earlier work, mostly The Sentinel and Childhoods End, IIRC.
Initech
(100,065 posts)It was the first instance where the book was better than the movie.
Glorfindel
(9,726 posts)The Stephen King novella on which it was based, "The Body," was excellent, but the movie was MUCH better. Thanks for posing an interesting question!
blue neen
(12,319 posts)That movie was so well done. I read the book first, so I cried through both!
Heartstrings
(7,349 posts)Although the complete story released in 6 paperbacks, was a unique twist to the norm, the movie was exceptional in bringing them all together in one sitting. Great casting, too!
Rustynaerduwell
(663 posts)You beat me to it. Coincidentally, I had this discussion earlier tonight. Two books came to mind. This, and my choice below.
Rustynaerduwell
(663 posts)The soundtrack and the final scene are transcendent.
Heartstrings
(7,349 posts)Phenomenal casting as well!
Laffy Kat
(16,377 posts)They did a great job with that movie and I don't think it got it's due.
Number9Dream
(1,561 posts)The movie flowed as a story-line, while the book was episodic and choppy.
mia
(8,360 posts)Loved reading the book when it first came out, complete with recipes. The movie was magical. Just saw it again on Netflix.
UTUSN
(70,684 posts)yellowdogintexas
(22,250 posts)with Sam Neill....
fabulous TV series
book was dull as dishwater
TexasBushwhacker
(20,175 posts)In the book, Horseman Pass By, Hud is really bad, start to finish. He actually rapes the maid and she had absolutely no interest in him. Unlike Patricia Neal, the maid in the book is black. Hud in the film is still a bad guy, but the character is more complex; gray instead of black or white.