Books vs. Movies (where the exception proves the rule)

[inudesu]

I'm of the opinion that whenever a movie is based on a book, the book is almost always better (obviously, when it is the other way around, and somebody writes out the story to something like "The Goonies" as a promotional piece after the movie is made that is a whole different deal).
The few exceptions to this rule I can think of actually tend to confirm my theory because most of these are cases where I have some emotional attachment to the experience of seeing the movie (like seeing it with friends a million times as a kid).

What say ye? Any of you movie buffs ever read a book you prefered to the movie version? Any other readers want to chime in with exceptions?
I'll give the few I can think of off the top of my head -

The Princess Bride - perfectly fits the situation described above. It is my favorite movie, probably due more to me seeing it first as a kid at just the perfect age than to any artistic merits (although I can argue that is does have some). I didn't read the book until college and I have to say, it is pretty close. Probably because it was written by the screenwriter it is very close to the movie.

The Natural - similar situation. Every time I have ever seen the book mentioned in print, the next comment is how they ruined it when they made the movie, so I finally hunted down the book version, and I wasn't really impressed. I will say it is a whole different story. Part of the reason I like the movie more is that I like the movie story more, and part is probably because I saw this for the first time with my cousins and my brother used to watch it before almost every baseball game when we were kids.

Breakfast at Tiffanys - a little different, since I don't particularly like the movie that much. Most of the things I normally hate about a film adaptation (like changing the story, sanitizing the more difficult parts, etc.) they did, but I guess I prefer the weaker, watered down version in this case. Maybe because while I can see that the novella was well written, it didn't really jump out and grab me.

Last of the Mohicans - not even close. It took me forever to plow through this beating of a read, and the movie is one of my favorites ever.

Probably have to include The Body/Stand by Me and Shawshank. The performances by the actors push these over the top.

Others?

[PawDawg]

Lonesome Dove- Saw the mini-series first and loved it. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed the book as much if I hadn't had the mental images of the great actors. While reading the book I noticed many more than usual direct quotes that matched up with the movie. The movie and book were almost identical. I always figured McMurtrey insisted on that. He obviously didn't when he allowed them to film Comanche Moon which was a great book, but a very disappointing mini-series.

[JAY]

Whats a book?

[RhythmDawg]

Anyone know how to read?

[JAY]

[inudesu]

I have noticed that everytime I try to discuss books the thread dies at about 4 posts. Bunch of illiterate slackers.

[RhythmDawg]

I have noticed that everytime I try to discuss books the thread dies at about 4 posts. Bunch of illiterate slackers.

Okay fine. I read the Da Vinci Code to see what all the hype was, and to be able to discount the "historical" liberalism taken by the author. It was a very good story. Liked it much better than the movie.

[PawDawg]

I have noticed that everytime I try to discuss books the thread dies at about 4 posts. Bunch of illiterate slackers.

Most folks never get past the football forum. That's why so many things that have nothing to do with football show up there.

[solo1001]

Most of the Michael Crichton books are better than the movie although the first Jurassic Park film was great. I was reading the book at the same time the movie came out so the lines became pretty blurred. The Lost World, Sphere, and Congo weren't near as good as the books.

Clive Cussler's books are great but he more or less refuses to let them be made into movies now because of Raise The Titanic and Sahara. I liked Sahara but they butchered it from the book and took out the coolest part of the entire plot. I won't ruin that here.

Stephen King's non-horror translates real well to the screen and that's usually from his short stories and a couple have already been mentioned with The Body and Shawshank. Apt Pupil and The Mist are two others although nobody went and saw The Mist. That movie was great and Frank Darabont wrote an ending to a story that Stephen King left open in the novella. Stephen King approved it wholeheartedly and let's just say Darabont does not like mankind. Great movie and pretty faithful to the story.

John Grisham's first books were great and I saw those movies around the time I was reading them and couldn't stand the movies at first but later after i'd forgotten the books, I liked the movies more.

I'll think of some others and post more later.

[DallasDog]

The did chop Sahara, the book is awesome. It wasn't a bad movie and Steve Zahn/Matthew McConaughey had a nice dynamic as his characters do in the books. I think Titanic suffered from being done when the effects needed to pull it off just weren't around. It drug also.

[solo1001]

Even though Steve Zahn was completely different from Giordano in the books, I did think he was cool and I liked McConaughey too. I wish they'd make Inca Gold too. I haven't read much of Cussler since Dirk Pitt had kids and I read a couple of his Kurt Austin novels. The coolest part about him is he's lived so much about what he writes about. He's the one who found the Hundley and all sorts of shipwrecks. I think Vince Flynn books would make some good movies but they probably wouldn't fly in liberal Hollywood. I've tried reading Tom Clancy but he just gets too technical. Although I did read Without Remorse and thought it was great.

[DallasDog]

Ken Follet- Eye of the needle- (donald sutherland) was ok. His books: Man from St. Petersburg, Jackdaws, Flight of the Hornet, and The keys to Rebecca are all great and set around WW I or during WWII Europe/Middle East.

[solo1001]

i read Pillars of the Earth (i owned it two years before Oprah put it in her book club so let's not discuss that please) and that was really good. 983 pages and tiny print so once I got done with it, I felt like I accomplished something. I haven't read his thrillers yet though. Speaking of epic length books, I read The Stand and IT by Stephen King both of which were made into TV movies. Obviously due to over 1000 pages, its hard to be faithful but I still remember being entertained on the small screen. The Shining was a good book also. I remember reading where Stephen King didnt like the Kubrik version although it's somewhat of a classic. Supposedly, the tv version they did a few years ago was exactly how King envisioned it.

[inudesu]

Most folks never get past the football forum. That's why so many things that have nothing to do with football show up there.

That is true. But we're still full of illiterate slackers.

[TechDawgFan]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if a movie is based on the book, I always read the book FIRST. I ESPECIALLY hold true to this when it comes to my kids. When the HP movies started coming out, I wouldn't let them watch them until they read the book first. Same thing on Chronicles of Narnia.

How that relates to this thread, I don't exactly know. Except that you get a much better appreciation for the book when you see how they made it into film.

Chris