A Clockwork Orange was close, but I'll take the movie 'cause it involved Singing In The Rain, now a lesser and more joyous counterpart to the song Ein Mannlein Steht im Walde heard many a time in Hannibal Rising.

Feast of All Saints was an AWESOME book, but the movie was SO close to being better, and it left out the homosexuality which I'd had enough of by that time anyways. There was only the feeling of utter giddiness over doing something with ones' hands that was sadly left out.

Anyhow, all other movies from books I've seen have been worse, minding I've not read the usual ones such as Harry Potter or LOTR to give an opinion.

There's probably lots of examples that we're missing because the books were so forgettable that we don't know about them.

Has anyone actually read the novel Nothing Lasts Forever more commonly known as Die Hard? Or even knew the name of it before?

Or that Die Hard was a sequel to the Frank Sinatra film The Detective?

Gatecrashing this party a little late in the proceedings (as is my wont)...here's my tuppence worth:
The Godfather (Mario Puzo)
The Shawshank Redemption (based on the novella, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, from the Different Seasons compilation by Stephen King - a close call here, but the movie pips the post by casting Morgan Freeman as Red - who was originally supposed to be a big red-headed Irish-American, as the name implies).
Schindler's List (Thomas Keneally - I found the book impossible to get into).
The Thin Red Line (by James Jones - 1998 version - while the book was grim, there was something ephermeal and transcendent about the movie).
In the Name of the Father (Proved Innocent by Gerry Conlon - although the film deviated from 'actual' events in places, and being au fait with the material - having worked on Patrick Maguire's biography ghost-written by my friend, Carlo Gebler - the emotional impact of the film is almost entirely absent from the really quite badly written biography).
Sin City (I know it was an amalgam of Frank Miller stories, but was utterly blown away by Rodrigez (and Tarantino's) direction - the closest I've seen to a graphic novel actually being brought to life on screen).
For Whom the Bell Tolls (Ernest Hemingway - because, despite the incomparable brilliance of Papa's writing, the film is so gorgeously shot and superbly acted that the emotional involvement is just that bit more intense than the novel, where Robert Jordan can come across as a tad elitist and cold at times).
That'll do for now, I'm sure I'll come up with some more...should actually start another thread (if someone else hasn't already done so): movies that were definitely worse than the books they were based on.
Oh, two more, pretty easy ones:
Jaws (Peter Benchley - the soundtrack alone wins it).
The Exorcist (William Peter Blatty - I don't think any book has ever disturbed me as much as that movie did - perhaps simply down to a lack of imagination on my part - I don't think so...).

quote:

Originally posted by sammael truly a devil in disguise:
Gatecrashing this party a little late in the proceedings (as is my wont)...here's my tuppence worth:
For Whom the Bell Tolls (Ernest Hemingway - because, despite the incomparable brilliance of Papa's writing, the film is so gorgeously shot and superbly acted that the emotional involvement is just that bit more intense than the novel, where Robert Jordan can come across as a tad elitist and cold at times).

but...but...no! I'm editing that bit out of my memory.

I Am Legend. Finished reading the novella last month. Hated it. Well, didn't hate it, but I watched the movie before I read the book and I while I enjoyed the movie as a sci-fi-actionish thingy, I thought maybe the book would be much more brilliant. I was wrong. The book is just a half-assed post-apocalyptic macho-pulp story in which vampires that can't make up their minds whether or not to be the undead or just the undead-ish are inexplicably the only humans left on the planet. The movie zombie/vampire/infected creatures are a lot more terrifying. Plus, the master-manipulators behind the movie threw in a likeable dog-hero. Assholes.

If you like your post-apocolyptica gritty and nebulous, read The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

Oh hey, Blade Runner. PKD's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep seems so passe now.

Deliverance!

quote:

Originally posted by Maure:
I take a lot of flak for this, but I'm sticking to my guns. Hannibal was a better movie than book. The book ending just didn't make any sense, wasn't true to the characters. The movie ending did.

Neither is on my list of favorite films/books, but there you go.

Maure

I 100% agree. All the "inner mansion" stuff in Harris' book was a complete lift from Rex Miller's CHAINGANG pulp novels, by the way. Hannibal is actually one of the most logical examples of this topic heading. Well that and The Godfather, which is an ok book, but an awesome film.

BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S - based more on a short story than a novel, the entire focus of the narrative was altered, and changed a self-consciously dour story into a classic screen romance.

SHREK - a children's book that may have dwindled into obscurity were it not for the incredibly vibrant film adaptation (though they could have stopped at one, and that would have been fine with me).

WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE - The novel was an understated, and well written view of the world but the film, by Lasse Hallstrom, is practically an acting clinic of natural (and amazing performances). I had already met Leonardo DiCaprio, and yet was completely convinced that they had found a mentally challenged performer to play Arnie. Depp and friends were fabulous as always.

THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER & CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER - Tom Clancy is an awful writer. It has to be said. His books are much more plot-driven from a 30,000 foot view than examples of literature. The first adaptation of his work (with Adam Baldwin in the Jack Ryan chair) is a vast improvement on the source material. The next film was about as good as the book, but Harrison Ford's second film as Jack Ryan is the best in the series, and stands head and shoulders above the workmanlike-at-best writing style of the author.

quote:

Originally posted by ZoneSeek:
Oh hey, Blade Runner. PKD's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep seems so passe now.

There's no way the book can be worse than that movie. :P

Anyway, I agree that the movie for Fight Club blew the book out of the water. The book felt like the only character expanded on at all was the narrator, which then wasn't even that much.

The Batman movies are better than any of the comics I've read.

I really can't think of others, none off the top of my head at this moment, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Panik Gallery:
All the "inner mansion" stuff in Harris' book was a complete lift from Rex Miller's CHAINGANG pulp novels, by the way.

Thomas Harris said in the book that the method of loci is an ancient trick.

The Hannibal movie ending made more sense, sure. But the books had more stuff, Margot Verger, Pazzi's gypsies, Barney's involvement with the Vergers, that amplified the claustrophobically suffocating sense of evil.

300. Not because it was such an awesome movie but because it actually gave the women something to do in the story. Also, the book was pretty minimal and the movie was pretty extravagant. You felt like you saw an epic story unfold where the book felt like a quick battle.

Wow, I made this post already in this thread and didnt remember. But this time i elaborated.

quote:

Originally posted by Eldi:
300. Not because it was such an awesome movie but because it actually gave the women something to do in the story. Also, the book was pretty minimal and the movie was pretty extravagant. You felt like you saw an epic story unfold where the book felt like a quick battle.

Wow, I made this post already in this thread and didnt remember. But this time i elaborated.

300 wasn't hard to improve upon. I haven't read Sin City, but things I've read by Miller so far don't seem that good, and yet everyone praises him.

quote:

THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER & CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER - Tom Clancy is an awful writer. It has to be said. His books are much more plot-driven from a 30,000 foot view than examples of literature. The first adaptation of his work (with Adam Baldwin in the Jack Ryan chair) is a vast improvement on the source material. The next film was about as good as the book, but Harrison Ford's second film as Jack Ryan is the best in the series, and stands head and shoulders above the workmanlike-at-best writing style of the author.

Heehee, that's very true, although I quite liked Patriot Games, it's just... no one needs that much detail and exranious info in an action/thriller. It's like a modern book would have been written in the C19th!

I read The Hunt for Red October. I don't remember anything at all about it, other than that I was completely confused by the plot and drowning in jargon that made no sense to me. it's a book for people who are in the Navy, imo.