<p>The Princess Bride. The book was pretty good, but the movie was brilliant.</p>
<p>Lord of the Rings. I’m sorry, but The Hobbit was the only readable book in that series.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree. The three movies together are like a full treatment of a normal book. The actual books are far longer than necessary.</p>
<p>I presume the classic James Bond movies are better than their corresponding books, but I haven’t read them.</p>
<p>Devil Wears Prada. Good book, but the clothes made the movie a great chick flick. </p>
<p>Some mini-series from books were quite good:
The Thornbirds. Still one of my favorites.</p>
<p>Roots.</p>
<p>I actually don’t get into bookstores very often but I downloaded The Pillars of the Earth & am enjoying it very much. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes! Oh for the good old days of Masterpiece Theatre. I wish PBS would rerun Upstairs, Downstairs. That would keep me happy for a few years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And along those lines, does anyone remember The Pallisers? I couldn’t make it beyond Anthony Trollope’s first installment novel, but I loved that mini-series.</p>
<p>& the Scarlet Pimpernel w Leslie Howard & Merle Oberon</p>
<p>I love watching the credits of old movies. Often times, I discover that the movie was based on a then-popular book, one that I have never heard of and frankly one that has disappeared from pop culture, even though the movie is considered a “classic.” Many times the author is not familiar either.</p>
<p>Many times the author is not familiar either.</p>
<p>Like the Go-Between by Lp Hartley, which our book group read & then saw the movie with Julie Christie & Alan Bates. ( 1970)</p>
<p>We had one member who loved Austen and other romantic type novels ( yes I know Austen isn’t really a " romantic"), but she eventually dropped us- I suspect because then I kept suggesting non fiction to balance it out.</p>
<p>I thought I could not read another book about the trials and tribulations of the well- born. but considering now we seem to be stuck on the trials and tribulations ( not to make light) of genocide/apartheid/racism -
our latest book is Disgrace, which I am not sure I can read, given the depiction of a gang rape- it was also made into a movie which got very good reviews- something like Sense & Sensibility sounds pretty good.
;)</p>
<p>And this is from a group that refuses to read the Sweet Hereafter, because it is too sad.</p>
<p>Which reminds me- if you like Ian Holm, you really should see him in LOTR as Bilbo Baggins.;)</p>
<p>
I can relate to this, but I have to say that I was amazed that Peter’s Jackson’s images of the characters were almost all *exactly *the same as what I had visualized. He must be a huge fan of the books.</p>
<p>He must be a huge fan of the books.</p>
<p>& he isn’t as huge as he used to be. Have you seen him lately? He really changed his appearance.
[Peter</a> Jackson: Looking Fierce Debuting “The Lovely Bones” (PHOTOS)](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Peter Jackson: Looking Fierce Debuting "The Lovely Bones" (PHOTOS) | HuffPost Entertainment)</p>
<p>
Looove Lesley Howard! Thinking about old movies made from old books - I love every movie I’ve ever seen adapted from Somerset Maugham’s work - he was prolific, and many of the films have been remade multiple times, so I haven’t seen them all. But The Letter with Bette Davis is one of my great favorites, and I really like the older versions of The Razor’s Edge and Of Human Bondage. And I’m no Joan Crawford fan, but I think she’s terrific in Rain. Also loved the recent version of The Painted Veil with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. Time to order up some Maugham books, I think. :)</p>
<p>I think the fact that Maugham was a playwright as well as a novelist gave him a great ear for dialog and theatrical structure in his books and that is why his works travel well into film.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plans to make a new Wizard of Oz which would be more true to the book. I’d really enjoy that. </p>
<p>My votes for films that are better than the book are “The African Queen” and “The Firm”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I entirely agree. When we first see Gandalf arriving in the Shire at the start of “Fellowship of the Ring”, I was astounded–it was perfect.</p>
<p>Short stories are so much easier to make into movies, there is just too much info in a book.</p>
<p>Roots and Shogun were both well done mini-series that covered a big thick book.</p>
<p>Shawshank redemption was extremely well-represented, but it was a short story, same with Stand By Me.</p>
<p>I just saw this on my library site:</p>
<p>[Books</a> With a Movie Tie-in! | Harris County Public Library](<a href=“http://www.hcpl.net/read/books-movie-tie]Books”>http://www.hcpl.net/read/books-movie-tie)</p>
<p>I think movies work best when the book is either 1 - mediocre to bad (the Godfather, Jaws), 2 - a short story (Brokeback Mountain), 3 - written by a screenwriter (Princess Bride) 3 - or turned into a long, lovely series where time can be taken to cover the whole thing (many examples)</p>
<p>The Firm was a good book. Can’t say l liked the ending - otherwise the movie followed the book quite closely. I just didn’t like the movie ending.</p>
<p>Usually, I do enjoy the books far more than movies. But…recently I saw “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and last night caught “The Girl who Played with Fire” based on Stieg Larsson’s first two books. Wow. Even though I knew what was going to happen, movies were still riveting. Loved the books…and Loved the movies! I believe reading the books first aided in the understanding of the movies, in that there are many characters, many details, twists.<br>
Working on the third book…plan on finishing before the final movie comes out. Can’t wait. A bit aprehensive hearing that Hollywood is remaking the Swedish films.</p>
<p>The Help: Loved the book. Can’t wait to see the movie. Interesting casting so far…</p>
<p>The Wizard of Oz is certainly a far better movie than it is a book. I agree about the Godfathers I & II, as well.</p>
<p>Another movie that I think far outshines the book it’s based on is Prizzi’s Honor. The book is clumsily written; the movie pares everything back to the essentials, and then the wonderful actors give the characters substance and charm that the book’s characters lacked, despite having essentially the same dialog.</p>
<p>A few movies that are profoundly different – in tone, focus, plot, even genre – from the books on which they were based, but hold their own extremely well, at least to my mind: The Right Stuff, Fast Times At Ridgemont High, Blade Runner, The Wings Of The Dove (my candidate for best literary adaptation ever), Saturday Night Fever (actually based on a magazine article, not a book).</p>
<p>I never read the book on which Robert Altman’s The Player was based, but it’s hard to imagine it could be as perfect as that nearly-perfect movie.</p>