Books eclipsed by films

I read "Forrest Gump" and "Roger Rabbit" (yes, Virginia) before seeing the films and very liked both a lot, though they're quite different from the movies. Most people are amazed to find that either existed as books prior to filming.

This happens to me a lot. I read "A Clockwork Orange", "Blade Runner/Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and "Little Big Man", both fairly obscure before filming and all three producing masterful films, arguably better than the books, certainly better known. Same with "Rashomon/In a Grove", "Stand By Me/The Body".

I reject the kneejerk response that books are always better than movies and think it's great when a film brings a book to attention.

But what other films can you suggest that totally eclipse the book. I'll toss out "Fight Club" for openers, one I didn't read first.

I reject the kneejerk response that books are always better than movies and think it's great when a film brings a book to attention.

I completely agree with you. I feel sorry for people who miss out on the beauty of film because "the book is always better." I love the sets, the costumes, the cinematography, the score, the wonderful acting . . . etc and so on.

Here are just some films to add to your list:

The Godfather is a commonly mentioned one.

A Room With a View -- the book was fine, but the movie was spectacular!

Out of Africa -- the book is lovely, but the movie was actually based on a number of books, and really went off in a whole different direction for a wonderful result.

Frida, by Barbara Mujica. The book was good, but again, the film took the story in another direction that was really interesting.

Those are the first that come to mind, but I'll think of some more . . .

I just found out that Forrest Gump was first a book YESTERDAY! Perfect example of a book eclipsed by the movie

It's a very different book. Funnier, I'd say. Naturally none of the trick photography was in the book, though Gump did get around.

I'll probably get slaughtered for this, but I thought The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a much better film than book. Admittedly, I saw the movie before I read the book (I knew it was a book, I'd just never gotten around to reading it), but the book was a HUGE disappointment in my opinion.

I can't believe I forgot the film of Gaiman's "Stardust".
Apart from being a truly wonderful film, it's a remarkable adaptation that I often recommend to screenwriters for study.
We're used to (or at least resigned to) the fact that a 90 minute movie won't be able to touch on everything that a novel brings out, but "Stardust" does MORE than the novel!
It is studded with additions like the boyfriend of the adored twit, extra material with the ghosts of the princes, and the long segments with DeNiro--but not much is left out.
I saw the film first and when I read the book I was floored at the differences. How the hell did they do it?
Definitely worth study.
And definitely worth any Gaiman fan seeing this film.

The first two Die Hard films are based on books by two different authors. That tends to get overlooked. While both films, in my opinion, are better than the books, both films are also better than the Die Hard films not based on books.

I am on my phone, so I can't list the exact books at the moment. Or to make sure most recent is not based on a book.

First film based on a book now retitled Die Hard, by Roderick Thorpe (I think). Second by, again if I remember correctly, Walter Wager.

bertolucci's the conformist is better than the novel that it was based on.

the film rashomon is now better known than the short novels by akutagawa on which it was based, but i'm not sure that will be permanent.

After seeing Game of Thrones, I read the book. I thought the show was excellent and the book was just good. I'm sure I'm in the minority there. I've only read the first book of the series though so maybe that's not fair. I thought the casting in Game of Thrones was superb.

I've read all but the most recent Song of Fire and Ice books (Game of Thrones series), and finally found the series released on DVD.

For all I know the series might suddenly and inexplicablly turn horrible, but it has been outstanding through 3 or 4 episodes. Better than the book.

I like the film adaptation of Matilda more than I liked the book. Same for Holes, though I read the book after seeing the movie.

Then there are elements of some movies that I like better than their literary counterparts. For example, Eowyn and Theodin were much more relatable and well-rounded in Peter Jackson's take on The Lord of the Rings, but I couldn't stand his interpretation of Frodo and Faramir.

That's all I got for now.

I completely agree that Blade Runner is much better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?.

I only read The Lord of the Rings after I saw the movies. Actually I read each book after each movie. I would never say that the movies eclipsed the books but they did them justice at least.

I think Brokeback Mountain is eclipsed by the movie. Not that hard as you can read the story in about half the time it takes to watch the movie. It is amazing that such a movie could be made out of so short a story.

I'm going to mention 310 to Yuma.

The movie fleshed out the simple story in so many areas. For example, it gave more background on the Ben Wade character, making him much more interesting (and having him played by the most excellent actor, Russell Crowe, didn't hurt a bit).

I saw the movie first, and then read the story. The story is fine, but in this case, I believe the movie is much better.

I may be in the minority but I thought that Cold Mountain and The English Patient were both excellent as books and movies. I read the books right before the movies came out and was delighted by the nuances, similarities and differences in both. After watching the movies, I went back to the books to re-read my favorite parts. And, the parts that the movies had left out. Somehow, for me, the reading and the watching were both enriched by each other - if that makes sense.

I recently watched Drive with Ryan Gosling. And, learned that it's based on a noir novel called Drive by James Sallis. Looking through excerpts, I am definitely going to have to get this book. And, there's going to be a sequel now - Driven.

>14 jennybhatt: I couldn't agree with you more about The English Patient. I loved the book and the movie. If I happen upon the movie while channel surfing, I end watching it every time!

The movie based on The Horse Whisperer didn't necessarily eclipse the book, but to my mind it had a much more realistic treatment of the romance angle.

I always prefer the film versions of Tom Clancy's books

techeditor, I agree.

When are they going to make a movie of The Cardinal in the Kremlin, or did I miss it?

>18 fuzzi:--You didn't miss it, there never was one. :) The only Clancy books made into films were The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games and The Sum of All Fears. (Interesting note--somehow, here at this book-oriented site, the initial touchstones that come up for two of those three are "by" the directors of the film versions. Go figure).

As far as books eclipsed by films, some good examples would be the source novels for several of the film noir classics. Books like Build My Gallows High, just to pick one example, are often pretty good genre fiction but not literary classics, while the film versions, like "Out of the Past," the film based on "Gallows," are classics.

Another example is The Thin Man. Dashiell Hammett's novel is a fairly good mystery, but the film version is a genuine classic, thanks mostly to the glorious chemistry of William Powell and Myrna Loy.

I also think The African Queen was eclipsed by the movie. I saw the movie first, and it's been a favorite of mine for years, so when I saw the book at a used book sale, I snatched it up.

Boy was I disappointed. I just did not care for the characters at all.

Same thing with To Have and Have Not: the book and movie are almost totally different. Hemingway's book was depressing and I didn't enjoy it at all, although I did read it to the end. The movie is in my relatively small collection of DVDs.

More as I think of them...

Been reading online lately that they are making Winters Tale into a movie. Can't see how that will work but doubt the film will eclipse the novel.

Life of Pi is coming out soon. The director is Ang Lee, director of Brokeback Mountain I mentioned above. The trailer is here.

I see it is the 28th most popular book on LT. The movie will need to be good.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned The Shawshank Redemption yet. It was based on a long short story by Stephen King that wasn't anywhere as good.

Yes! The Shawshank Redemption is current number one on IMDB's top 250 based on user ratings.

Would folks agree that Jaws by Peter Benchley is another popular example (I didn't see it mentioned here) of the movie completely eclipsing the book? That movie still induces shudders in our family.

I think the movie did a good job editing all the lurid and unnecessary descriptive passages from the book, and making it a better story.

Who wants to bet that the new Baz Luhrmann movie on The Great Gatsby will eclipse the book?

I've seen brief clips over the last few months and, now, the photos on the Facebook page. The official trailer will be out later this week. It just looks so amazingly art deco-ish and colorful. And, there's going to be great music, of course.....

Looking forward to this one. And, as much as I love the book, I kinda want this movie to blow my socks off...... like the Redford-Farrow version never did.

> 27 The Redford-Farrow movie version was pretty bad, so hopefully this one is better.

Personally, I am a huge fan of the movie version of Persepolis. I liked the book a lot but was fine with reading it just once whereas the movie I'll watch over and over again. I can't actually lay my finger on why exactly I like the movie more, but I do.

27 -- I saw the coming attractions. It looks terrible. Too modernized, too stylish, the story is drowned. The last thing I want is a Moulin Rouge version of Gatsby.

>28 sweetiegherkin: - I haven't read the book or seen the movie for Persepolis, but it is on my list. Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out.

>29 barney67: - It is definitely very modernized and stylish, deniro. I agree. I can't tell yet whether the story is drowned or not as the clips I've seen are too brief. I don't want a comical-musical like Moulin Rouge either. I do prefer the cast of Gatsby more than I did the other. And, my impression is that the novel is rather big on soapy storytelling/plotlines, which ought to translate well to the screen. We already know, given the musical score, that Luhrmann is not intending to stay true to the 1920s jazz stylization like the earlier Redford-Farrow movie. This is one of those movies, I guess, that will either be a great success or a great failure. We will have to see. :)

>19 Jestak:, You missed Clear and Present Danger.