But what about the flip side? Are there movies that are better than the book they are reportedly based on? I think that there are. There are two kinds of this rare beast:

One: Movies where they license the title, but the title is all they use. (Think about almost all of the James Bond movies)

Two: The movie is based on the book, but is so different as to be an almost be completely unrecognizable by readers of the book.

One of my favorite examples is Bladerunner, based on Phillip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” because it meets both of the above criteria. The title is from a SF novel by Alan Nourse about black market medical care and a nasty little epidemic. The movie story is vastly different from its inspiration and better to my taste.

The movie was surreal and married the dystopia of future LA with slick visuals and a compelling story about what it means to be human. Decker is obviously less alive than the replicants that he “retires”.

The book was almost unmemorable to me. A horrid mish-mash of conflicting characters with no real resolution. I certainly didn’t care what happened to any of the people in the book.

I read 'em all and there was almost nothing from the books in the movies.

Rarely, the film is better (12 Angry Men, the old B&W film, not the new one)

These are my favs. Most books don't translate well into film, unfortunately. This is the reason why they are BOOKS!! (Since I plan to be a writer I tend to notice these things)

A lot of people will point to THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3 as a better movie than book, although I treasure the novel (it taught me so much about how to write from characters' points-of-view.)

In some cases, I think I've been lucky to see movies before I read certain books, so I was able to take away what was good about the movie without getting irritated about what had been left out from the book -- I specifically mention THE RELIC as an example of this. A decent little monster movie, but the novel is SO MUCH MORE. (Original title was simply "RELIC," sans the "the.")

There are so few decent movies with Stephen King's name on them that I don't even want to go into that one; but Graham Masterton's intriguing freshman novel THE MANITOU was filmed in 1978, and follows the book almost scene-for-scene, while keeping virtually none of the humor or atmosphere. A splendid primer for "How Not To Do It."

William Peter Blatty is an infinitely better screenwriter and director than he is a novelist -- I mainly speak of the frequently ponderous nature of his prose; his imagination is peerless -- his own film of LEGION (EXORCIST III) is a vast improvement over his own novel. On the other hand, his novel of THE EXORCIST fills in some fascinating gaps, things the movie couldn't tell us about the same characters.

NP: CASPER ("Casper's Lullaby," I don't have the patience for the full album, but this one tune is adorable)

Often, people are disappointed with a movie if they have read the book beforehand because the movie's images interfere with their own imagination, and the storyline often goes into a different direction, and at least subconsciously they expect the movie to mirror their own view of the book rather than the one of the director/producer. In my experience, this is much less of a problem if you see the movie *first* and *then* read the novel or story on which is was based. So if there is a movie coming out based on an acclaimed book you have not read, chances are you'll probably get more enjoyment out of either work if you watch the movie first and read the book afterwards.

NP: David Shire "The Taking of Pelham 123" (Retrograde)

Let me add another title: Planet of Apes

I read the book before I saw the movie. I almost didn’t see the film. SF dressed up as social commentary. Ugh!

PS. Gotta weigh in on the side of Tom Clancy’s early stuff. Much better as books. There is just too much to put on the screen. The best of the lot was Hunt for Red October, the best of the books as well. It was true to the spirit of the book while foregoing some of the details.

The Shining: The scene with the twin girls is what everybody remembers, because it is the most chilling scene.

As an aside, Kubrick rejected the idea of animated hedges in favor of the maze. At the time, it would have had to be done using stop motion and that would have clashed with the visual style of the film. I was a little disappointed, although I understood his reasoning.

When I watched the remake with the CGI hedge animals, I realized that Kubrick was right to reject the concept.

I found Jaws a better film, than book (the book kept going back to those senseless sex moments between Hooper and the Chief's wife - it didn't make any sense, and it kept interrupting the shark story)

Apples and oranges ... INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE is an interesting picture at first look, but the cumulative effect of it is quite boring. The novel is denser, but I'm not sure it's more intriguing -- it's just different. I find Anne Rice repellent, to be honest. INTERVIEW is certainly her best work -- all of her later stuff gives me a big old rash.

BATTLEFIELD EARTH: never read the book, although Hubbard seems like such a ... character ... that I'd be curious to crack one or another of his volumes.

Almost as curious as I am to see this weird Travolta picture. (Can you spell "vanity production," boys and girls? This will be one for the ages. Images are downloadable at the ever-reliable IMDb.)

PeterK

Another rather even draw between novel and movie was Lonesome Dove, a rich,
wonderful, lllooonnnggg McMurtry novel that was, thank goodness, given a mini series
treatment instead of a cursory two hour film release. However, his novel Terms of
Endearment was for me unreadable, while the film is one of my favorites. (What is this odd format???)

NP Lonesome Dove *****/*****

I agree that they are dissimilar media, and that comparing is difficult, but it should be possible to say which you enjoyed more and why.

Example: The Caine Mutiny

All in all, very enjoyable in all its incarnations.

I first saw the movie and I thought it was awesome, being completely sucked in by who the "real" mutineer was.

Then I read the book and it was very different. It took the story in a completely different direction. The mutiny was just one part of Willie's voyage of self-discovery.

Finally, I read the play, The Caine Mutiny Court Martial. It focused the story on just the trial and told its tale through very dramatic scenes.

Which is better? Well I enjoyed the book the most so I would say that it was the best interpretation of the story. (The others were great, it's just that the book totally rocked).