Times the Movie was Better Than the Book

This morning, my conversation with my husband went something like this:

Me: Today is the day I need to write a blog post, and I had this idea for a topic—times where the movie was actually better than the book, but I’m having a bit of a hard time thinking of examples.

Corey: Pfft!!! That’s because it’s not possible!

While it’s very unlikely, I submit that it is possible! Most of the time, I find that movies either match the book in greatness (whether they are a copy/paste version of the book or very different than the story it’s based on) or it’s just kind of lame or simply fits into that “okay” category (Eragon anyone?).

Before I go on, I feel that once again I must give a little disclaimer that I’m not one of those people that judge a movie by its book or vice versa. Obviously, if I’m a huge lover of that book then my opinion of the movie has more potential to be swayed towards the negative simply because I’ll have certain expectations for the movie. However, I usually do this compare and contrast thing (thanks college for making that a normal part of my life even after I am no longer studying or writing research papers) and think about what’s great about both things. Usually there are things I like about both mediums. Plus, you have to realize that some things don’t work as well on screen as they do on the page, and it takes a good deal of planning, writing, and rewriting to adapt an already written story (I had to adapt a scene from Pride and Prejudice for a class once. That sure was a fun video to make. The point is, I have a small glimpse of what that process is like, only it was just me and a few classmates instead of tons of actors, producers, set designers, etc.).

To sum up, both books and their movies can be great, but there’s nothing wrong with liking one over the other. Also, I’m going to say it’s normal to do a compare and contrast thing while you watch the movie/read the book to see what more you can get out of the story because I want to convince myself that I’m not the only one who does that (If you do something similar, please leave a comment!).

Now, I’m sure that not everyone will agree with me. This is a matter of opinion, but I did think of a few movies that I enjoyed more than the books:

Freaky Friday by Mary Rogers

When I mentioned this one to Corey this morning, his response was, “There’s a book?”

Yes. Yes, there is.

I discovered the book sometime after the Lindsay Lohan/Jamie Lee Curtis version of the movie came out. I was perusing the library shelves, and there it was on display, inviting me to read it. The concept of the book is similar to both movie versions (There was an older version made with Jodie Foster as the daughter)—Mom and daughter switch bodies and hardships ensue. In comparison, the older version of the movie is closer to the book, if I recall correctly. But there is one major difference in the book from both movie counterparts. (SPOILER WARNING! In case you ever plan on reading the book for yourself.) In the book, it’s the mother who magically switches their bodies! She then does her best impression of her daughter so the daughter in her mom’s body is freaking out even more because her body still seems to be acting like her! Phew! Confusing situation, right? In the end, the daughter learns her lesson and her mom comforts her, and everything goes back to normal.

I don’t think the book was bad. It’s been a while since I read it, but I recall thinking at the time that I enjoyed watching Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis more than I enjoyed reading the book. Like I said, I don’t think the book was bad, and it may still be worth a read if you’re interested.

Stardust by Neil Gaiman

Okay, I’m sure that someone out there is gasping and wondering how in the world I could like the movie better on this one, but I did! Corey kind of scoffed at me for this one too because he hates this movie. Maybe he would like the book better…

Again, the overall essence of the story is the same—falling star, evil witches, that Septimus guy—but there were some major differences between the two that made me like the movie better. For one thing, I think the movie has an awesome soundtrack. That’s neither here nor there, but go listen to it! It’s been awhile since I’ve read this one too, but I’ll do my best to recall my thoughts from the time.

Here are some things that made the movie better in my mind (beware of SPOILERS):

1.      Septimus’ death: Is it gruesome of me to like the way someone died better in one version than the other? Or does that just show how much of a reader, writer, movie watcher I am? Either way, his death in the book was kind of boring in comparison. I mean, in the movie, his dead body is used as a weapon through voodoo! How clever is that of an evil witch?! In the book, he’s essentially bitten by a poisonous snake. Yes, the witch arranged it and made it so he wouldn’t be able to heal himself in time, but still, BORING!

2.      The pirates: If I remember correctly, the pirates make a very minimal appearance in the book. That whole chunk of the movie was not in the book really. I enjoyed that bit. It allowed us to see a little bit of growth in both Tristan and Yvaine, which prepared them for the greater trails up ahead. Plus, I just thought it was fun.

3.      Nine months later: While the movie still has some innuendos, I appreciated that they were like, “Nine months later, there was a baby on the doorstep!” Nothing too graphic. You may think I’m silly, but I skipped a few pages in the book because I wasn’t sure how much detail it was going to go into, and that sort of reading is not my cup of tea. I recall reading something to the effect of, “He had never felt a woman’s breast before,” and then I skipped ahead, all the while thinking, “Oh brother!” I believe there was one other part in the book where I skipped a few paragraphs for similar content, but I don’t remember the situation exactly.

So, there you have it. There’s just a few reasons I liked the movie better.

The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

So, I feel like there may be some argument here as well, and I should explain that really the adaptation I’m talking about is Andrew Lloyd Webber’s version of the story. Don’t hate me all you people who thought the movie version of his play was completely awful. The play is fantastic, and if you ever have the chance to see it on stage, you should jump at the opportunity.

The musical is very different from the original book. I should point out that the original story is very good as well, and is worth the read especially if you like classics (classic horror to be more precise). The focuses of the two versions are different. The book deals more with the horror and mystery of the phantom, whereas the musical focuses a bit more on the whole love triangle thing (although, yes, there is still mystery and horror involved). The book gives us a much broader look at the phantom. There are even more puzzles and illusions in the book, and the final confrontation is not just, “Hey, Christine, choose me or your lover, but if you choose your lover, I’m going to kill him anyway.” In the book, the stakes are much higher, involving much more death than just Raoul. And it’s not just a simple choice! It’s more like, “Hey, choose one of these levers and hope it isn’t the wrong one. Good luck!” So, you see, the book deals more with the twisted, tricksy ways of the phantom. Plus there are some extra characters in there who help aid in showing us more of who the phantom is.

Basically, if you want to know more about the phantom and have a little less focus on the romance side, check out the book. I swore as I was reading it that I would not feel bad for the phantom in the end! I mean, he is a sociopath, and that’s emphasized more so in the book. I always feel bad for him at the end of the musical, but I was determined not to feel bad with the book. And you know what? I failed!!! I still felt so horribly bad for him in the end! Ugh! I guess that’s part of what makes him such a great character!

So really, this is one where I think both mediums are worth checking out. They bring out different parts of the story which makes it come together as one great whole. Overall though, if I had to choose between the two, I’d pick the musical every time. It probably doesn’t help that I grew up listening to The Phantom of the Opera soundtrack on road trips. By the time I got to the book when I was in college, I already was deeply in love with Andrew Lloyd Webber’s music. Perhaps I was a little biased.

That being said, don’t watch the sequel musical Love Never Dies. Terrible, terrible story that doesn’t even make sense with the first musical. It kind of turns it into a soap opera. If that’s your thing, maybe you’ll like it. I thought it was dumb.

Okay guys, now it’s your turn. Are there any movies that you enjoy better than the books? Should I write another post called, “Times when the movie kind of sucked and the books were infinitely better?” (Where the Wild Things Are for example.)

Until next time, keep reading The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus! So far, it seems very similar to what I remember of the Rankin/Bass special (minus the singing…).