Well yeah, but First Blood Part 2 is a great blueprint on how sequels should be made.
Sucks that Stallone's ego kept it from being everything it could have been. If only they kept Cameron on board for the script.
>First movie is about a man traumatized by the horrors of the Vietnam War and how he struggles fitting in to American society >"I know, in the sequel let's have him voluntarily go back to Vietnam to kick some commie ass and portray him as super badass and cool and awesome! And let's also push stupid conspiracy theories about POWs for good measure!"
Shining and The Godfather are the only examples I can think of the opposite
The thing is you need to specify if you mean movies based on novels or if you mean novelizations of movies. It's not enough to just say "the book". The original novels are usually better than the movies that adapt them but novelizations are usually worse, with a few notable exceptions like Revenge of the Sith.
>the book was superior to the movie.
literally most of them
the only exception may be Rose Mary's baby and mostly because Roman didn't knew he could change stuff from the book
Getting the two obvious ones out of the way
every Crichton book is better than the movie
my favorite Crichton book is Prey
The Lost World movie still pisses me off.
Jaws should be the most obvious one, Spielberg wisely cut out the romance bullshit
Imagine George Lucas as Rambo.
I was thinking Kris Kristofferson.
I'm reading The Dark Fields so I'm going to say that, the movie is Limitless.
Lotr, The hobbit especially, harry and the hendersons movie adaptation, dragonslayer, it, 300, point of impact stephen hunter
Why is It a better book than film?
Not only that, the sequel movies completely missed the point.
Well yeah, but First Blood Part 2 is a great blueprint on how sequels should be made.
Sucks that Stallone's ego kept it from being everything it could have been. If only they kept Cameron on board for the script.
>First movie is about a man traumatized by the horrors of the Vietnam War and how he struggles fitting in to American society
>"I know, in the sequel let's have him voluntarily go back to Vietnam to kick some commie ass and portray him as super badass and cool and awesome! And let's also push stupid conspiracy theories about POWs for good measure!"
And in the other sequel, they have the fricking Taliban as the good guys because anybody who opposes the commies must be a good guy, right?
>reject eastern communism
>reject western globohomosexual
Why are they ever considered the bad guys?
rambo 2 is one of the best action movies ever
>Times when the book was superior to the movie.
Like everytime?
came here to post this
rare for movie to be better
Shining and The Godfather are the only examples I can think of the opposite
shining yes godfather no
inb4 they're both trash, but Fight Club the movie is way better than Fight Club the book
literally all of them ol
The book is generally better than the movie, though.
Just because is based, it does not mean is good
Have you read it?
Every single time.
Adaptations are cancer.
The thing is you need to specify if you mean movies based on novels or if you mean novelizations of movies. It's not enough to just say "the book". The original novels are usually better than the movies that adapt them but novelizations are usually worse, with a few notable exceptions like Revenge of the Sith.
Nobody needed to specify. Novelizations of films are for children.
Well if one is for children and the other isn't then how the frick would you know without specifying? Contrarian moron.
How about times the movie was exactly the same as the book?
2001: A Space Odyssey
Seems a pretty common belief that the book is usually better. So what are some movies where the opposite is true
>the book was superior to the movie.
literally most of them
the only exception may be Rose Mary's baby and mostly because Roman didn't knew he could change stuff from the book
Battle Royale works much better as a novel where you don't have to watch Japanese "actors" try to covey emotion.