Had a discussion with a friend the other day about the 39 steps and how superior it was to the Buchan book (which was a piece of anti-Semitic garbage). That makes we wonder: people (including me) often complain about movies which are vastly inferior to the books they are based on. But "39 Steps" can't be the only movie that was far better than book it nominally brought to the screen. Can anyone think of other examples of movies that were major improvements on the books they were based upon?

Not a movie, but I think Dexter as a TV series surpasses the books.

Godfather is a famous example.

The only instances of movie superiority are where I saw the movie first, so I don't know how fair that is. Jurassic Park the book bored me to tears, as well as many other of his books. The 13th Warrior was so much better than Eaters of the Dead.

I vote for Galaxy Quest over Memento! The former is such a fun movie.

The drive-in was really cool, although they didn't come to our car to offer refreshments as promised. I remembered that The Shining is not a great movie, plot- and character-development-wise. It's stunning and effective from a visual point-of-view. I must re-read the book to remind me whether the original story makes any more sense than the film's version. Jack turns up in 1921 how exactly? Random.

Can anyone think of other examples of movies that were major improvements on the books they were based upon?

The Manchurian Candidate is the first one to come to mind that I can attest to from personal experience. The movie is one of my favorites, ever, but the book was a piece of crap.

I must re-read the book to remind me whether the original story makes any more sense than the film's version. Jack turns up in 1921 how exactly? Random.

The ending of the book is completely different. And, imo, makes a lot more sense.

I found Fight Club to be nearly unreadable, but it's one of my favorite movies.

I liked Princess Bride the book, but LOVE Princess Bride the movie.

Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).

I think Fried Green Tomatoes is an both a good book and a good movie, and I liked them both, although they are very different in tone.

I also think that the John Grishom books are OK books that make OK movies-- they are both enjoyable, although IIRC the movies tend to add a little more romance.

I tend not to become outraged at movies that are very different from books, even if I loved the books (except that third Anne of Green Gables movie, because it just made no sense).

Also, a book that does not translate well to the screen-- Clan of the Cave Bear. First, half of the fun of those books is the purple prose (Jondalar's Giant Womanmaker) and the world building. The other reason is that 3/4 of the book is Ayla with Neaderthals who can't speak but communicate in grunts and sign language, and have a signal that means a woman needs to bend over and prepare to be mounted!

Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).

::sits with Sophia::

For me, Rosemary's Baby is equally good as a book and a movie. Which might have to do with how incredibly faithfully Polanski adapted it, actually.