similar to Princess Bride, actually

How's that? I'm sure I read Princess Bride in High School and I thought the movie came out when I was in college.

Or are you talking about the novelization of the movie?

Maybe? Definitely by Arthur C. Clarke, though. I was under the impression that he he wrote the screenplay, got miffed at what Kubrick was doing with it and turned it into a novel. So I'm not sure how to categorize it.

Huh. Nevermind, then!

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?

Many of Hitchcock's other works were great adaptations. He just had such a way of making things his own, whether they were good or bad to start: The Lodger, Young and Innocent, The Lady Vanishes, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train, The Birds, etc.

Rear Window, Psycho, Vertigo were all adapted.

I was under the impression that he he wrote the screenplay, got miffed at what Kubrick was doing with it and turned it into a novel. So I'm not sure how to categorize it.

The novel 2001 was written more or less simultaneously with the movie being made. Both were based on/expansions of The Sentinel. And Clarke wrote the novel.

The novel 2001 was written more or less simultaneously with the movie being made. Both were based on/expansions of The Sentinel. And Clarke wrote the novel.

I'm now trying to search for and cannot find the 2001 book my father bought me which seemed to have been the novel and the making of story. There was a separate publication that was a novel only?

I may hazard some criticism here, but I thought No Country For Old Men was a far better movie than a book. I thought the book was pretty good, though, if nowhere near McCarthy's top rung.

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

I haven't read the books, but from what I've heard, yeah.

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.

I just re-read the book, Seska, and, yeah, the book is much, much better in the plot- and character-development departments.

Jurassic Park the book bored me to tears, as well as many other of his books.

I love both the movie and book! But I am a Crichton fan.

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.

These are actually two of my examples of great books that made great movies.

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).

Let's get stoned together. I had to force myself to finish the books.

They were more or less concurrent IIRC (similar to Princess Bride, actually).

William Goldman did write the screenplay for the movie, so that may be why you got that impression.

Many of Hitchcock's other works were great adaptations. He just had such a way of making things his own, whether they were good or bad to start

So...like Shakespeare, then?

I just watched The Omen. It was weird because I've seen so many movies that were obviously influenced by it, but it was still pretty good on its own terms.

I saw "The Omen" when I was 14 and then read all 4 books. The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.

This is an odd choice, but the book The Wolfen scared me more than just about any other book I've read (Totally a freezer book for me), and the movie just didn't do much for me.

Of course, I hid my eyes for chunks of the movie, but still.

The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.

I never read the book (or knew there were three more). For flat-out unbelievable, I have to go with Son of Rosemary, although that at least had a twist.

I think the movies that suffer the most in translation from book to screen are often horror. The Exorcist was a terrifying book, and yeah, the movie is a classic, but even so the effects *now* look so cheesy. And we just watched The Mist, which was a really perfect, scary little Stephen King novella, and then the movie ... added all the special effects, and it's just never as scary (or as believable) as what you can imagine.