horror movies that are as good as or better than the books/films they were based on.
 

I thought 1408 AKA stephen's king red rum(the book)/ the shining(the older movie), was actually as good as the book because it gives off the same creepy atmosphere but,better than the shining because it was more believable and more confusing! Anyone else got a better suggestion?

Actually, 1408 is based of the short story of the same name in the book "Everything's Eventual". Not to mention the movie "The Shining" based on the book of the same name.

I honestly can't think of one example of a movie being better than the book it was based on. IMO most King novels are butchered when translated to screen.

I thought 'Carrie' worked better on the big screen than the book.

The Warriors (though not a horror film) was way better than the shitty book...

Also maybe Whose goes there vs The Thing.

The Godfather.

Children of the Damned is every bit as good as The Midwich Cuckoos..

The Masque of the Red Death by Edgar Allen Poe ---> The Masque of the Red Death(1964) by Roger Corman...Again maybe not better but a great version..

Not read Psycho but I image the films is as good as an adaptation gets.

I thought Straw Dogs was just as good as The Siege of Trencher's Farm. O can say the same for Deliverance too.

Not read Jaws but no way was it better than the film...No way unless its a pop up book and Ben fucking Gardener jumps right into your face on page 211.

You're right, it wasn't. Unless you want to hear details of Hooper and Mrs. Brody getting it on.

http://www.lifeinlegacy.com/2002/090...sburyCraig.jpg

No book can do this justice.....

WOW really..that fucker..

Gawd, the entire book was about whether chickens have pussies or not, and how the young inhabitants of the island would smell like when they were sweating.
Friggin' Salinger much?

That's interesting that you guys all say that - the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title was Jaws. Fairly often I've heard that the novel was more a slapdash tale of an affair than the fantastic descent into madness in the film. From what I can gather, in the book the shark is merely there as a plot device as opposed to the central figure.

Personally I think the lurking shark is a metaphor for a sneaky marine biologist, waiting in the dark ready to pounce (your wife).

I'm actually going to have a look around the net for any good dissecting reviews that might shed some light on my theories.

thank you for the correction concerning 1408. ferret chucker I havent read the book of jaws but Ive watched all the movies of Jaws and Ive got to say that the movies are crummy in plot and if there wasnt always someone getting eaten by a giant shark that I wouldnt have watched even though the sharks do look funny too.P.S. no matter what you think about the books or the movies Id say the game "Jaws Unleashed" fits the bill figuratively because it is fun and entertaining almost all through it while the movies in comparison(since I cant speak about the books) are dull til the sharks attack!!!!

Post goes into Thread.

Trolls in thread.

Our Troll.

I like how they did the psych report in the book. It gave you a little more information on all the characters. I also like how they gave Carrie a little more spine to stick up to her mother and went into what she really thought of her.

Tough call, but Clockwork Orange as a movie just pips the book. Sorry Anthony, but Stanley wins.

I definally don't agree with this...

The film is amazing but I though the book was better.

They are both classics in their own mediums, but I think Kubrick said more with his imagery than Burgess with his words ever so slightly.

Ive heard on more than one occasion that The Silence Of The Lambs was "the best adaptation of a horror book ever made!" Not sure how true it is though. Havent read it.

I think Fight Club was a better film than a book. The Thing was an improvement over "Who Goes There?", the story on which it was based. Miike's MPD Psycho is a big improvement over the manga.

Just started reading the novel of Jaws. It's a lot more interesting characterisation wise than the film and more gruesome.

yeah I still think that the jurassic park novel was very grim and good indeed,I mean seriously the whole book had me at "T-Rex's CAN Swim!!!!!!!!" the idea of that really would have made a great hit in the movies I'd say because it just sounds so crazy that I'd like to see it put to the test on the big screen!!!

i liked the movie shining alot more than the book, i know alot of people disagree with this, but i thought stanly kubrick did the movie the way he wanted and it worked.

yeah true movies based on books can turn out good when done precisely a directors way especially when a director is the book writer!

Which Author are you thinking of who directed his own book?

Clive Barker directed Hellraiser and Stephen King directed Maximum Overdrive which was from his short story Trucks. Not sure if that's who they're talking about but it happens.

stephen king wrote the shining but i liked stanley kubricks movie.

ok so I was half lieing half hoping that it was true that book creators can direct books into good movies,it's true that some have been terrible over the years from a writer directing their book into a movie!

yeah,good point stephen king is a good director and writer!

though some books are worse than a writer's movie,number 1 example:stephen spielburg his movies are pretty good but,after reading,"encounters of the third kind" I really thought he was a bad horror book writer!

Actually i was saying that it can be done. Are you saying Hellraiser wasnt good?

Since i havent actually mentioned anything, Pet Semetary and Thinner the films are better then the books in my opinion.

Also i enjoyed Hellraiser more then The Hellbound Heart.

Perfect example

I also much preferred the film Hellraiser then The Hellbound Heart I think it is one of Barker's weakest books.