Movies that are better than the source material.

So I would like to know what movies, in your opinion, are better than it's source material. 
Could be book's, comics, fables, legends whatever, 
Because it is easy to think of movies that are worse, I can name three off the top of my head,(Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt series I really wanted them to try an actual attempt with this character but no, They casted Mathew Mc Conaughey)  But it is harder to think of ones that are better. 
 
Extra kudos if the movie in question is obscure, (Not many people have heard of it) 
So I’ll start with an obvious one, 
Fight club. 
In my opinion, a masterpiece of filmmaking, totally underrated at time of release, went on to become a modern classic. 
Now I am a fan of Chuck Palahniuk I really like all of his work, but I prefer the film to the book,  
 
Please don't kill me, It's only my opinion. 

Excuse my ignorance, but could somebody define source material for me? I've seen it used lots of times but I have no clue what that it.

" Excuse my ignorance, but could somebody define source material for me? I've seen it used lots of times but I have no clue what that it. "

2001: A Space Odyssey - The film is much better than the book.  Clarke's best book, "Rendezvous With Rama", was suppose to be made into a movie this year starring Morgan Freeman.  The project was scrapped.  As far as 2001 goes, it's just my opinion, and as far as Rendezvous goes, just my opinion as well.

Lord of the rings

" @natetodamax said:

" Excuse my ignorance, but could somebody define source material for me? I've seen it used lots of times but I have no clue what that it. "

um..here's an example   Resident Evil: for the movie, the source material are the characters, the plot, the setting, all that stuff from THE GAME.  the actual resident evil movie only used source material like the city that most REs are set in, the virus outbreak from the game, and some of the characters.  "

Moves I feel are better than the books they were based off of:

• A Clockwork Orange
• The Last King of Scotland
• Mystic River

• No Country for Old Men
• Casino Royale
• Undoubtedly the upcoming adaptation of The Road, as much as it pains me to say
• Was just reminded of The Lord of the Rings
• Also reminded of the awfully generic Max Payne adaptation
  

Apparently the Jaws book sucks balls (just what I've heard). Oh, and the Bourne Identity. The book was so-bad-it's-fucking-awesome, the movie is just fucking awesome.

A few Michael Crichton books turned out better in movies. The original 1971 Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, the 13th Warrior,  Westworld, etc.  
Far more of his adaptations are practically B movies, which I guess is charming. Congo is a fun movie in a really stupid way.

The Da Vinci Code, even an average movie is better than that garbage ass book. Dan Brown has incredibly made a career from not having any skill in literature, but I will admit the plot is kinda engrosing but the way he cobbles it together MY LORD it's ass.

"No Country For Old Men" is a better movie than book. The changes that the Coen brothers made to the books story line made for a better story overall. The books not bad but the movie is an amazing experience. I absolutely love the lack of a soundtrack, the ambient natural sounds make the movie. 

"Lord of the rings "

" @turbomonkey138 said:

"Lord of the rings "

The only people who say that are people who haven't read the source material. "

Blade Runner is a lot different from it's source material (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), but I'd still say it counts.

"

The Da Vinci Code, even an average movie is better than that garbage ass book. Dan Brown has incredibly made a career from not having any skill in literature, but I will admit the plot is kinda engrosing but the way he cobbles it together MY LORD it's ass.

"

" this is easy... the lord of the rings films are much better than the book they are based upon.... if i wanted a two page description of the way some fucking grass is blowing in the wind...Oh...no....actually I don't "

" @Famov said:

" @turbomonkey138 said:

"Lord of the rings "

The only people who say that are people who haven't read the source material. "

This is technically true. Because I tried reading the first book and couldn't bring myself to finish. It just slogged along like a snail and I quit. Maybe the book magically becomes well written later down the line. "

I liked The Shawshank Redemption better than the novel.

" @turbomonkey138 said:

"Lord of the rings "

The only people who say that are people who haven't read the source material. "

That's kind of a loaded question considering nearly every movie nowadays is based off of a book, or a well known screenplay. So if the movie is good obviously people are going to like it better than the source material, considering most people are too lazy to actually read them anyway.

"jurassic park also (although some would argue)...and ghost in the shell, the manga it is based upon is horrible "

Road To Perdition
A History of Violence
300

Sin City
The Godfather Trilogy
Battle Royale
A Clockwork Orange
Interview with the vampire
The Living Daylights

" @marioncobretti: I have to disagree with you on that. The LOTR movies take alot of fun parts out of the story, like the death of Saruman and put in parts that don't really take place in the lore. "

" @Famov said:

" @turbomonkey138 said:

"Lord of the rings "

The only people who say that are people who haven't read the source material. "

I'd read all of them before and after the movies were released and I would honestly say that I think the Fellowship movie is better than the book.   That first LOTR book draaaaags and the stuff they cut (Tom Bombadil etc.) sucked anyway - Bombadil always seemed out of place in LOTR to me, it's like he breaks the universe.  It blew my mind what they managed to achieve with the first LOTR movie, especially that narrated opening.  Towers I don't have a strong opinion either way.  RoTK the book is far superior, they dropped the ball on the movie imo - the army of the dead rocking up at Pelennor and pwning everything completely misses the point and undermines pretty much that entire story arc. "

" @Famov said:

" @turbomonkey138 said:

"Lord of the rings "

The only people who say that are people who haven't read the source material. "

This is technically true. Because I tried reading the first book and couldn't bring myself to finish. It just slogged along like a snail and I quit. Maybe the book magically becomes well written later down the line. "

" To Kill A Mockingbird (1962) Only because that's the only source material I read (school mandate) . Only took 2 hours v. the 2 weeks of classes it took to read and I understood the message better and connected easier with the movie. "

" Fight club. "

" Sin City "

I would say overall given the writing style LOTR is a good book but a great movie.  Given it was intended as an epic as a book and a movie, I think the movies do a much better job of that.  Personally that storyline should have been across two books and not three.  I found the films too entertaining beyond the simple violence that elitist dicks assume is the reason the films are preferred over the books.

" jurassic park also (although some would argue) "

" @Black_Rose said:

" Sin City "

Uh, really? cause the movie and the book are entirely the same. "

Star Trek.  I honestly can't stand the TV show, but the movie was phenomenal.

Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange

"Star Trek.  I honestly can't stand the TV show, but the movie was phenomenal. "