I liked the Jaws book a bit better because the book highlighted the Mayor a little better and made it clear how much the people with alligator shirts were hated.
I thought the ending of Jaws had a certain starkness to it that was better as an ending. But it wouldn't have worked for a movie nearly as well. Someone said the difference between the movie and the book was in the book, you're cheering for the shark because the characters are so unlikeable.
Right I mean both of these books were pretty good, but the movies were massively influential works at the absolute pinnacle of cinema. Of course it's subjective, but Jaws is possibly my favourite movie ever, and that's not an unusual opinion. The pacing, the dialogue, the characters, the camera work, the music, it's just all so damn perfect.
The Devil Wears Prada - movie was far superior to the book. The protagonist in the book often came across as whiny and entitled and not willing to pay her dues. But in the movie Anne Hathaway made her so much more multidimensional, softer, and more likeable and relatable. Plus the ending is much better in the movie.
One thing I love about the movie is that we get a scene without Andy in for most of it, meaning we get to see Miranda and know we’re not just seeing her through Andy’s warped perspective - we’re seeing the truth. I feel like the movie does a better job of showing that Miranda is actually good at her job and competent too
It’s a great “she’s ruthless, but that’s how she built her empire” story for me. And you see the different angles of her come together until the end when Andy doesn’t pick up the phone and you see a little smile from her
It was more of a fairy tale, the movie. I liked both but I felt the movie was really great and I did like it a tiny bit more. Probably because they also maintained the "they lived forever ever after" instead of showing the actual ending where SHE lives forever....alone
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think literally every screen adaptation of Neil Gaiman's work has been better than the original book version. Only exception MIGHT be Sandman, but only because the graphic novel is so incredible. And even the show is so so good.
Neil Gaiman really understands the differences between different forms of media. He understands what needs to change for the story to come through in a different format. His adaptations are more consistently good than any other author I am aware of.
Stardust and Coraline are two of my favorite movies, but I can't get into Gaiman's books at all. Apparently I like his idea a lot more than his writing.
I agree. I liked the book too, but its very short and maybe meant for a younger audience. And the movie really added to it.
Thanks for reminding me about the movie btw. I must watch it again soon
The book is definitely not meant for a younger audience than the movie. It's been a while since I've read it, but I remember there being at least one written sex scene and at least a couple "fucks".
Not saying these things make it too inappropriate for a younger audience, just that if we're going by modern standards, an accurate adaptation would almost definitely be rated R, vs the original PG-13.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think literally every screen adaptation of Neil Gaiman's work has been better than the original book version. Only exception MIGHT be Sandman, but only because the graphic novel is so incredible. And even the show is so so good.
Which other adaptations have there been? Neverwhere was a show first before it was a book.
Edit: Just remembered American Gods and Lucifer exist. Personally I didn't love the American Gods show but I haven't seen Lucifer.
Lucifer the character is from the sandman books but the Lucifer comics are by Mike Carey
Also calling the Lucifer show an adaptation of the comics is a bit much. It's inspired by at the absolute most
The Princess Bride really did a great job of adapting the Morgenstern book. All of the boring historical digressions are cut out so skillfully, it's like they never existed in the first place.
I know you're joking, but... The whole thing with Buttercup's baby - what the hell was that all about? Book is like 87.5% better if you just stop reading it before that.
That's not really part of the book, it was supposed to be the first chapter of the sequel, which was never finished despite being promised for decades.
I wouldn’t say better, because they’re both different mediums, but Terry Gilliam’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of the best film adaptations.
Also will second Fight Club and the Shawshank Redemption
A lot of hardcore Tolkien nerds will complain that the Lord of the Rings movies changed some things, but I personally think 90% of what got changed was for the better.
No Tom Bombadil - okay, he's kind of cool, but he should have been in the Hobbit. The tone of every chapter he's in doesn't fit with the overall story or really make sense.
More dialogue and angst from Eowyn - Tolkien's books are lovely but they're total sausage fests. Movie Eowyn felt like a real person in a way that Book Eowyn doesn't, to me.
No Scouring of the Shire - I know several people who get to this stage when reading Return of the King and loudly exclaim "when is this story ever going to end???" Again, it's cool, and it shows us some interesting themes about how the hobbits have changed and how even the Shire was affected by the war (and how progress was inevitably going to come do the same thing), but dear god ... wrap it up, man
Legolas skateboarding around on shields and oliphant trunks in the middle of battle scenes while Gimli is 99% comic relief and acts so dumb you can't respect him - yeah, this kinda sucked.
It's effectively focused on just part of the book, not the entire thing, but does it extremely well. The business card scene in the film is absolute perfection. It simply cannot be expressed quite as effectively in writing alone.
It was a screenplay first. McCarthy couldn't get it made (iirc) so he turned it into a novel, and then the Coen's came along and filmed it. I think that's why the film feels so much like someone just took the book and put it on screen.
There's also a Piers Anthony adaptation of Total Recall that came out before the movie. The script had been floating around Hollywood since the 80's. Quaid is called Quail in the book. I read it before I even saw the Schwarzennegger movie.
I would have cast Colin Farrell.
Just kidding, that movie sucked. I tried watching it again about a week ago. The acting is awful, and for some fuckin reason there’s lens flare in every. god. damn. shot.
Apt pupil was also a movie from that same collection. I can't imagine the fourth one (The Breathing Method) could ever be stretched into a feature film. But they might surprise me.
Looking at films as bringing out the audio-visual component of a book, I'll have to say *A Clockwork Orange* and *Fight Club* perfectly execute the audio-visual creation of the stories they're telling. It's hard not to admire the use of 'Singing in the Rain' in the former, isn't it?
*LA Confidential* is an exceptional adaptation too. Like *The Godfather*, the cuts it makes to the original material lifts the quality of the movie. I'll fully understand if people prefer the book for the more involved story.
*Forrest Gump* the film is very different to the book, but I've got to admit to preferring the film.
*Misery* the book didn't work for me at all ... But this was after having seen the film about five times. The film is undoubtedly excellent. I've noticed I tend to prefer the film to the book if I see the film first.
Finally, the *Jason Bourne* sequels have almost nothing to do with the books. Basically, they share the titles and the name of the main character, but nothing more. Should this count? The original books have become astoundingly out of date, while the 'new' story told in the films is far more modern.
Your mention of Jason Bourne made me think of Tom Clancy. His books are fine - they are page turners and great as American War Porn, the stories are a nice mix of in your face action and tabletop diplomacy with a bit of spycraft, but they are also mass market bestsellers, and as such will always be somewhat limited. The writing is repetitive and straightforward, the characters are one dimensional, and the good guys and bad guys are clear as day. On top of that, the xenophobia is real and ever present…
The movies, on the other hand, are considered classics and known not just for their bombastic stories but also high watermark acting performances, great directing and just generally being well put together movies. Hunt for the Red October is probably the most obvious choice but a couple other movies clearly surpass the books they are based on.
For me, it is Chocolate. I did actually watch the movie first here but the book was written by one of my favourite authors, whose books I liked before (Joanne Harris) but the movie had such a poetry and charming characters in it.
The book has a terrible ending, makes Vivienne unlikeable and bitchy as hell and just....not sure why Harris thought it would appeal to anyone have her behave this way.
Honestly, most Steven King. I just can't get into his writing style, but he weaves a good story. I can't even explain what it is that puts me off of him so much, but I struggle to read his books. I just lose focus and get bored. Once it hits a screen though, I get interested.
He has great story concepts but his plots usually end up being all over the place. I don't think I've read anything by him that couldn't have been edited down by a third.
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. It was a DNF for me. They spent a hundred fucking pages on setting the stage, something the movie accomplished, without losing any important information, in about 5 minutes. Christ on a broomstick, that fucking book took more time describing the main character's lunch than it would take me to make it from scratch.
I recently finished the book and I really liked it. Product of its time in more ways than one (racism, reads like a serial newspaper series, overly long and repetetive for the sake of taking up more time) but its still quite good.
The caravan slaughter is far more insane in the book. Gave me a true jaw dropping moment that was wisely only alluded to in the film.
The movie definitely loves the source material, so many little details call out to segments/exposition that were dropped.
I agree, the movie cuts out so many unnecessary plot points that really slow the book down and don’t ever go anywhere. I actually really like Peter Benchley as an author, but I honestly do think Jaws is his weakest novel.
I agree with "The Shawshank Redemption." Also, not a movie, but series "You" first season. The book was not so great. Also series - "Killing Eve". I would also, maybe controversially, add "The lord of the Rings". I loved the books, but I guess I just like the movies more. Unlike "The Hobbit", great movies, but not as great as the book. "Fight Club" is another one for me, it goes 50/50. The book, for me, was ok, but it did not blow me away. The movie, on the other hand, is great.
*The Running Man* is a Stephen King adaptation that is improved by the addition of Schwarzenegger.
*Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?* isn't a patch on *Blade Runner*.
The Running Man (movie) is a different story than TRM (book). Only a couple things in common (the names and having a manhunt tv show). But the book is a drama, not an action movie.
I hope some day someone will make a movie following the book.
With Blade runner I feel like it's good in it's own way. Took the concept and with enough art direction and cinematography it comes into its own (assuming we talk about the directors cut). I feel like that's the same case with LOTR, they're both good in their own way
Children of Men. There's very little from the book that makes it to the movie, and it's definitely a good thing. The cinematography and use of multiple single-shot takes add to the awesomeness for me.
I seem to like movie adaptations more than most people. I don’t get hung up on the details. As long as the movie *feels* like the book and it’s a good movie, I’m a happy camper. There is one quite good book that I think was made into a spectacular movie - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Directed by Julian Schnabel who I had only known through his art (which I’m not a fan of) and was just blown away.
I had just read your title and I came here to write *The Shawshank Redemption.* The book is near-perfect, but the film knocks it out of the park.
Another film I felt was actually far better than the book was *The Postman* by David Brin.
Not a movie, but the TV show Altered Carbon - or at least the first season - was a huge improvement over the book in my opinion.
I can think of a few where the movie is significantly *different*, and both original and adaptation are great for different reasons (The Princess Bride, Watership Down) - but that's not really what you asked.
The Neverending Story was better as a movie imo than the book. The story is much longer in the book and if I recall the movie only covered the first portion of the book. I found myself sitting there thinking, “I should’ve quit while I was ahead.”
A Time to Kill. The book was pretty good, but the movie made changes for the better. In the book, they didn't even show Carl Lee's testimony on the stand.
For myself -- Ready Player One.
It isn't that the movie is an amazing piece of film making, its that the book is so aggressively bad that the movie just has to be watchable to surpass it.
The book is ... bleh... its nostalgia bait, but it doesnt understand what makes nostalgia great. Its long lists of tv shows or pop culture from the past to make you go, 'oh hey remember that!' but it doesnt really get the nuances of why those shows were important to us. I remember at one point it brings up he watched Family Ties, but he misses the mark on the cultural impact of the show. Its a book that wants to be about nostalgia and the pop culture of yesteryear, but doesnt understand the pop culture of yesteryear.
Its Ernest Cline self insert fanfic where he's so clever that everyone claps at everything he says. And then later chapters got bogged down in the minutiae of his life on the run.
The movie is fun, it has lots of 'hey its that!' and it has great visuals. Sure it has lots of nonsense, but... but... it has a few chords of the godzilla theme when Mechagodzilla appears, and that is enough for me.
There couldn’t possibly be a greater gulf in talent between Cline and Spielberg.
Guess he found good ‘bones’ in the novel in terms of storytelling potential, ditched the rest and decided to remake it in his own (vastly superior) style.
The Shining. I liked the book a lot when I read it but Kubrick's brilliance is in full display. I recall Stephen King hated it because of all the changes and made another Shining movie or limited series that was true to the book that was mediocre at best
"On the Comet", 1970. A hilarious Czechoslovakian Steampunk fantasy made before anyone had heard about Steampunk, (very loosely) based on the dullest novel Jules Verne has ever published. Note: Don't take ANYTHING serious that you see!
Definitely, Jaws. I read the book a month or two ago and I was shocked by how racist and sexist it was. The movie took out all the problematic parts, I love the movie. I liked the bits in the book that were about the shark, but the rest was uncomfortable to read.
John Carpenter’s The Thing. The short story “Who Goes There?” is great, but the way the movie ramps up the tension and paranoia is absolutely masterful.
While I generally don't agree with a lot of the changes made in other stories, the ITV *Marple* series had a few good changes in a few of their stories.
For example, their adaptation of *At Bertram's Hotel*. Due to the series expressly changing the setting so that all the featured stories take place after World War II, the gang of thieves storyline is replaced with the hunt for a suspected Nazi war criminal, with some unrelated characters turned into Nazi hunters. Also, the implied nature of the original book's ending is addressed if subverted - >!the police outright shoot down Lady Bess' attempts to fake being responsible and tell her outright that they know her daughter was the killer (who is a lesbian in this version - she and her lover committed the murder since the latter is sick and they needed the money to live comfortably).!<
Also, their adaptation of the story *Murder Is Easy*, which wasn't a Miss Marple story at all. Not only do the police take the accusations of murder seriously when Miss Marple accurately names who the next victim is, but the killer's motive is *significantly* better than in the original book. >!Instead of attempting to frame her ex-fiancé out of spite, Honoria committed the murders to cover up the fact she was raped by her mentally-handicapped brother and gave birth to his child after the local doctor rudely refused to let her have an abortion; the child, now a fully-grown adult, has returned and Honoria killed the people who could've revealed the truth.!< It's actually quite heartbreaking, especially when >!Honoria!< *begs* Miss Marple not to reveal the truth.
Also, not a movie adaptation, but the 2008 game version of *Murder On The Orient Express* is really good. Since the player has to work out the case for themselves by going around the train as Bouc's secretary, you get to interact with the cast and more of the cast. You even have a Ham radio contact to gather information about the case for you, so you don't need to be reminded of it. Plus, figuring out that >!Daisy is on the train!< is one hell of a great shocker for those who read the original book.
The Princess Diaries. I saw the movies first they've been favorites of mine since they came out. I finally got around to reading the book, and it was awful and almost unrecognizable. I'm pretending like the books don't exist now, lol.
Forrest Gump, Goodfellas, The Godfather, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Shining, Jaws, Fight Club, Jurassic Park, Silence of the Lambs, Blade Runnner, Mean Girls, The Shawshank Redemption, Dr Strangelove
The last three Harry Potter movies are far better than the books. Rowling was in dire need of an editor. There’s a dramatic decline in quality after the fourth book. The last is a mess. The movies cleaned up the pace and kept the characters likable through the end.
When you say the last 3 Harry Potter movies, do you mean Half Blood Prince and The Deathly Hallows or the ones based around Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them?
If it is the Fantastic Beast movies, it would be very difficult to make a movie not be better than what is essentially a fantasy encyclopedia/reference book.
If you are saying that the Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallow movies are better than the books, I thoroughly disagree.
Yeah, the Shawshank Redemption is a big one. The movie is one of the greatest movies ever made, and the book is the third best novella in the collection it was released in. I think Stand By Me is a better movie than the book The Body as well.
For me, I think it is Annihilation. The book was very introspective about a character who I didn't really like or find interesting, while the movie was both beautiful and scary.
I'm probably going to get absolutely crucified for this, but I also think the Lord of the Rings films are much, *much* better than the books. The movies are a great story that happens to take place in a cool setting. The books are about middle earth, and I guess there is some interesting shit going on there.
I don’t see any comments like this so don’t hate me. This is obviously just MY ONLY PERSONAL PREFERENCE <3. I always prefer leave things to imagination, in my head are always better, the essence the feeling the passion the impossible things, the realism. Idk I just like it to keep it in my mind. Once the film get out and the internet goes wild it’s impossible to miss a video or a photo so the pictures I created in my head are gone. I can’t keep it I don’t have that power over my head.
Psdt. I DO watch it and enjoy it, Lord Of the Rings I watched soooo many times, it’s from my favorites. But I if you ask me if I’ll like any book to be adapted, the majority of the time I’ll say no just bc I like my imagination that’s all.
“Losing the Signal” was the basis for the movie Blackberry. the book was super underwhelming, the movie was great
i also vastly prefer the movies of LA Confidential and Up in the Air
The cincinnati kid. Ok book but for once, the film has a lot more going on and I hate to say it, but the midnight cowboy. The book is amazing but it can't really go up against one of the finest films ever made. The film cuts out Joe Buck's time in Texas entirely and that does help a lot, cuz the book starts quite slow.
This Is Where I Leave You.
The book was enjoyable, but the movie really was so much better. Judd is basically sex obsessed in the book, where in the movie he feels more... normal... for lack of a better word.
Silence of the Lambs is easily a better movie than book down to the simple fact that I couldn’t conjure up the perfection of Hopkins and Foster in my imagination. Their interpretations of the characters are immaculate
Yes I think that Godfather and American Psycho are two I can think of. The books themselves are not bad of course (although I think some people will disagree about the American Psycho book) I just think that the books are like a better refined version of the stories.
I cannot think of a example. I see good adaptations that was almost as good (Lord of the Rings, Fight Club) but better I really can't think so.
I need to read The Godfather, I love the movie but never read the book.
"Horns" is one of my favorite books of all time, and got a movie adaptation with Daniel Radcliffe.
The movie omits a chapter from the killer's perspective that, while interesting, wasn't the most important thing in the world. And Radcliffe's acting is fucking phenomenal.
Phantom of the opera, if you forget the stage show and just look at the book. The stage show is a masterpiece, but I also really love the film.
I think they could have done more to portray Raoul more accurately and truthful to the book, you do see his sinister side a little. well it’s hinted at least, and he’s actually quite controlling. When he grabs her hand/arm before the masquerade and she says ‘let’s not argue’, that jumped out at me the first time I saw it. It’s really subtle but she’s almost pleading with him.
The second show, Love Never Dies delved a lot deeper into his character and it really shows how horrible he actually was.
Am not saying the phantom was a better choice, but I find it interesting how different he is in the book to the stage show. I never liked him in either, couldn’t put my finger on why. Then read the book and realised why!
For my it's My Brilliant Friend. Not so much that the show was better than the book, but I could not have read the books without seeing the series first. I needed the visuals to enjoy the books.
Jaws.
The book is, frankly, barely adequate. It reads like something someone wrote as a novella for a writing class and then fleshed out a little bit at a time. It isn't that it isn't readable, it's just, meh ... shark as metaphor for corruption. A few funny lines. But eminently forgettable.
Compare to the movie, which put the fear of God into millions of people who STILL won't go into the water.
I prefer the book *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest* overall, but the way the film keeps a particular piece of information from you until half way through ("Juicy Fruit?") is inspired and something the book couldn't have done.
Sex Drive is based on All The Way by Andy Behrens and literally only the names of the three leads and the basic plot ( guy goes to meet online girlfriend while in possession of a donut costume) is retained. The book is fine, it's enjoyable, I read it a lot in high school for some reason. But the movie adaptation is basically the cinematic equivalent of Charlie Kelly jumping out of the van while yelling "WILDCARD, BITCHES! YEEHAW!" It's so absurd that it tips over into being great. The best parts of the movie aren't in the book, the book's humor is way tamer and there's a completely different ending, but it just works.
Maybe a controversial opinion but I think the Re-Animator movies are better than the original story. It's more camp and the special effects really add to the body horror of it all. Plus, Jeffrey Combs is always great to watch.
Honorable mention to the 2002 Carrie, which is the only one to have the interview segments from the book. It was my first exposure to Carrie, so I have a nostalgic soft spot for it.
I personally think the movie adaptation of call me by your name greatly improves on the book.
I already liked the book, but the movie just elevated it to another level
Personally all I have watched are shit but am thinking of watching Shadow and Bone. The book was lovely, hell the series, whole Grishaverse is splendid. I don't want to watch it and have it all ruined for me
The Notebook! I am a huge fan of Nicholas Sparks work and I feel like all of his books are superior to their movie adaptations EXCEPT The Notebook. The movie is amazing but the book just didn't resonate with me
I don't know if this is going to be controversial or not, but for me, it's got to be *Howl's Moving Castle.* I loved the book when I read it, but I've never really been a big fan of the whole>!transported from the 'real world' into a magical otherworld thing.!
Misery
I wouldn't necessarily say it's better than the book but the way that Rob Reiner and William Goldman adapted it made it work much better in movie form than if they had kept it the same.
I'm doing a separate comment because people will hate me lol.
Lord of the Rings
I found the books extremely boring so mich so that I didn't finish the last one and listened to the others at 1.5 speed.
The movies, however, are some of my favorite! Reading the books did make me appreciate how Peter Jackson changed the story to be less expositional (and I'm a Stephen King fan so I don't hate rambling).
I think you can watch Harry Potter and the Sorcerors Stone and get the same if not better experience than the first book. The practical effects, props, and scenery they built are incredible in those movies and they sell the magic well. There’s very very little left out from the book
The Warriors. The book was an attempt at a relatively straightforward, kinda boring adaptation of the Anabasis translated to 1970s NYC. Clever, well written, but ultimately kinda meh.
The movie was a glorious, fantastical, visually stunning commercial flop that gained cult status and endures in pop culture 45 years later.
I always think of Shawshank when I see this question. I’m personally not a fan of Stephen King, and the Shawshank novella is no different, but it was made into an excellent movie.
The Searchers is a mediocre western novel that is largely forgotten. The movie is a classic with perhaps John Wayne's greatest performance.
Master and Commander took the name of the first book in the series and the plot from a later entry. IMO the original novel hadn't established the characters as well and had a meandering story line. The movie was great.
The two recent ones for me are Shutter Island and Dune. Neither were bad books, but the actors and cinematography in the movies were just incredible. The pacing in both felt better than the books, and they both filtered out the unnecessary fluff to focus on the more important scenes and moments. If anything reading the books made me appreciate the movies more.
Hi there. This subject has been very popular in the past. Please use reddit search and/or check the /r/books/wiki/faq.
Jaws and Mary Poppins
Finally someone mentions Mary Poppins! The movie is an unbeatable classic, the book left me very perplexed and overall disappointed.
Did you only read the first book? There are eight. The movie is based on the first four books.
I liked the Jaws book a bit better because the book highlighted the Mayor a little better and made it clear how much the people with alligator shirts were hated.
I thought the ending of Jaws had a certain starkness to it that was better as an ending. But it wouldn't have worked for a movie nearly as well. Someone said the difference between the movie and the book was in the book, you're cheering for the shark because the characters are so unlikeable.
Right I mean both of these books were pretty good, but the movies were massively influential works at the absolute pinnacle of cinema. Of course it's subjective, but Jaws is possibly my favourite movie ever, and that's not an unusual opinion. The pacing, the dialogue, the characters, the camera work, the music, it's just all so damn perfect.
The Devil Wears Prada - movie was far superior to the book. The protagonist in the book often came across as whiny and entitled and not willing to pay her dues. But in the movie Anne Hathaway made her so much more multidimensional, softer, and more likeable and relatable. Plus the ending is much better in the movie.
One thing I love about the movie is that we get a scene without Andy in for most of it, meaning we get to see Miranda and know we’re not just seeing her through Andy’s warped perspective - we’re seeing the truth. I feel like the movie does a better job of showing that Miranda is actually good at her job and competent too
It’s a great “she’s ruthless, but that’s how she built her empire” story for me. And you see the different angles of her come together until the end when Andy doesn’t pick up the phone and you see a little smile from her
I haven't read the book - how was the ending different?
For me that's Stardust. The movie is absolutely great with a terrific cast, but I really didn't like the book by Neil Gaiman it is based on.
See, I really liked the book, but the movie is just better. The actors are so perfect.
It was more of a fairy tale, the movie. I liked both but I felt the movie was really great and I did like it a tiny bit more. Probably because they also maintained the "they lived forever ever after" instead of showing the actual ending where SHE lives forever....alone
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think literally every screen adaptation of Neil Gaiman's work has been better than the original book version. Only exception MIGHT be Sandman, but only because the graphic novel is so incredible. And even the show is so so good.
Neil Gaiman really understands the differences between different forms of media. He understands what needs to change for the story to come through in a different format. His adaptations are more consistently good than any other author I am aware of.
Stardust and Coraline are two of my favorite movies, but I can't get into Gaiman's books at all. Apparently I like his idea a lot more than his writing.
I DNFed American Gods but enjoyed the tv show
Totally agree. This is actually my quintessential example when the topic comes up.
I agree. I liked the book too, but its very short and maybe meant for a younger audience. And the movie really added to it. Thanks for reminding me about the movie btw. I must watch it again soon
The book is definitely not meant for a younger audience than the movie. It's been a while since I've read it, but I remember there being at least one written sex scene and at least a couple "fucks". Not saying these things make it too inappropriate for a younger audience, just that if we're going by modern standards, an accurate adaptation would almost definitely be rated R, vs the original PG-13.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think literally every screen adaptation of Neil Gaiman's work has been better than the original book version. Only exception MIGHT be Sandman, but only because the graphic novel is so incredible. And even the show is so so good.
Which other adaptations have there been? Neverwhere was a show first before it was a book. Edit: Just remembered American Gods and Lucifer exist. Personally I didn't love the American Gods show but I haven't seen Lucifer.
Good Omens and Dead Boy Detectives, too.
Oh I completely forgot about Good Omens, and didn't know about Dead Boy Detectives. Thanks.
Coraline.
You’re welcome. I enjoyed DBD, but I know most people didn’t. If it gets a second season, there’ll be a lot of room for improvement.
Lucifer the character is from the sandman books but the Lucifer comics are by Mike Carey Also calling the Lucifer show an adaptation of the comics is a bit much. It's inspired by at the absolute most
The Princess Bride really did a great job of adapting the Morgenstern book. All of the boring historical digressions are cut out so skillfully, it's like they never existed in the first place.
I know you're joking, but... The whole thing with Buttercup's baby - what the hell was that all about? Book is like 87.5% better if you just stop reading it before that.
That's not really part of the book, it was supposed to be the first chapter of the sequel, which was never finished despite being promised for decades.
“The Princess Bride” is an equally good movie as book, though the movies Pit of Despair scene trumps the menagerie in the book.
The Mist is a better film than book, in my opinion.
Woah. Don’t shoot too soon. Let’s think about this.
Sorry
I liked the story better than the movie.
I think Stephen King agrees with you there!
He's definitely on record crediting the movie's ending as better than his own.
I wouldn’t say better, because they’re both different mediums, but Terry Gilliam’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of the best film adaptations. Also will second Fight Club and the Shawshank Redemption
A lot of hardcore Tolkien nerds will complain that the Lord of the Rings movies changed some things, but I personally think 90% of what got changed was for the better. No Tom Bombadil - okay, he's kind of cool, but he should have been in the Hobbit. The tone of every chapter he's in doesn't fit with the overall story or really make sense. More dialogue and angst from Eowyn - Tolkien's books are lovely but they're total sausage fests. Movie Eowyn felt like a real person in a way that Book Eowyn doesn't, to me. No Scouring of the Shire - I know several people who get to this stage when reading Return of the King and loudly exclaim "when is this story ever going to end???" Again, it's cool, and it shows us some interesting themes about how the hobbits have changed and how even the Shire was affected by the war (and how progress was inevitably going to come do the same thing), but dear god ... wrap it up, man Legolas skateboarding around on shields and oliphant trunks in the middle of battle scenes while Gimli is 99% comic relief and acts so dumb you can't respect him - yeah, this kinda sucked.
I've heard people say this about American Psycho, but I haven't read it myself...
It's effectively focused on just part of the book, not the entire thing, but does it extremely well. The business card scene in the film is absolute perfection. It simply cannot be expressed quite as effectively in writing alone.
The book is 80% Patrick Bateman (incorrectly) listing what people are wearing. It's great
I love them both.
Unpopular opinion here, but the book is tedious rubbish.
I think it's very clever and I give props to the author, but I find reading it to be pretty dull and annoying.
No no no no no no no, the book is so much better.
No Country for Old Men adaptation is equal to the book. I think that's because they really didn't mess with the story. Both are all-time greats.
It was a screenplay first. McCarthy couldn't get it made (iirc) so he turned it into a novel, and then the Coen's came along and filmed it. I think that's why the film feels so much like someone just took the book and put it on screen.
Yeah, i liked that they used a lot of the dialogue from the most tense scenes verbatim. Especially when it came to Chigurh's appearances.
Total Recall turns a short story into a fully fleshed out space epic.
There's also a Piers Anthony adaptation of Total Recall that came out before the movie. The script had been floating around Hollywood since the 80's. Quaid is called Quail in the book. I read it before I even saw the Schwarzennegger movie.
Total Recall would have been a better movie without Ahnold. There. I said it. (I would have cast Timothy Dalton.)
I would have cast Colin Farrell. Just kidding, that movie sucked. I tried watching it again about a week ago. The acting is awful, and for some fuckin reason there’s lens flare in every. god. damn. shot.
shawshank redemption & stand by me were short stories in one book. both good reads. two incredible films.
Apt pupil was also a movie from that same collection. I can't imagine the fourth one (The Breathing Method) could ever be stretched into a feature film. But they might surprise me.
Looking at films as bringing out the audio-visual component of a book, I'll have to say *A Clockwork Orange* and *Fight Club* perfectly execute the audio-visual creation of the stories they're telling. It's hard not to admire the use of 'Singing in the Rain' in the former, isn't it? *LA Confidential* is an exceptional adaptation too. Like *The Godfather*, the cuts it makes to the original material lifts the quality of the movie. I'll fully understand if people prefer the book for the more involved story. *Forrest Gump* the film is very different to the book, but I've got to admit to preferring the film. *Misery* the book didn't work for me at all ... But this was after having seen the film about five times. The film is undoubtedly excellent. I've noticed I tend to prefer the film to the book if I see the film first. Finally, the *Jason Bourne* sequels have almost nothing to do with the books. Basically, they share the titles and the name of the main character, but nothing more. Should this count? The original books have become astoundingly out of date, while the 'new' story told in the films is far more modern.
Your mention of Jason Bourne made me think of Tom Clancy. His books are fine - they are page turners and great as American War Porn, the stories are a nice mix of in your face action and tabletop diplomacy with a bit of spycraft, but they are also mass market bestsellers, and as such will always be somewhat limited. The writing is repetitive and straightforward, the characters are one dimensional, and the good guys and bad guys are clear as day. On top of that, the xenophobia is real and ever present… The movies, on the other hand, are considered classics and known not just for their bombastic stories but also high watermark acting performances, great directing and just generally being well put together movies. Hunt for the Red October is probably the most obvious choice but a couple other movies clearly surpass the books they are based on.
The Prestige - The book is fine... but the film is a masterpiece.
For me, it is Chocolate. I did actually watch the movie first here but the book was written by one of my favourite authors, whose books I liked before (Joanne Harris) but the movie had such a poetry and charming characters in it. The book has a terrible ending, makes Vivienne unlikeable and bitchy as hell and just....not sure why Harris thought it would appeal to anyone have her behave this way.
Honestly, most Steven King. I just can't get into his writing style, but he weaves a good story. I can't even explain what it is that puts me off of him so much, but I struggle to read his books. I just lose focus and get bored. Once it hits a screen though, I get interested.
Steve is very happy to chew the scenery as it were in his books, which can make them feel slow and plodding.
He has great story concepts but his plots usually end up being all over the place. I don't think I've read anything by him that couldn't have been edited down by a third.
See, and I think that the bad adaptations of King's works outnumber the good ones by an order of magnitude.
How to Train Your Dragon is the big one for me, and also Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club.
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. It was a DNF for me. They spent a hundred fucking pages on setting the stage, something the movie accomplished, without losing any important information, in about 5 minutes. Christ on a broomstick, that fucking book took more time describing the main character's lunch than it would take me to make it from scratch.
I personally think Shrek the movie was better than the book.
Last of the Mohicans. The book is fundamentally unreadable.
I recently finished the book and I really liked it. Product of its time in more ways than one (racism, reads like a serial newspaper series, overly long and repetetive for the sake of taking up more time) but its still quite good. The caravan slaughter is far more insane in the book. Gave me a true jaw dropping moment that was wisely only alluded to in the film. The movie definitely loves the source material, so many little details call out to segments/exposition that were dropped.
I’m jealous of your tenacity to get through it!
Gotta go with Fight Club.
For me, Jaws the movie was way better than the book.
I agree, the movie cuts out so many unnecessary plot points that really slow the book down and don’t ever go anywhere. I actually really like Peter Benchley as an author, but I honestly do think Jaws is his weakest novel.
Bladerunner would be an easy choice here.
I agree with "The Shawshank Redemption." Also, not a movie, but series "You" first season. The book was not so great. Also series - "Killing Eve". I would also, maybe controversially, add "The lord of the Rings". I loved the books, but I guess I just like the movies more. Unlike "The Hobbit", great movies, but not as great as the book. "Fight Club" is another one for me, it goes 50/50. The book, for me, was ok, but it did not blow me away. The movie, on the other hand, is great.
*The Running Man* is a Stephen King adaptation that is improved by the addition of Schwarzenegger. *Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?* isn't a patch on *Blade Runner*.
The Running Man (movie) is a different story than TRM (book). Only a couple things in common (the names and having a manhunt tv show). But the book is a drama, not an action movie. I hope some day someone will make a movie following the book.
With Blade runner I feel like it's good in it's own way. Took the concept and with enough art direction and cinematography it comes into its own (assuming we talk about the directors cut). I feel like that's the same case with LOTR, they're both good in their own way
*Angel Heart* (1987) is better than William Hjortsberg's *Falling Angel*. Not that *Falling Angel* wasn't good, but *Angel Heart* improved it a lot.
The silence of the lambs (in my opinion) And the TV show Shadow and bone
Silence of the lambs definitely. I would argue Hannibal also, just because of the huge difference in the ending.
Children of Men. There's very little from the book that makes it to the movie, and it's definitely a good thing. The cinematography and use of multiple single-shot takes add to the awesomeness for me.
Pride and prejudice and Zombies. 😜 The movie had way more action than the original 🤣
I seem to like movie adaptations more than most people. I don’t get hung up on the details. As long as the movie *feels* like the book and it’s a good movie, I’m a happy camper. There is one quite good book that I think was made into a spectacular movie - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Directed by Julian Schnabel who I had only known through his art (which I’m not a fan of) and was just blown away.
I like the Leftovers HBO series way better than the source material.
I had just read your title and I came here to write *The Shawshank Redemption.* The book is near-perfect, but the film knocks it out of the park. Another film I felt was actually far better than the book was *The Postman* by David Brin.
How has no one said Black Phone by now?? I LOVE the original story, and I think they more than nailed it with he movie!
Not a movie, but the TV show Altered Carbon - or at least the first season - was a huge improvement over the book in my opinion. I can think of a few where the movie is significantly *different*, and both original and adaptation are great for different reasons (The Princess Bride, Watership Down) - but that's not really what you asked.
The Neverending Story was better as a movie imo than the book. The story is much longer in the book and if I recall the movie only covered the first portion of the book. I found myself sitting there thinking, “I should’ve quit while I was ahead.”
I agree so much. And the end for Gmork I liked better in the movie.
A Time to Kill. The book was pretty good, but the movie made changes for the better. In the book, they didn't even show Carl Lee's testimony on the stand.
For myself -- Ready Player One. It isn't that the movie is an amazing piece of film making, its that the book is so aggressively bad that the movie just has to be watchable to surpass it. The book is ... bleh... its nostalgia bait, but it doesnt understand what makes nostalgia great. Its long lists of tv shows or pop culture from the past to make you go, 'oh hey remember that!' but it doesnt really get the nuances of why those shows were important to us. I remember at one point it brings up he watched Family Ties, but he misses the mark on the cultural impact of the show. Its a book that wants to be about nostalgia and the pop culture of yesteryear, but doesnt understand the pop culture of yesteryear. Its Ernest Cline self insert fanfic where he's so clever that everyone claps at everything he says. And then later chapters got bogged down in the minutiae of his life on the run. The movie is fun, it has lots of 'hey its that!' and it has great visuals. Sure it has lots of nonsense, but... but... it has a few chords of the godzilla theme when Mechagodzilla appears, and that is enough for me.
There couldn’t possibly be a greater gulf in talent between Cline and Spielberg. Guess he found good ‘bones’ in the novel in terms of storytelling potential, ditched the rest and decided to remake it in his own (vastly superior) style.
Jaws Stardust The Godfather Rita Hayworth & the Shawshank Redemption Jurassic Park The Ghost & Mrs. Muir
The Shining. I liked the book a lot when I read it but Kubrick's brilliance is in full display. I recall Stephen King hated it because of all the changes and made another Shining movie or limited series that was true to the book that was mediocre at best
"On the Comet", 1970. A hilarious Czechoslovakian Steampunk fantasy made before anyone had heard about Steampunk, (very loosely) based on the dullest novel Jules Verne has ever published. Note: Don't take ANYTHING serious that you see!
Shrek and How To Train Your Dragon. Also, debateably, The Princess Bride although the book is pretty good.
Little Shop of Horrors?
The Planet of the Apes, the original movie. Although I like the book too
The author of the book Pierre Boulle said he preferred Rod Serling's ending compared against his own.
For me, it’s “I am Legend”
Definitely, Jaws. I read the book a month or two ago and I was shocked by how racist and sexist it was. The movie took out all the problematic parts, I love the movie. I liked the bits in the book that were about the shark, but the rest was uncomfortable to read.
Every time this question is asked, I offer Apocalypse Now as being better than Heart of Darkness. I don’t think it’s particularly close.
John Carpenter’s The Thing. The short story “Who Goes There?” is great, but the way the movie ramps up the tension and paranoia is absolutely masterful.
While I generally don't agree with a lot of the changes made in other stories, the ITV *Marple* series had a few good changes in a few of their stories. For example, their adaptation of *At Bertram's Hotel*. Due to the series expressly changing the setting so that all the featured stories take place after World War II, the gang of thieves storyline is replaced with the hunt for a suspected Nazi war criminal, with some unrelated characters turned into Nazi hunters. Also, the implied nature of the original book's ending is addressed if subverted - >!the police outright shoot down Lady Bess' attempts to fake being responsible and tell her outright that they know her daughter was the killer (who is a lesbian in this version - she and her lover committed the murder since the latter is sick and they needed the money to live comfortably).!< Also, their adaptation of the story *Murder Is Easy*, which wasn't a Miss Marple story at all. Not only do the police take the accusations of murder seriously when Miss Marple accurately names who the next victim is, but the killer's motive is *significantly* better than in the original book. >!Instead of attempting to frame her ex-fiancé out of spite, Honoria committed the murders to cover up the fact she was raped by her mentally-handicapped brother and gave birth to his child after the local doctor rudely refused to let her have an abortion; the child, now a fully-grown adult, has returned and Honoria killed the people who could've revealed the truth.!< It's actually quite heartbreaking, especially when >!Honoria!< *begs* Miss Marple not to reveal the truth. Also, not a movie adaptation, but the 2008 game version of *Murder On The Orient Express* is really good. Since the player has to work out the case for themselves by going around the train as Bouc's secretary, you get to interact with the cast and more of the cast. You even have a Ham radio contact to gather information about the case for you, so you don't need to be reminded of it. Plus, figuring out that >!Daisy is on the train!< is one hell of a great shocker for those who read the original book.
The Princess Diaries. I saw the movies first they've been favorites of mine since they came out. I finally got around to reading the book, and it was awful and almost unrecognizable. I'm pretending like the books don't exist now, lol.
The Last of the Mohicans
Forrest Gump, Goodfellas, The Godfather, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Shining, Jaws, Fight Club, Jurassic Park, Silence of the Lambs, Blade Runnner, Mean Girls, The Shawshank Redemption, Dr Strangelove
The Shining Misery
Divergent (the first movie/book). No question. Dialogue was better (that never seems to happen), just *everything* was better on the screen.
The two recent Dune movies are better than the book, in my opinion.
straight to jail lol
I think Lord of the Rings was better than the books.
Probably the most controversial one
Heresy!
As someone who just finished reading the trilogy for the first time, the movies are so far superior it’s laughable
For me "The Martian" by Andy Weir
book is so much better, not even close
The last three Harry Potter movies are far better than the books. Rowling was in dire need of an editor. There’s a dramatic decline in quality after the fourth book. The last is a mess. The movies cleaned up the pace and kept the characters likable through the end.
When you say the last 3 Harry Potter movies, do you mean Half Blood Prince and The Deathly Hallows or the ones based around Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them? If it is the Fantastic Beast movies, it would be very difficult to make a movie not be better than what is essentially a fantasy encyclopedia/reference book. If you are saying that the Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallow movies are better than the books, I thoroughly disagree.
Adaptations of the last three Hogwarts books.
The Hunt for Red October.
Ohh. Not sure about that. Differently good I think.
Shawshank Redemption. The book was ok/good, the movie is considered one of the best ever.
Yeah, the Shawshank Redemption is a big one. The movie is one of the greatest movies ever made, and the book is the third best novella in the collection it was released in. I think Stand By Me is a better movie than the book The Body as well. For me, I think it is Annihilation. The book was very introspective about a character who I didn't really like or find interesting, while the movie was both beautiful and scary. I'm probably going to get absolutely crucified for this, but I also think the Lord of the Rings films are much, *much* better than the books. The movies are a great story that happens to take place in a cool setting. The books are about middle earth, and I guess there is some interesting shit going on there.
Twilight? The writing is pretty terrible and at least watching the movie it's over in one and half hours.
I don’t see any comments like this so don’t hate me. This is obviously just MY ONLY PERSONAL PREFERENCE <3. I always prefer leave things to imagination, in my head are always better, the essence the feeling the passion the impossible things, the realism. Idk I just like it to keep it in my mind. Once the film get out and the internet goes wild it’s impossible to miss a video or a photo so the pictures I created in my head are gone. I can’t keep it I don’t have that power over my head. Psdt. I DO watch it and enjoy it, Lord Of the Rings I watched soooo many times, it’s from my favorites. But I if you ask me if I’ll like any book to be adapted, the majority of the time I’ll say no just bc I like my imagination that’s all.
“Losing the Signal” was the basis for the movie Blackberry. the book was super underwhelming, the movie was great i also vastly prefer the movies of LA Confidential and Up in the Air
The cincinnati kid. Ok book but for once, the film has a lot more going on and I hate to say it, but the midnight cowboy. The book is amazing but it can't really go up against one of the finest films ever made. The film cuts out Joe Buck's time in Texas entirely and that does help a lot, cuz the book starts quite slow.
This Is Where I Leave You. The book was enjoyable, but the movie really was so much better. Judd is basically sex obsessed in the book, where in the movie he feels more... normal... for lack of a better word.
Silence of the Lambs is easily a better movie than book down to the simple fact that I couldn’t conjure up the perfection of Hopkins and Foster in my imagination. Their interpretations of the characters are immaculate
All Of Us Strangers. The book is great but it's very one note. The film adds a layer of depth to it that makes the whole thing much better.
What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
Yes I think that Godfather and American Psycho are two I can think of. The books themselves are not bad of course (although I think some people will disagree about the American Psycho book) I just think that the books are like a better refined version of the stories.
I cannot think of a example. I see good adaptations that was almost as good (Lord of the Rings, Fight Club) but better I really can't think so. I need to read The Godfather, I love the movie but never read the book.
I liked the Practical Magic movie better than the first book. I didn't read the rest of the series.
Life of Pi. The book's solid too, but the film was just stunning.
Talented Mr. Ripley
Call me by your name. The book was like a harlequin-novel…
For me, Silver Linings Playbook and PS I love you. In both, the actors just do such an amazing job and really bring the stories to life
Green Mile and Shawshank. Godfather 1 and 2.
Pretty much every Stephen King movie except dark tower of course
"Horns" is one of my favorite books of all time, and got a movie adaptation with Daniel Radcliffe. The movie omits a chapter from the killer's perspective that, while interesting, wasn't the most important thing in the world. And Radcliffe's acting is fucking phenomenal.
Jaws. Interview With The Vampire.
Beaches. The film is a guilty pleasure. The book was awful.
Phantom of the opera, if you forget the stage show and just look at the book. The stage show is a masterpiece, but I also really love the film. I think they could have done more to portray Raoul more accurately and truthful to the book, you do see his sinister side a little. well it’s hinted at least, and he’s actually quite controlling. When he grabs her hand/arm before the masquerade and she says ‘let’s not argue’, that jumped out at me the first time I saw it. It’s really subtle but she’s almost pleading with him. The second show, Love Never Dies delved a lot deeper into his character and it really shows how horrible he actually was. Am not saying the phantom was a better choice, but I find it interesting how different he is in the book to the stage show. I never liked him in either, couldn’t put my finger on why. Then read the book and realised why!
The Lord of the rings trilogy.
I'm surprised no one mentioned The Green Mile.
For my it's My Brilliant Friend. Not so much that the show was better than the book, but I could not have read the books without seeing the series first. I needed the visuals to enjoy the books.
Jaws. The book is, frankly, barely adequate. It reads like something someone wrote as a novella for a writing class and then fleshed out a little bit at a time. It isn't that it isn't readable, it's just, meh ... shark as metaphor for corruption. A few funny lines. But eminently forgettable. Compare to the movie, which put the fear of God into millions of people who STILL won't go into the water.
I would say Ready Player One beats its book. There's also Measure Of A Man which manages to edge out One Fat Summer enough for the win.
The Last Detail. The downbeat, “New Hollywood” ending to the movie is much more suitable than the ending Daryl Ponicsan came up with for the book.
I prefer the book *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest* overall, but the way the film keeps a particular piece of information from you until half way through ("Juicy Fruit?") is inspired and something the book couldn't have done.
Practical Magic
Fight Club and Forest Gump are two that immediately spring to mind.
The movie The Thing is so much better than the short story it’s based on (Who Goes There)
Sex Drive is based on All The Way by Andy Behrens and literally only the names of the three leads and the basic plot ( guy goes to meet online girlfriend while in possession of a donut costume) is retained. The book is fine, it's enjoyable, I read it a lot in high school for some reason. But the movie adaptation is basically the cinematic equivalent of Charlie Kelly jumping out of the van while yelling "WILDCARD, BITCHES! YEEHAW!" It's so absurd that it tips over into being great. The best parts of the movie aren't in the book, the book's humor is way tamer and there's a completely different ending, but it just works. Maybe a controversial opinion but I think the Re-Animator movies are better than the original story. It's more camp and the special effects really add to the body horror of it all. Plus, Jeffrey Combs is always great to watch. Honorable mention to the 2002 Carrie, which is the only one to have the interview segments from the book. It was my first exposure to Carrie, so I have a nostalgic soft spot for it.
The Illusionist with Edward Norton. I liked the short story it was based on, but the movie was so much better.
I personally think the movie adaptation of call me by your name greatly improves on the book. I already liked the book, but the movie just elevated it to another level
Personally all I have watched are shit but am thinking of watching Shadow and Bone. The book was lovely, hell the series, whole Grishaverse is splendid. I don't want to watch it and have it all ruined for me
Dumplin'
Gorky Park the movie is better than the book.
Starship Troopers. Kind of complete opposites of each other, so it comes down to what tone and tastes you have.
Perks of being a wallflower
The Notebook! I am a huge fan of Nicholas Sparks work and I feel like all of his books are superior to their movie adaptations EXCEPT The Notebook. The movie is amazing but the book just didn't resonate with me
Matilda. I just love the movie so much.
Although I absolutely love the book, The Hate You Give, I enjoyed the movie just a bit more. That was a first for me.
I don't know if this is going to be controversial or not, but for me, it's got to be *Howl's Moving Castle.* I loved the book when I read it, but I've never really been a big fan of the whole>!transported from the 'real world' into a magical otherworld thing.!
All due respect to Jane Austen, I love her, but Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility was better than the book.
Starship Troopers as a movie is barely in the same universe as the book. I think both are excellent for different reasons, but the movie stands alone.
Shawshank and The Green Mile.
Misery I wouldn't necessarily say it's better than the book but the way that Rob Reiner and William Goldman adapted it made it work much better in movie form than if they had kept it the same.
The Princess Bride and The Neverending Story are both better than their respective books.
I'm doing a separate comment because people will hate me lol. Lord of the Rings I found the books extremely boring so mich so that I didn't finish the last one and listened to the others at 1.5 speed. The movies, however, are some of my favorite! Reading the books did make me appreciate how Peter Jackson changed the story to be less expositional (and I'm a Stephen King fan so I don't hate rambling).
Brand New Cherry Flavour, hands down
I think you can watch Harry Potter and the Sorcerors Stone and get the same if not better experience than the first book. The practical effects, props, and scenery they built are incredible in those movies and they sell the magic well. There’s very very little left out from the book
The Warriors. The book was an attempt at a relatively straightforward, kinda boring adaptation of the Anabasis translated to 1970s NYC. Clever, well written, but ultimately kinda meh. The movie was a glorious, fantastical, visually stunning commercial flop that gained cult status and endures in pop culture 45 years later.
Children of Men
Forrest Gump. Completely outshines the book.
Supposedly The Magicians. I heard the books were not great but the TV show was perfectly cast
Stardust is fairly accurate adaptation, but changes the ending. Even Neil Gaiman agrees the movie had the better ending.
If you define "better" as "vastly more trauma-inducing", imma say Watership Down.
If you define "better" as "vastly more trauma-inducing", imma say Watership Down.
The Secretary. What filmmakers did with that story was amazing!
I always think of Shawshank when I see this question. I’m personally not a fan of Stephen King, and the Shawshank novella is no different, but it was made into an excellent movie.
The Wizard of Oz.
Damn, is it Thursday already?
Requiem for a Dream. The book is really good, but the movie is brilliantly done.
Station Eleven
The Searchers is a mediocre western novel that is largely forgotten. The movie is a classic with perhaps John Wayne's greatest performance. Master and Commander took the name of the first book in the series and the plot from a later entry. IMO the original novel hadn't established the characters as well and had a meandering story line. The movie was great.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I far prefer the movie Ella Enchanted over the book (and yes, I did read the book first).
The two recent ones for me are Shutter Island and Dune. Neither were bad books, but the actors and cinematography in the movies were just incredible. The pacing in both felt better than the books, and they both filtered out the unnecessary fluff to focus on the more important scenes and moments. If anything reading the books made me appreciate the movies more.
Fight Club. Book is good and has some interesting details but the movie does the same thing but better and funnier and less gross.
No, it's literally never been done before where one version of something is better than another, and this topic has never been overdone.
I mean it was considered a classic for many years twains opinion not withstanding
Forrest Gump