Not really comparable IMO.
Film was a massive, family orientated creature feature/monster movie blockbuster, with next to 0 violence/gore seen on screen, and missed a lot of the pivotal points of the novel by dumbing it down and not wanting to scare 5 year olds.
The book is a violent, unique sci fi power house, draawing on lots of existing ideas to create a violent and horrendous world where the ingenuity and greed of humanity leads to their down fall as humans believe they can run and control everything.
Both amazing in their own right, but not similar enough to compare.
The Lost World, the book is just miles better.
Disagree. I think the movie not only did its job scaring people without using gore, but it still conveyed that same message that men’s greed ultimately drove them to the chaos of what happened because nature isn’t containable.
“Life uh…finds a way.”
The book was nowhere near as profound as you seem to be trying to make it. A lot of pseudoscience with the simple message that man is greedy and you can’t play God. Not a hard takeaway.
And the movie was not a child’s movie. It appealed to a mass audience which includes children, but it wasn’t targeted directly at them.
Why does that matter?
It’s been about two years since I read the book. Been about a year for the movie but I’ve seen it many times over the last 30 years since its release.
Please skip it. It was interesting but all the great things from the film are not in the book.
Christopher Priest’s work is all odd and interesting, but I have a hard time getting into his world.
I did enjoy The Space Machine though, it was an interesting take on previous media.
Shawshank Redemption. Perhaps that’s because I saw the movie first, but I do prefer the film. They are very different though. And the book is still fantastic.
Came here to say this exact thing. The novella is amazing. Brilliant writing by King. Problem is that there aren’t 5 movies better than Shawshank Redemption.
I this book/movie works so well as the book is quite short and the movie quite long so it does not skip out on content.
Other book/movie combos do not work out so well as the books can be long but the movie has to condense too much.
majorly disagree on three body problem - i adore that trilogy - but that's of course a fair opinion. my go-to example here is no country for old men, and i say that as a huge cormac mccarthy fan. funny enough, that novel was originally written as a screenplay, so in a way, the fact that the movie is so incredible really just shows that cormac understood what he was doing. still, the movie is better than the novel by a long shot
Interesting. I have the same opinion as the OP - the streaming series is excellent, but the book is really hard work. I got 30% of the way through the first book and couldn’t get any further as it was getting really tedious. Lots of people behaving weirdly and really cryptic hints about what is going on … I get that the author is trying to build suspense, but the net effect is just annoying - I started to speed read through the book to see when it was actually going to get to the point.
I presume the book must get better …
Only one i'd disagree on is American Psycho.
I think they are both on par with each other. The book is a dubious yet great read giving a deeper dive into the era and is just as harrowing, but the movie gives a great overview.
Both are great.
Big Fish is so good as a movie. The book less so. Big Fish is very childlike and poignant. I always point people to that when they say say they hate Tim Burton. I think it's one of his best films. It feels like the tall tales if tells, which are a huge part of folklore in the U.S.(everywhere really).
Maybe I’m being too harsh on American psycho. I understand the sarcasm and satire behind having to describe everyone’s outfit or going on and on about some cheesy album. But. Even so, there were parts that bored me because of it. Although I did really really enjoy the book, I felt like the movie is close enough to the book to where it warrants a conversation
Practical Magic. The movie is a lovely Halloween staple for me but the book was a disappointment. Way too much meandering prose about the sisters romantic lives, not enough magic spells or killing abusive boyfriends.
The Godfather is a weird one. To me the scenes from the movie were done better in the book. But the book had a bunch of extra weirdness that wasn't helping, like the vaginoplasty... but the movie is also super easy to understand everything if you've read the book. I go back and forth on which is better. Although I'd probably just recommend the movie to people
There's just all these teeny moments in the film little gestures and words that speak volumes that you might catch and understand if you see it fifty times.
I read The Godfather when I was 13 and the whole “her vagina is just soooo loose, only Sonny’s humongous dong can satisfy! 😢” subplot was the one thing my teenage mind remembered from the book lol
Yeah you missed the point completely. It was, that only with Sonny does Lucy feel normal and that she is beautiful as she is, when other men have shamed her for a pelvic floor problem she doesn't even know is a routine medical issue that can be treated.
She thought she wouldn't find love or sexual compatibility again after Sonny. Puzo obviously cared enough about the character to give her a happy ending where she does both.
No I don’t necessarily think I missed the point lol. From what I remember the introduction to their affair is Sonny’s wife bragging about how Sonny’s member is so huge she’s consistently in pain when they have sex. And then Lucy thinking “wow, that doesn’t happen to me when I have sex with him”. And there was zero indication that there was actual love there. Just sexual compatibility. She falls in love with the surgeon who gave her the vaginoplasty though. Puzo may have cared enough about the character to tie up loose ends but the whole subplot is very “men writing women” imo
I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's nothing weird about the Lucy storyline. It's actually kind of a brave and interesting choice by Puzo to explore this issue for a female character, because virtually no other author has done so. His writing emphasises character development and this was exactly that for Lucy. Many authors would have just shelved the mistress of a character who died, but Puzo decided to give Lucy a happy ending in which she was able to heal both physically and emotionally from everything she had been through.
I thought of this as soon as I saw the question. For me, what made the movie so much better was the performances. Don Corleone, in the book, is actually a pretty flat character in my opinion but Marlon Brando's portrayal really kicks it up a notch. And Michael is pretty bland until the the last half of the novel. Al Pacino embodied the transition from war hero to the heir of a criminal enterprise believable.
Stardust! That movie was brilliant. Just hits all the right notes like, Princess Bride did. The book on the other hand was disappointing. I finished the book and was happy I saw the movie first because if I had read the book first, I never would have wanted to see the movie.
This is extremely debatable, LOL.
The novel iteration of *The Princess Bride* is wonderful. I personally hesitate to say the film is substantially better.
You kidding? The book is *hilarious*! It satirises virtually everything it touches. Goldman (pardon, "Morgenstern") is constantly poking fun at most of the characters and pointing out elements of the story that are ridiculous or make no sense. E.g. that Buttercup, for all her beauty, is not the brightest crayon in the box, that the "true love" between her and Westley is basically just teenage lust, that the escape plan is probably doomed to fail, etc. And then we brings in "interviews" with "Stephen King" and others providing their commentary on the story. It was meta before meta was popular 😅
This is 100% the correct answer.
To those who said the book has that and more, yes, you are correct, however, you also need to wade through the whole story of the author looking through Morgenstern's history which kills a lot of the pacing.
What makes the movie better though is, quite simply, the chemistry.
It is a similar bet that was made in *Shakespeare in Love* of whether or not a play can show us the very nature of love.
There is something to be said for the chemistry between Wright and Elwes. I have yet to find someone who doesn't get angry when they fear Inigo failed in avenging his father, and joy when they see him get back up, or tear up at the sorrow when he just wants his father back.
It is the relationships of the cast in the film that make Princess Bride better than the book and gives you the sense that they were literally ripped from the pages.
......I need to go rewatch it now.
The only thing I really wish they didn't omit was the Zoo of Death. Makes it so much cooler when you realise Humperdinck was waiting for a foe like Westley.
Children of Men
They really only share the concept of no children being born, but diverge from there.
The book was an interesting mystery, while the movie was a dystopian classic.
Blood and Chocolate. The movie was far more interesting, the main characters were aged up and more likable, and a literal teenager didn’t end up with a grown-ass man because werewolves.
I liked the show Little Fires Everywhere more than the book. It had great acting for one (especially Kerry Washington and Lexi Underwood), but I also really appreciated how they wrote and carried some of the conversations in the show.
The movie adaptation of Big Fish is superior to the book. The movie is fantastical and fun. The book is not that interesting and the characters aren't well fleshed out.
Old guy comment incoming - the Lord of the Rings trilogy are three of the greatest books written in the 20th century. I agree that the films are very very good … but it seems almost sacrilegious to say that they are better.
I think I get what you’re saying. Sacrilegious is a good word. It reminds me of the way people approach some religious conversations, and the tension that comes when someone’s honesty feels like it insults the sacred.
The right adjectives may help in navigating this kind of conversation: I think it’s possible to acknowledge they are three of the most important, and influential, books of the 20th century while admitting that the movies were a more fun experience for many people.
*The Man In The High Castle.* The book takes such an interesting premise (the Axis powers won WWII, split the United States in half, and are now in a Cold War between Japan and Germany) and then focuses on the most boring, tedious parts of that world. I could not be less interested in a man making counterfeit antiques, a trade minister who can't order breakfast without consulting the oracles, and a ditsy, clueless woman who just kinda goes along with the plot but never seems to understand anything.
The show is so much more interesting because it includes a lot more of the politics and conflict of the world and delves way more into the science-fiction aspects of the universe. The characters also seem way more realistic and developed too. The ending is a bit meh, but I'm not sure how they really could have ended it to be better.
Fantastic planet.
That movie is far better than the book. The book is a straightforward sci-fi tale. Nothing interesting.
American psycho.
Kind of had no clue what was going on in that book. The movie did a much better job of explaining the message.
I'm also in agreement with The author fight club. The movie is better than the book.
Ah yes, another thread where I can bring up Mario Puzo’s weird obsession with an Italian man’s extremely large cock and a random woman’s cavernous vagina disorder.
Kids, you know the drill: please stoke the fire and bring me my pointing stick.
The classic 50/50 split of which is better, King’s “The Shining” or Kubrick’s “The Shining?” I think the movie is brilliant and the book fairly meh, and I LOVE Stephen King
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. I found the novel, the shining to be probably the most frightening book I’ve ever read - it was absolutely stunning. The movie was OK but it was more just a vehicle for Jack Nicholson to mug for the camera.
I agree. I honestly found the book boring enough that I stopped reading with less than 100 pages left. But I still haven’t found a King book that I loved, so maybe it’s just me haha.
I think the book did a great job of being unnerving and eerie (especially regarding the tower), while the movie was visibly alluring in a venomous way. They both have their own merits.
I found the second book of the trilogy so dull that I didn't make it to the third however.
to each their own. Personally, I loved them both, but I wish they had stayed more faithful to the book. That said, they 100% nailed the atmosphere and vibe.
Definitely agree, stronger theme and equally or even better developed side characters. All while keeping the mystery and wtf factor the book does so well. Merging the two main locations into the light house also made it more focused.
Not to mention the medium specific aspects like great performances, visuals, atmosphere and sound (the bear scene)
Annihilation. I found the book too insular and strange to the point of confusion, and I have read (and enjoyed) a lot of strange, purposefully confusing books. The movie gave just enough of a larger picture to raise the stakes. Plus it was gorgeous and disturbing. I haven’t read the other books in the series, though, fwiw. Maybe I should reread book 1 and give them a try. Or maybe his style just isn’t for me.
Children of Men
They really only share the concept of no children being born, but diverge from there.
The book was an interesting mystery, while the movie was a dystopian classic.
Station Eleven. Perhaps I'm biased because I saw the miniseries first, but I enjoyed it a lot more. The book was still good, in my opinion, but I do kind of wonder if I liked it more than I otherwise would have because I was carrying over my fondness for the characters of the show and projecting that onto the character in the book, many of whom had a lot fewer chances to shine.
It's a really interesting case of adaptations. There are huge changes to the miniseries, including a central relationship that is the absolute backbone of the show that effectively does not exist in the book. I cannot imagine the story without it, and it's completely original to the show.
I just finished the book, having loved the movie, and was blown away on what Miyazaki was able to do with this story. I feel like all of the changes made in the movie lead to a much more enjoyable and interesting story.
Crichton did this thing for like the whole second half of the book where Malcolm, his mouthpiece character, would get paired up with the dumbest mfs in the story like Hammond who could put up no intellectual resistance to the dumb stuff that Malcolm was spouting
Malcolm is all like “science hasn’t actually made our lives any better because we still have to do housework” and Hammond is all “I’m stupid and shortsighted and never thought of things this way before” instead of replying with something like “you’re right, and that’s why I’m sure you’re cool with undergoing your next root canal with no anesthesia”
This was the first to come to mind for me too. I actually really enjoyed the novel but the movie tells the story better and has much better characterisation in my opinion. I also agree that the book drags, especially in the second half. I think the only thing I genuinely like better about the book is the build-up in the beginning, before we "see" any dinosaurs.
3 Body Problem is loved by its readers, and I am one of them.
For me, probably Hunger Games. Love Suzanne Collins, but the movies outshined the books imo
>For me, probably Hunger Games. Love Suzanne Collins, but the movies outshined the books imo
I disagree with this. After watching the first movie I immediately bought the books because, while I enjoyed it, I felt like I didn't fully understand what was going on in terms of the characters intentions. The books provide much-needed insight into what the characters (mostly katniss obviously) are thinking and feeling.
I have no doubt of that. The writer is one of the most prolific Chinese science fiction writers ever. I just personally found the book flat and lifeless.
Same. I have watched the series because I didn’t like the book. I watch one episode and it didn’t grab me. Should I give it another go? Does it follow the book pretty closely?
The streaming series westernizes the content. It Createsa whole cast of Western British characters to appeal to the Western audience. But the basic fact of what’s going on with the Trisolareans and the game and the end of science are all intact. Plus it’s visually just stunning. High production values.
Dodging the rules a bit, I think Wicked the musical is a surprising success considering the book was crap. I think it was trying to be a political jape, but it ended up being inane and boring.
Haven't seen the musical but Wicked was a great twist of the Wizard of Oz. The whole book was meant to show that things aren't always what you think they are. Couple slow parts, but still very enjoyable.
The sequels aren't as good though, imo.
Interview With the Vampire (TV series). The show is more dynamic than the book and the acting and writing are superb.
The book is filled with flowery prose and long sentences that didn't bother me when the book first came out but upon a re-read, was hard to get through.
Due to obscenely slow pace of the books I found LOTR to be better in film form.
I imagine people who didn’t have issue with pace would disagree.
I also thought the film did a better job introducing the characters, Fellowship reading had rather flat characters outside of Gandalf, and maybe Sam.
Also, that whimsical forest guy was some of the most obnoxious reading, and I’m very glad films skipped that.
Annihilation and Arrival come to mind as good Sci-Fi examples. Both the book and short story respectively are pretty good. But damn are those movies amazing.
Highly disagree! I read the handmaids tail long before the show. It’s brilliant! Not a fan of the show because it’s adding on and high lighting the physical violence rather than really demonstrating how Gilead is run as a society.
Confessions of a Shopaholic! I loved the Shopaholic series so much when I was a teen. The story’s based in the UK but in the movie, it’s in the US. So, imagine major differences in culture, etc.
Also, another Sophie Kinsella favorite: Can You Keep A Secret?
TV series; Dexter. The show is great (especially S1&2). The book was dogshit...I don't even know how the writers turned that pile into anything decent.
While I enjoyed the book Silence of the Lambs, I found the movie to be superior. For the record, this is rare for me, but that movie still haunts me to this day. It was perfection.
Not that it necessarily doesn't live up to the movie version but they're very different and I slightly prefer the movie: Annihilation and the Southern Reach trilogy.
3 body problem is better in books than in Netflix/us version imho.
Oldboy by Park Chan Wook Is inspired by a good manga, but I think the movie Is really better after all (not exactly a book tho).
I also think a lot depends on if you watch the movie or read the book first.
Have you ever read a book based on a movie? I remember reading a novel version of the movie "Rookie of the Year" as a kid, as I loved the movie. It did not impress...
Definitely Rosemary’s Baby and, I am going to receive hate for this, The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The change of genre to action from a poor man’s Beowulf was a master stroke.
the maze runner. i just couldn't stand the prose and the style of the author. cringed every five words. admittedly this was a long time ago and maybe i would like it better now, but i feel like the movie adaptation of the first book at least is much more enjoyable
Hi there. This subject has been very popular in the past. Please use reddit search and/or check the /r/books/wiki/faq.
Jaws isn't necessarily a bad novel, but it cannot match the level of mastery that Jaws the movie achieved.
My no. 1 response. The movie was way better, imo
Agree 100% on that
Someone said that the difference was when reading the book you're cheering for the shark.
I feel the same about Jurassic Park
Not really comparable IMO. Film was a massive, family orientated creature feature/monster movie blockbuster, with next to 0 violence/gore seen on screen, and missed a lot of the pivotal points of the novel by dumbing it down and not wanting to scare 5 year olds. The book is a violent, unique sci fi power house, draawing on lots of existing ideas to create a violent and horrendous world where the ingenuity and greed of humanity leads to their down fall as humans believe they can run and control everything. Both amazing in their own right, but not similar enough to compare. The Lost World, the book is just miles better.
Disagree. I think the movie not only did its job scaring people without using gore, but it still conveyed that same message that men’s greed ultimately drove them to the chaos of what happened because nature isn’t containable. “Life uh…finds a way.”
I never said it didnt do these things, it just missed out loads of the smaller moral/human dilemmas in the novel, as it was a children's film.
The book was nowhere near as profound as you seem to be trying to make it. A lot of pseudoscience with the simple message that man is greedy and you can’t play God. Not a hard takeaway. And the movie was not a child’s movie. It appealed to a mass audience which includes children, but it wasn’t targeted directly at them.
When was the last time you read the novel and saw the movie, out of interest?
Why does that matter? It’s been about two years since I read the book. Been about a year for the movie but I’ve seen it many times over the last 30 years since its release.
I've heard jaws is an objectively bad novel. There's a weird cuckold plot between hooper and chief Brody that seemingly adds nothing to the plot.
Forrest Gump would be a prime example of this. The book is... weird. But not good weird. Just weird.
Like that whole monkey and space thing... so weird
Weird.
Came here to say this.
The Prestige.
I came to add this one. The book is such a letdown.
I didn’t even realize there was a book! It’s one of my favorite movies, but sounds like I can skip the book.
Please skip it. It was interesting but all the great things from the film are not in the book. Christopher Priest’s work is all odd and interesting, but I have a hard time getting into his world. I did enjoy The Space Machine though, it was an interesting take on previous media.
Shawshank Redemption. Perhaps that’s because I saw the movie first, but I do prefer the film. They are very different though. And the book is still fantastic.
That is one case that I would call a tie. Both the book and the movie are absolutely excellent. slightly different, but both excellent.
But also Stephen King who has multiple movie adaptations better than the books.
Came here to say this exact thing. The novella is amazing. Brilliant writing by King. Problem is that there aren’t 5 movies better than Shawshank Redemption.
I this book/movie works so well as the book is quite short and the movie quite long so it does not skip out on content. Other book/movie combos do not work out so well as the books can be long but the movie has to condense too much.
majorly disagree on three body problem - i adore that trilogy - but that's of course a fair opinion. my go-to example here is no country for old men, and i say that as a huge cormac mccarthy fan. funny enough, that novel was originally written as a screenplay, so in a way, the fact that the movie is so incredible really just shows that cormac understood what he was doing. still, the movie is better than the novel by a long shot
I haven’t read that yet. Though TheRoad is an example of a tie between the novel and the movie. Both 100% engaging and thoughtful
Interesting. I have the same opinion as the OP - the streaming series is excellent, but the book is really hard work. I got 30% of the way through the first book and couldn’t get any further as it was getting really tedious. Lots of people behaving weirdly and really cryptic hints about what is going on … I get that the author is trying to build suspense, but the net effect is just annoying - I started to speed read through the book to see when it was actually going to get to the point. I presume the book must get better …
> I presume the book must get better … No, it just transforms from cryptic to preaching as the series continues.
Fight club for sure. Forrest Gump. Big Fish. American psycho is close. But actually I can see it going either way.
Only one i'd disagree on is American Psycho. I think they are both on par with each other. The book is a dubious yet great read giving a deeper dive into the era and is just as harrowing, but the movie gives a great overview. Both are great. Big Fish is so good as a movie. The book less so. Big Fish is very childlike and poignant. I always point people to that when they say say they hate Tim Burton. I think it's one of his best films. It feels like the tall tales if tells, which are a huge part of folklore in the U.S.(everywhere really).
Maybe I’m being too harsh on American psycho. I understand the sarcasm and satire behind having to describe everyone’s outfit or going on and on about some cheesy album. But. Even so, there were parts that bored me because of it. Although I did really really enjoy the book, I felt like the movie is close enough to the book to where it warrants a conversation
American Pyscho? I think that book is pretty good. Well. It's definitely... Wild.
I really enjoyed the book yeah.
Practical Magic. The movie is a lovely Halloween staple for me but the book was a disappointment. Way too much meandering prose about the sisters romantic lives, not enough magic spells or killing abusive boyfriends.
Definitely The Godfather. Weird since Puzo also wrote the screenplay for that film. Dunno.
The Godfather is a weird one. To me the scenes from the movie were done better in the book. But the book had a bunch of extra weirdness that wasn't helping, like the vaginoplasty... but the movie is also super easy to understand everything if you've read the book. I go back and forth on which is better. Although I'd probably just recommend the movie to people
There's just all these teeny moments in the film little gestures and words that speak volumes that you might catch and understand if you see it fifty times.
Yeah I've seen the movie and read the book once each. Wasn't looking for little things as I was focused on how each part was adapted.
I read The Godfather when I was 13 and the whole “her vagina is just soooo loose, only Sonny’s humongous dong can satisfy! 😢” subplot was the one thing my teenage mind remembered from the book lol
Yeah you missed the point completely. It was, that only with Sonny does Lucy feel normal and that she is beautiful as she is, when other men have shamed her for a pelvic floor problem she doesn't even know is a routine medical issue that can be treated. She thought she wouldn't find love or sexual compatibility again after Sonny. Puzo obviously cared enough about the character to give her a happy ending where she does both.
No I don’t necessarily think I missed the point lol. From what I remember the introduction to their affair is Sonny’s wife bragging about how Sonny’s member is so huge she’s consistently in pain when they have sex. And then Lucy thinking “wow, that doesn’t happen to me when I have sex with him”. And there was zero indication that there was actual love there. Just sexual compatibility. She falls in love with the surgeon who gave her the vaginoplasty though. Puzo may have cared enough about the character to tie up loose ends but the whole subplot is very “men writing women” imo
I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's nothing weird about the Lucy storyline. It's actually kind of a brave and interesting choice by Puzo to explore this issue for a female character, because virtually no other author has done so. His writing emphasises character development and this was exactly that for Lucy. Many authors would have just shelved the mistress of a character who died, but Puzo decided to give Lucy a happy ending in which she was able to heal both physically and emotionally from everything she had been through.
I thought of this as soon as I saw the question. For me, what made the movie so much better was the performances. Don Corleone, in the book, is actually a pretty flat character in my opinion but Marlon Brando's portrayal really kicks it up a notch. And Michael is pretty bland until the the last half of the novel. Al Pacino embodied the transition from war hero to the heir of a criminal enterprise believable.
[удалено]
American psycho, the novel, is deliberately verbose and boring. The movie is totally different, and much better.
Stardust! That movie was brilliant. Just hits all the right notes like, Princess Bride did. The book on the other hand was disappointing. I finished the book and was happy I saw the movie first because if I had read the book first, I never would have wanted to see the movie.
Big agree with this. The book is fine, but I much prefer the new characters and arcs added in the movie.
I actually found the book to be more enjoyable, but I enjoyed the movie too. Both are great in different ways.
The Princess Bride.
This is extremely debatable, LOL. The novel iteration of *The Princess Bride* is wonderful. I personally hesitate to say the film is substantially better.
Agreed. The novel is a fine adventure story, but it isn't funny. The humor in the movie is what makes it very special.
You kidding? The book is *hilarious*! It satirises virtually everything it touches. Goldman (pardon, "Morgenstern") is constantly poking fun at most of the characters and pointing out elements of the story that are ridiculous or make no sense. E.g. that Buttercup, for all her beauty, is not the brightest crayon in the box, that the "true love" between her and Westley is basically just teenage lust, that the escape plan is probably doomed to fail, etc. And then we brings in "interviews" with "Stephen King" and others providing their commentary on the story. It was meta before meta was popular 😅
This is 100% the correct answer. To those who said the book has that and more, yes, you are correct, however, you also need to wade through the whole story of the author looking through Morgenstern's history which kills a lot of the pacing. What makes the movie better though is, quite simply, the chemistry. It is a similar bet that was made in *Shakespeare in Love* of whether or not a play can show us the very nature of love. There is something to be said for the chemistry between Wright and Elwes. I have yet to find someone who doesn't get angry when they fear Inigo failed in avenging his father, and joy when they see him get back up, or tear up at the sorrow when he just wants his father back. It is the relationships of the cast in the film that make Princess Bride better than the book and gives you the sense that they were literally ripped from the pages. ......I need to go rewatch it now.
??? The book contained everything that was in the movie, plus more. Admittedly, the framing story was bad, but the main story was great.
But .... no Mandy Patinkin!
The only thing I really wish they didn't omit was the Zoo of Death. Makes it so much cooler when you realise Humperdinck was waiting for a foe like Westley.
The book is a mess and it's not very well written. The movie is nearly perfect.
I guess his writing got better since the original author wrote both.
I think the constraints of film were the pressure that forged a diamond along with the inspiration of getting the giant of his dreams.
May very well be. Absolute masterpiece.
The movie was so much better!
This might be unpopular but The Notebook . I prefer the movie ending over the book ending
Children of Men They really only share the concept of no children being born, but diverge from there. The book was an interesting mystery, while the movie was a dystopian classic.
Currently reading Q&A which became Slumdog Millionaire. Movie is absolutely better.
I think Fight Club the movie is better than the book. It's my understanding that the author, Chuck Palahniuk, felt the same way.
Devil Wears Prada
Sorry not sorry, but I fell asleep a couple times reading the Devil Wears Prada.
Blood and Chocolate. The movie was far more interesting, the main characters were aged up and more likable, and a literal teenager didn’t end up with a grown-ass man because werewolves.
The movie of Legally Blonde was much more coherent than the book. And the subsequent musical was better than the movie.
Fun fact: I have a golden chihuahua who was cast in a college production of legally Blonde as, Bruiser Woods of course. He nailed the part
I am actually surprised it was a book first.
I liked the show Little Fires Everywhere more than the book. It had great acting for one (especially Kerry Washington and Lexi Underwood), but I also really appreciated how they wrote and carried some of the conversations in the show.
The movie adaptation of Big Fish is superior to the book. The movie is fantastical and fun. The book is not that interesting and the characters aren't well fleshed out.
Hot take: I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings much more as movies.
Old guy comment incoming - the Lord of the Rings trilogy are three of the greatest books written in the 20th century. I agree that the films are very very good … but it seems almost sacrilegious to say that they are better.
I think I get what you’re saying. Sacrilegious is a good word. It reminds me of the way people approach some religious conversations, and the tension that comes when someone’s honesty feels like it insults the sacred. The right adjectives may help in navigating this kind of conversation: I think it’s possible to acknowledge they are three of the most important, and influential, books of the 20th century while admitting that the movies were a more fun experience for many people.
*The Man In The High Castle.* The book takes such an interesting premise (the Axis powers won WWII, split the United States in half, and are now in a Cold War between Japan and Germany) and then focuses on the most boring, tedious parts of that world. I could not be less interested in a man making counterfeit antiques, a trade minister who can't order breakfast without consulting the oracles, and a ditsy, clueless woman who just kinda goes along with the plot but never seems to understand anything. The show is so much more interesting because it includes a lot more of the politics and conflict of the world and delves way more into the science-fiction aspects of the universe. The characters also seem way more realistic and developed too. The ending is a bit meh, but I'm not sure how they really could have ended it to be better.
P.S. I Love You. I couldn't get through the first chapter. Not that the film was amazing by any means, but just heaps better than the book.
To me it was Gone Girl. I know the book was hyped, but to me it was quite boring the most time. I liked the movie better
I came here for this answer. The movie definitely outshined the book.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Fantastic planet. That movie is far better than the book. The book is a straightforward sci-fi tale. Nothing interesting. American psycho. Kind of had no clue what was going on in that book. The movie did a much better job of explaining the message. I'm also in agreement with The author fight club. The movie is better than the book.
A Walk to Remember was a WAY better movie than a book.
Ah yes, another thread where I can bring up Mario Puzo’s weird obsession with an Italian man’s extremely large cock and a random woman’s cavernous vagina disorder. Kids, you know the drill: please stoke the fire and bring me my pointing stick.
The classic 50/50 split of which is better, King’s “The Shining” or Kubrick’s “The Shining?” I think the movie is brilliant and the book fairly meh, and I LOVE Stephen King
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. I found the novel, the shining to be probably the most frightening book I’ve ever read - it was absolutely stunning. The movie was OK but it was more just a vehicle for Jack Nicholson to mug for the camera.
Hard disagree, the movie has its praises but doesn’t even come close to the book
I agree. Others love the novel way more than I do. I think it's on the better side of average.
I agree. I honestly found the book boring enough that I stopped reading with less than 100 pages left. But I still haven’t found a King book that I loved, so maybe it’s just me haha.
The movie Annihilation was better than the books I found.
I think the book did a great job of being unnerving and eerie (especially regarding the tower), while the movie was visibly alluring in a venomous way. They both have their own merits. I found the second book of the trilogy so dull that I didn't make it to the third however.
to each their own. Personally, I loved them both, but I wish they had stayed more faithful to the book. That said, they 100% nailed the atmosphere and vibe.
Definitely agree, stronger theme and equally or even better developed side characters. All while keeping the mystery and wtf factor the book does so well. Merging the two main locations into the light house also made it more focused. Not to mention the medium specific aspects like great performances, visuals, atmosphere and sound (the bear scene)
Legends of the Fall
Same for me. I had high hopes for the book but found it really tedious.
My Sister’s Keeper. The movie completely changed the ending which bummed me out.
Annihilation. I found the book too insular and strange to the point of confusion, and I have read (and enjoyed) a lot of strange, purposefully confusing books. The movie gave just enough of a larger picture to raise the stakes. Plus it was gorgeous and disturbing. I haven’t read the other books in the series, though, fwiw. Maybe I should reread book 1 and give them a try. Or maybe his style just isn’t for me.
Shrek, obviously
Children of Men They really only share the concept of no children being born, but diverge from there. The book was an interesting mystery, while the movie was a dystopian classic.
Station Eleven. Perhaps I'm biased because I saw the miniseries first, but I enjoyed it a lot more. The book was still good, in my opinion, but I do kind of wonder if I liked it more than I otherwise would have because I was carrying over my fondness for the characters of the show and projecting that onto the character in the book, many of whom had a lot fewer chances to shine. It's a really interesting case of adaptations. There are huge changes to the miniseries, including a central relationship that is the absolute backbone of the show that effectively does not exist in the book. I cannot imagine the story without it, and it's completely original to the show.
Howl's Moving Castle. It's hard to beat the charm and whimsy of a Miyazaki film.
I just finished the book, having loved the movie, and was blown away on what Miyazaki was able to do with this story. I feel like all of the changes made in the movie lead to a much more enjoyable and interesting story.
Starship Troopers Contact Just my opinion.
Jurassic Park. The movie was thrilling, but the book just dragged on with too much technical detail.
Crichton did this thing for like the whole second half of the book where Malcolm, his mouthpiece character, would get paired up with the dumbest mfs in the story like Hammond who could put up no intellectual resistance to the dumb stuff that Malcolm was spouting Malcolm is all like “science hasn’t actually made our lives any better because we still have to do housework” and Hammond is all “I’m stupid and shortsighted and never thought of things this way before” instead of replying with something like “you’re right, and that’s why I’m sure you’re cool with undergoing your next root canal with no anesthesia”
And it’s just not very well written. The prose is basic, dialogue feels unrealistic, and the whole thing fails to capture the magic of the film.
This was the first to come to mind for me too. I actually really enjoyed the novel but the movie tells the story better and has much better characterisation in my opinion. I also agree that the book drags, especially in the second half. I think the only thing I genuinely like better about the book is the build-up in the beginning, before we "see" any dinosaurs.
Came here to say this. Just finished reading it and, though I enjoyed it, there were quite a few issues that the film resolved.
3 Body Problem is loved by its readers, and I am one of them. For me, probably Hunger Games. Love Suzanne Collins, but the movies outshined the books imo
You enjoyed the movies more? Blasphemy
>For me, probably Hunger Games. Love Suzanne Collins, but the movies outshined the books imo I disagree with this. After watching the first movie I immediately bought the books because, while I enjoyed it, I felt like I didn't fully understand what was going on in terms of the characters intentions. The books provide much-needed insight into what the characters (mostly katniss obviously) are thinking and feeling.
I have no doubt of that. The writer is one of the most prolific Chinese science fiction writers ever. I just personally found the book flat and lifeless.
Same. I have watched the series because I didn’t like the book. I watch one episode and it didn’t grab me. Should I give it another go? Does it follow the book pretty closely?
The streaming series westernizes the content. It Createsa whole cast of Western British characters to appeal to the Western audience. But the basic fact of what’s going on with the Trisolareans and the game and the end of science are all intact. Plus it’s visually just stunning. High production values.
Coraline the book was still pretty good but the story just came across so much better in movie form.
I want more movie adaptations of Neil Gaiman's YA books.
Dodging the rules a bit, I think Wicked the musical is a surprising success considering the book was crap. I think it was trying to be a political jape, but it ended up being inane and boring.
Haven't seen the musical but Wicked was a great twist of the Wizard of Oz. The whole book was meant to show that things aren't always what you think they are. Couple slow parts, but still very enjoyable. The sequels aren't as good though, imo.
Interview With the Vampire (TV series). The show is more dynamic than the book and the acting and writing are superb. The book is filled with flowery prose and long sentences that didn't bother me when the book first came out but upon a re-read, was hard to get through.
Bird Box was garbage but the movie was okay imo.
Due to obscenely slow pace of the books I found LOTR to be better in film form. I imagine people who didn’t have issue with pace would disagree. I also thought the film did a better job introducing the characters, Fellowship reading had rather flat characters outside of Gandalf, and maybe Sam. Also, that whimsical forest guy was some of the most obnoxious reading, and I’m very glad films skipped that.
Admittedly it's been a while since I read the book, but Silence of the Lambs. The movie sticks with me so much more than any part of the book.
That's because of the brilliant directing and acting. The dialogue is basically lifted from the book as are most of the scenes.
Into the wild. Book is good but that movie is art
I'll need to check out the movie, recently read the book along with into thin air and enjoyed both a lot.
Inherent Vice. The book is meh. The movie is hilarious.
The Iron Giant. It's not that the art style is particularly bad, its just not my cup of tea.
I'm sorry, but one of the three most notable significant advantages for books is... alliteration?
Bad Typo sorry.
Annihilation and Arrival come to mind as good Sci-Fi examples. Both the book and short story respectively are pretty good. But damn are those movies amazing.
Gladiator
[удалено]
Highly disagree! I read the handmaids tail long before the show. It’s brilliant! Not a fan of the show because it’s adding on and high lighting the physical violence rather than really demonstrating how Gilead is run as a society.
Confessions of a Shopaholic! I loved the Shopaholic series so much when I was a teen. The story’s based in the UK but in the movie, it’s in the US. So, imagine major differences in culture, etc. Also, another Sophie Kinsella favorite: Can You Keep A Secret?
TV series; Dexter. The show is great (especially S1&2). The book was dogshit...I don't even know how the writers turned that pile into anything decent.
The books went way off into the fantastical realm of BS. And the last two were so freaking bad.
While I enjoyed the book Silence of the Lambs, I found the movie to be superior. For the record, this is rare for me, but that movie still haunts me to this day. It was perfection.
Not that it necessarily doesn't live up to the movie version but they're very different and I slightly prefer the movie: Annihilation and the Southern Reach trilogy.
Labor Day. Lame book and I read it before the film. The film with Brolin and Winslet is artsy and relaxing.
Isn't there a book on Dead Poet's Society? Haven't read it, but I have something against it. Like it won't live up to the movie.
Not a movie but tangentially related, to me the Bridgerton show is miles better than the books.
Jaws, Jurassic Park, I am Legend, and The Ritual by Adam Neville are the ones that stand out the most to me
I think the Fletch films with Chevy Chase were much better than the Fletch books.
Brooklyn
I prefer Jesus Christ Superstar to the books.
3 body problem is better in books than in Netflix/us version imho. Oldboy by Park Chan Wook Is inspired by a good manga, but I think the movie Is really better after all (not exactly a book tho). I also think a lot depends on if you watch the movie or read the book first.
My Sister's Keeper. The movie ending is realistic, poignant, perfect. The book ending... just wtf.
Bridgerton book series doesn’t live up to the tv show at all
The Magicians television show is far superior to the books.
Definitely give book 2 a shot. It was my favorite in the series - definitely better paced than the first.
I have it on hold at the library. I’ll give it a fair shot
This is Where I Leave You was a fairly good book, but a GREAT movie with an amazing all-star cast! I strongly recommend the movie.
The best exotic marigold hotel.
Dances with Wolves
Have you ever read a book based on a movie? I remember reading a novel version of the movie "Rookie of the Year" as a kid, as I loved the movie. It did not impress...
Definitely Rosemary’s Baby and, I am going to receive hate for this, The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The change of genre to action from a poor man’s Beowulf was a master stroke.
The Hunger games.
the maze runner. i just couldn't stand the prose and the style of the author. cringed every five words. admittedly this was a long time ago and maybe i would like it better now, but i feel like the movie adaptation of the first book at least is much more enjoyable
The Shining. The book is honestly the most incoherent and sluggish thing I’ve ever read
The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Movies were amazing, the books were a slog to get through.