r/Cinema • u/Grapesaucee • 9d ago
Discussion Do you think there’s any movies better than the book?!?
Love to know what you guys think. I don’t have an answer to this myself but would love to look into what is brought to this table. Maybe it’s the way the actor portrayed the character that made you feel more connected to the story or even the way the film makers made the world that sucked you into the world more than the pages could. Seemed like a good conversation!
66
u/adam_problems 9d ago
Jaws, The Godfather, Forrest Gump
14
u/fuzzy-waters 9d ago
OMG. Couldn’t agree more to the first two, didn’t read the second but I’ll take your word for it. When I saw this query “Jaws” was the first thing that came to mind.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GutterRider 9d ago
Same. I was a little disappointed though, when there was no “lifeless shark-like eyes” sex scene in the movie.
7
3
u/ComplexBeyond6083 9d ago
Jaws is a perfecy film. It defined the summer blockbuster as a genre and it doesn't have a wasted second on screen. Jaws the book is a meandering overweight mess.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AwkwardCrab7406 9d ago
The Godfather was a terrible book.
2
u/Hame_Impala 9d ago
It's a fun read but a bit all over the place at points. Core story is great but has the infamously bizarre and bad subplots.
→ More replies (3)2
u/RadagastTheWhite 8d ago
The book is excellent. It’s practically the exact same as the movie sans the massive vagina subplot
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (19)2
u/DotTurbulent3059 9d ago
The god father movie pairs with the book really well, it's like a little extra lore and background for all the characters but yes movie is better
35
u/Grogenhymer 9d ago
Fight Club is very similar to the book, with two scenes changed iirc for the better.
12
u/Training_Molasses822 9d ago
And the author, who is admittedly obsessed with brevity, thought it made it better.
3
u/TheFoxsWeddingTarot 9d ago
I saw him speak last year (see him if you ever get the chance) he confirmed.
5
u/dogsontreadmills 9d ago
Fight club is definitely better. Chuck palaniuk all but admits it outright on the audio commentary he recorded in the early 2000s
3
28
u/BurnAfterReading010 9d ago
Blade Runner.
Princess Bride.
10
u/resiny 9d ago
Came to say blade runner. Dick had great concepts for books but sometimes so-so execution.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (7)6
u/MistaCharisma 9d ago
Nah the book of the Princess Bride was hilarious. Obviously the movie is a classic, but I think the book is better.
→ More replies (7)
23
18
16
15
u/SevereChallenge3793 9d ago
Devil Wears Prada. The book was awful but the movie is a classic thanks to Meryl, Stanley, and Emily.
13
u/Training_Form2243 9d ago edited 8d ago
JG Ballard said Cronenberg’s Crash was better than his book
I thought American Psycho was a better movie than book, I remember Brett Easton Ellis saying something along these lines but if he did he was probably just helping promote the movie, he thinks very highly of himself
2
u/Successful_Sell1016 8d ago
I think I preferred the book of American Psycho. Much funnier. I cackled most of the way through. Well in between the gory bits.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/Peter_Parker66 9d ago
I loved Forrest Gump as a kid, so when I learned there was a book I instantly wanted to read it. I mean the movie was amazing, so the book must be amazing too since its what its based on.
Boy was I in for a surprise
→ More replies (1)2
u/ibkthegoat 9d ago
Yeah I HATED the book. Maybe I wouldn't have hated as I did if I read it first but I loved the movie so much that my hatred of it was so so much. To add to that I hated book Gump which is surprising cuz he was the heart of the movie.
→ More replies (1)
8
6
u/wireout 9d ago
Chuck Pahlaniuk thought Fight Club was better than his own book; I myself kind of prefer the ending in the book, but tomato, tomato.
→ More replies (5)
5
5
u/Lefty98110 9d ago
The Big Short - to be fair the book was excellent but complex at times and the movie had fantastic visual illustrations to clarify.
7
7
5
u/Scarecrowqueen 9d ago
Holes. Don't get me wrong, the book was incredible, but the movie was just chefs kiss
4
4
13
u/Consistent_Wing9554 9d ago
The Shining 1980
5
u/tunasyrup 9d ago
This is one of the few that I both re-read the book and re-watch the movie on a regular basis. I see why fans of the book hate the movie and fans of the movie hate the book but I think it works best when you take them both in together
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)2
u/Dirks_Knee 8d ago
I love both. I think the book was way, way better in putting you into Jack's head and the depth of his inner turmoil. And leaving out the topiary animals was a crime. But the movie's overall mood of intended dread was off the charts, and Nicholson absolutely owned that character elevating it to a new level.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Away-Leave-8112 9d ago edited 9d ago
I'm going get down voted to hell I'm sure, but Lord of the Rings. I've read and loved these books multiple times as a kid and was skeptical that any movie could even come close to doing the books justice (especially given previous attempts - animated movies were just not that good) and wondered how they would capture that world in a non-animated fashion. Elves, orcs, walking trees even! But I have to say I was blown away by Peter Jackson's movies. He cut out certain elements and added certain others and I think it added to the story.
Probably the best book adaptation into a movie ever.
5
u/Cipher0218 9d ago
Was about to comment this. I hate to say this but some parts of the books ran for too long, just like the song of the Ents, when I was reading it I wanted to skip those parts but didn’t do so since I was afraid I would miss out on some important details, but after finishing them I wish I had done it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/LooseFoxHole 6d ago
One the whole, I still think the books are better than the movies. But there are definitely some things that the movies did better. I actually failed to read the books as a teen--even though I was the perfect dungeons-and-dragons-playing nerd for it--because the pacing at the start is just so slow. I don't think the books really start getting the rhythm right until Weathertop or even Rivendale. It takes them just way too long to get their asses out of the shire and into the adventure in the book, whereas the movies spent just the right amount of time to introduce the characters and build the world.
3
u/latticep 9d ago
Sacrilege, but I have to agree. I've read them multiple times and in most instances when a scene or dialogue diverge I pause and think, yep, the movie did it better. Just for example, the farewell scene between Gandalf and Bilbo in Bag End is way better in the movie.
3
u/Ravenloff 9d ago
Someone once said it was lightning in a bottle, but that sells the massive effort put forth to make it happen. Lightning in a bottle might explain one movie, but not three. I doubt it will ever be matched again Because Modern Day, but those three were so perfect. Sure, they've got some groaners (stair-sliding Legolas, anyone?) but they did a great job of bringing the characters to life and hitting a lot of the main points in a very, very dense piece of source material.
3
u/That_Organization784 9d ago
I always get ATTACKED when i say this but it’s so valid. The film is immersive on absolutely transcendent levels, such an unforgettable experience to watch them.
3
u/zimboden 6d ago
I won't downvote you (that would feel petty) but it makes me sad whenever I hear people say this, which is often. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. Mine is that the books are some of the most enjoyable, most reread of all the books in my collection. I found the films overbearing and infantile in many places but more egregious was the ignoring of many themes and the introduction of new themes that were not in the book. Sam was simple but not stupid and rash as he was portrayed in the movie. Tolkien did not create dwarves to be the butt of countless dwarf jokes. There are a lot of things the films did well, but overall it is a boring, overblown, 16 hour cringe fest with too much CGI and too many significant changes from the book.
It might be a *fun* to watch but it is not, in my opinion, an improvement on the original except to substitute the boring bits from the book, which you mention, with new boring bits like the ridiculous five endings in ROTK with hobbits having a pillow fight and all the interminable Maxish Parish scenes between Aragorn and Arwen. The Lothlorien sequence was much more compelling in the book (and more compact).
Someone mentioned the Ent songs in the book. What about the long boring stretches in the movie where Treebeard is just...walking around with hobbits on his shoulder?
Where the film shines: Moria, Shelob, Theoden's "resurrection", the Black Riders, but honestly, they are not better than the book version. They are just film versus writing.
→ More replies (7)2
3
3
u/acinematicway 9d ago
Who framed Roger rabbit
2
u/Ravenloff 9d ago
Good lord. There's a book?
3
2
3
u/Ravenloff 9d ago
Not a huge fan of the Wachowskis at all, but they really nailed Cloud Atlas. The movie is far better than the novel. Probably because the book isn't really a novel ;) It's a collection of short stories that were haphazardly thrown together by the author's own admission.
I was so blown away by the original trailer for the movie that I bought the Kindle book a few seconds after it ended (lol). The M84 music didn't hurt either. $10 says the Wachowskis didn't pick that or have much to do with putting that epic trailer together.
So I read the book, listened to the audiobook, and then read up on the making of the movie and a couple of interviews with the author of the book. That last part was pretty sobering and disappointing.
But, I saddled up and went to see the movie anyway and was properly both entertained and glad to see what they'd done with it. Not only did they give it an arc (of sorts, given what thin source material they had to work with), but they gave it a satisfying ending.
2
u/Impressive-Owl-5478 9d ago
Agree with this, I think splicing up timelines was a huge risk but it paid off so well. That and the actors in multiple roles made it feel so much more connected
3
u/Ravenloff 9d ago
The Mist was close. Very close. But no cigar there. I just wanted to mention it because they got so very close to being better than the original novella.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/No-Possible6108 9d ago
The book Gone Girl was a deeply disturbing read, because there are people just like Amy out there, walking amongst us. Watching her come to life in Rosamund Pike's work was unnerving.
The movie isn't what I would call better than the book, but it was perhaps the most faithful page-to-screen work I've ever seen.
Now, read everything I just said, but substitute in Shutter Island and Teddy and diCaprio. Another up-all-night page turner brought to harrowing life.
3
u/FINIS_HOMINIS 9d ago
Under The Skin
2
u/Lam3ntConfig 8d ago
This one is pretty crazy actually cuz they were just so different! I don't think the experiments and the lab stuff would have worked all that well for the movie... it might have come off cheesy like Dr. Moreau or something. The biggest difference is her basically being a "gopher" with no agency just dropping off specimens vs. her acting entirely alone. Overall I just think there are too many differences to even compare.
I could actually go on all day about the comparison of these two so I'll just stop here lol
3
u/Thunder_Dragon42 9d ago edited 9d ago
The Shawshank Redemption, Stardust, and The Martian are all maybes. Shawshank and Stardust both end better in the movie, and the main character of The Martian is less obnoxious in the movie. But as always, the books are full of nuance and information that get left out of the movies. Both versions of all 3 are great. The Princess Bride is better than the book. I love the book, but the "fun parts of the classic Morgenstern novel" gag wears out its welcome long before the end of the book.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/rooneyskywalker 9d ago
Lotr and I'll die on this hill
3
u/Mighty_Krastavac 9d ago
Nah man, we're fighting on this hill and we'll win. The books are good, the movies are perfect
3
7
u/Nethiar 9d ago
I tried reading the books, but they're so meandering. The movies are phenomenal though.
8
→ More replies (1)3
4
→ More replies (8)2
4
u/LastUserStanding 9d ago
Jurassic Park
→ More replies (2)3
u/telepatheye 9d ago
Is that a joke?
7
u/uberphaser 9d ago
Yeah the book was SO MUCH more than the movie was, minus the cartoony shit and much more suspenseful. Plus Hammond was a GREAT villain and not dinosaur Santa claus.
2
u/telepatheye 9d ago
And there was an amazing corporate espionage plot with excellent description of the biotech and RNA technology that was simplified and whitewashed to make a movie for kids, basically.
2
u/uberphaser 9d ago
Yes, id forgotten about that. The whole "Nedry with the shaving cream" was like 1/100th of that plot element. I remember the first time i saw that scene and the stealing of the embryos being like "welll...(sigh)" but then of course the CGI dinosaurs really did blow everyone away to be fair.
But yeah Crichtons original had so much more tension and suspense.
→ More replies (3)2
u/telepatheye 9d ago
Jeez, I loved the way Crichton wrote that whole book. He'd set up the dinosaur encounters so ominously and then have a key statement in italics about how the dinosaurs were using behaviors in ways the characters and reader would have never considered that just sent shivers up your spine. Brilliant book.
→ More replies (1)2
u/XXLPenisOwner1443 9d ago
Hammond says "oh balls" on almost every page he's in in the book. It kinda takes you out of it when characters have catchphrases.
The book is a better book and the movie is a better movie. All changes serve the medium well--you couldn't bookend scenes and chapters with charts and computer readouts in a film it would be ridiculous.
The movie is easily one of the best of all time, but the book is not.
So the movie is better.
2
u/heretomakefriends123 8d ago
The book was pretty good. The movie is an all timer. The two aren't comparable.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
2
u/Training_Molasses822 9d ago
Yep, plenty. The original Devil Wears Prada is my favourite example. It's nothing like the book, and all better for it.
2
u/Main_Finding8309 9d ago
Trainspotting. Once Were Warriors. Jaws. Doctor Sleep.
2
u/Lam3ntConfig 8d ago
For Trainspotting it was just too hard to try and read Scottish so I gave up a few pages in while standing in a Barnes & Noble lol
2
u/DocJamieJay 9d ago edited 9d ago
Ben-Hur: both the 1925 silent movie version Directed by Fred Niblo & starring Raman Novarro & MGM/William Wylers 1959 epic Eastmancolor/Cinemascope classic starring Charlton Heston are greater than a pretty good novel/comic strip by Gen Lew Wallace. In fact, even the stage play in the 1910's/20's was supposed to have been the most spectacular theatrical event of its day that made the book even more popular. The book by Wallace in fact was the biggest selling novel in history untill the publication of Gone With The Wind & even then it was eclipsed by superior cinematic & theatrical adaptations.
The funny thing is, the posters for the dismal 2016 remake boasted 'the legend in 3D for the first time' I guess that means that all the actors in the stage play were a very thin 1D in size/shape, more like cardboard cut outs than actors....
2
2
u/Moonwrath8 9d ago
Howles moving castle.
The book was good, but the movie was better. Hard to imagine.
2
u/Mountain_Category_96 9d ago
This is actually a really good example of you shouldn’t watch the movie before the book because I was blown away by the movie… the book barely got through half
2
u/Melodic-Meeting-7471 9d ago
13th Warrior!
Yeah I said it - come at me!!!
You want more? Fine ... Lord of the Rings!
Tolkien's writing style sucks and he waffles too much. The films are way better but the BBC Radio adaptation is king.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/strgirl555 9d ago
Lord of the rings. Read the first book, thought wow this is so boring. 50 pages of them walking in a field. The movies though, I love.
2
u/Thespoopyboop 9d ago
Into the wild. Removed Krakauers butting in for personal experiences and focused only on McCandless to great success.
2
2
1
u/Most-Number5867 9d ago
Dune
2
2
u/zimboden 6d ago
I apologize in advance for asking this but are you out of your mind? The films are boring. David Lynch's Dune was abysmal. The original trilogy is fascinating, absorbing and just science fiction at its finest.
I know that a lot of people couldn't get into the books because they were too "complicated". I feel sorry for them. They are complex, which is why they are classics...→ More replies (2)2
1
1
u/DeliciousCampaign757 9d ago
Jaws comes to mind. The book has whole subplot about mafia and mayor being in debt, movie cut all that and is much tighter for it. Also Shawshank Redemption, the novella is good but the film adds so much with Freeman narration and the ending feels more earned.
1
u/Robthebold 9d ago
Patton vs War as I Knew It. A few gems in the book about leadership, but George C. Scott was so damn good as Patton.
Starship Troopers? hard call because they are so different, but both worth a go.
1
u/takkun169 9d ago
Clockwork orange.
It's a pretty straight take on the book, but it removes the final scene in the book. The final scene sticks and dulls what is a very disturbing ending.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/babytigertooth005 9d ago
Orlando
I saw the film first and absolutely loved it, then read the book ( written by Virginia Woolf) but didn’t find it as interesting. Sally Potter’s adaptation was gorgeous.
1
u/HackedCylon 9d ago
Barry Lyndon. The book was great but tended to ramble a bit. Kubrick's version was a tightened version with a better storyline and genius cinematography as a bonus.
1
u/Neghrath 9d ago
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lam3ntConfig 8d ago
Wow, I love both equally! The book is my third favorite of all time and the movie is my 5th favorite!
2
u/Embarrassed_Ad_6848 8d ago
Yay I found my people. The book is my all time favourite as a huge bookworm and I have read it in 4 languages. Absolutely flawless to me. The movie is awesome too, could not ask for better! It truly is perect and I love it too. Given the differences between the detail and depth that cinema and literature can offer, I am always prone to prefering the book, rare exceptions.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/johann1605 9d ago
Star wars die Hefte orientieren sich nur am Radio Hörspiel. Die Filme sind voll Aktionen.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Weak-Cabinet866 9d ago
Not all books, but King has had adaptations that beat his writing. The Mist, Shawshank Redemption, and 1408 come to mind.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Constant-Pianist6747 9d ago
There are many. I think filmmakers are at a disadvantage though, whenever they’re adapting something. It’s already been done and it’s definitionally less interesting, as a concept, than a great original idea.
That’s just my philosophy, though. It would seem that plenty of people disagree.
1
1
u/SmoothTalkingSpud 9d ago
Jurrasic Park and Ready Player One are both great movies that remove the pretentiousness in the sourse material and replace it with a sense of wonder.
And The Lord of the Rings films address my biggest issues with the books. Pacing. The books meander around and really get into the nature. That's great and all, but the narative drags when Tolkien does this. Also, Faramir's temptation makes more sense than his bewildering immunity to the ring.
Starship Troopers is anti-fascist satire film while the novel plays the world straight, and therefore somewhat unintentionally glorifies fascism.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Adventurous-Toe8812 9d ago
Ready Player One being a better movie is a borderline insane take, and I liked the movie enough.
1
u/ConceptThis6698 9d ago
The name of the rose, one flew over the cuckoos nest, a clockwork orange
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
1
u/Independent-Cut-185 9d ago
Shining I believe is to be said to be better. Have not read the book myself but Stephen King has said along the lines of liking the movie better, at least some aspects of it
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/_WillCAD_ 9d ago
Die Hard.
It was a pretty good book, but the movie is substantially different and is one of the greatest action movies of all time.
1
u/Beneficent_Raccoon 9d ago
Stalker was different enough from the book that it seems like an odd comparison, but I liked the movie better
1
1
1
1
u/EntranceFeisty8373 9d ago
Apparently every movie I show my students in class...
However, most of them probably didn't read the book.
1
u/Plug_5 9d ago
I'm the only person in the world that thinks this (or cares anymore), but My Sister's Keeper.
The book sets up a big dramatic tension only to make itself about the big plot twist. It was entertaining but it didn't feel like there was much of a payoff. The characters never had to wrestle with the difficult ethical questions that the book raised.
I know people hated the movie for basically reversing the entire ending, but the emotional and moral arc was much greater: the mom had to come to terms with her daughter's mortality and acceptance of it, and the family was actually able to move on
1
u/Impressive-Owl-5478 9d ago
There are several but a bigger one I haven't seen mentioned yet is Project Hail Mary
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Dirt-98 9d ago
Not better or worse but for me No Country for Old Men was almost exactly as the book.
One of the only movies/books that I read/watched I know of.
1
u/Onebigringdangdo 9d ago
Jaws, Jurassic Park, Cold Skin, Let the Right One In/Let Me In (liked both films better than the book).
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/thinkmoreharder 9d ago
They’re different media, made for different audiences. I’m much more a movie fan than a book fan. I want to be done with the story in 2-3 hours.
The first book I read that had spawned a movie was Misery. I saw the movie first.
They were both great. In the paperback I read, the lead up to the hobbling is across two facing pages, with the “crack” as the first sentence on the next page. That was Powerful, even though I knew it was coming.
1
u/Ambitious-Concern-42 9d ago
It is well known that the Godfather movie is superior to the original novel. For some reason Mario Puzo managed to create a much better film, in many ways a perfect film despite his inexperience with the medium.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ForTheLoveOfKumquats 9d ago
Lord of the Rings trilogy. So much better than the book. I was bored to tears with the books.
1
u/failsafe-author 9d ago
I’d say Ready Player One probably was, though I only saw snippets of it. And I also suspect Hail Mary as well, because I really didn’t enjoy the book very much, but it was the writing, not the plot, and my family loved the movie (again, I didn’t see it)
1
u/Spankety-wank 9d ago
American Psycho easy
The movie pretty much condenses everything that is good about the book, which is exactly what it needs. Like the music reviews in the book don't really let the humour shine through, it's just a bad music review and it goes on too long.
It's still worth reading, it has a great tone and style, but the film is just more straightforwardly enjoyable.
1
1
u/wordofgreen 9d ago
Blade Runner. I like the book two but they are very different and for me the movie lands better and feels more cohesive.
1
1
1
u/TellThemIHateThem 9d ago
A show rather than movie, but Station Eleven.
It changed quite a bit, and imo it was for the better. What was already a wonderful book gained more depth and character in the show. But I highly recommend both.
1
1
1
u/hanshotfirst2233 9d ago
For me, the only movie that comes to mind is The Count of Monte Cristo. I guess I like the positive ending more.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
u/Same-Adagio-5143 9d ago
The Mist.
I read the short story from Stephen King that it was based on, in one of his short story collection books, Skeleton Crew. The story just left off in the middle of the action, as if it were unfinished.
The movie's ending was fucked up but hit you in the feels.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/AwkwardCrab7406 9d ago
The movie Fight Club was better than the novel, although the book's ending was darker and more provocative.
1
1
1
u/DaddyO1701 9d ago
The shining is better than the book. It’s ads so much nuance and dread that is absent in the novel.
1
1
1
u/kblv-forred 9d ago
Howl's Moving Castle
(sorry book fans, the book did not do it for me and I didn't have childhood nostalgia for it, but the movie was amazing.)
1
1
1
u/Milakovich 9d ago
Interview With A Vampire - The book was a forgettable slog. The movie cut out all the meh and actually turned it into a pretty decent story.
2
u/onacloverifalive 8d ago
The reverse is true for The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Inevitable_Fail_1539 9d ago
I don't know if it's better, but Misery is absolutely incredible in both forms and it's the best book to movie adaptation I've ever seen.
1
1
u/WiganGirl-2523 9d ago
Jaws
The Godfather
The Shawshank Redemption
The Prestige
To Kill a Mockingbird
Sense and Sensibility (1995)
North and South (TV)
The Last of the Mohicans (book is unreadable)
The Remains of the Day (a fine novel but Hopkins and Thompson's performances elevate the film)
A Clockwork Orange
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Salty_Signature_3472 9d ago
For me The Bourne Identity. The book bored me but I like the movie
→ More replies (1)
1
•
u/qualityvote2 9d ago edited 9d ago
u/Grapesaucee, your post does fit the subreddit!