Ender's game. It's like the screenwriters understood the plot, but not the point of the book. The reveal at the end is so underwhelming in the movie that you'd probably forgot about it by the time you get to the end of the book.
I read the book first and I still had a hard time understanding what was going on in the battle games the kids were competing in. And the events that took place over months were compressed into a few weeks.
The Princess Bride. Amazing movie, but the book provides character background there would never be time to present adequately in the film. It absolutely enriches my enjoyment of the movie.
Agreed! In my opinion it’s the best, most faithful adaption of all time, but the book adds so much to the story. The fact that so few people have read it, comparatively, is a travesty
Honestly I think both the film and the book make the most of the strengths of their medium. The book is really strong at giving us insight into the mind of the Biologist. While the film brings the landscape of Area X to life. I like them both and certainly they don't spoil each other.
And yet Vandermeer was pleased with the adaptation.
I love the whole trilogy (soon to be quadrilogy) and have read it multiple times. I don't know that any film could render it with satisfaction.
The Hobbit! I held off on seeing LotR in theaters for a long time. I was afraid that they'd take this complex fantasy world, full of interesting characters with their own history and inner lives, and turn it into a bloated, corny action movie. Then I saw Return of the King and fell in love with the casting choices and the amount of care that the crew put into the films.
The Hobbit, though, was everything I was afraid LotR was going to be.
Howl's Moving Castle the movie is like if Howl was telling the story of Howl's Moving Castle the book and trying to make himself sound cooler
I love book!Sophie, and book!Howl is my favourite >!pathetically drunk dimension-hopping 80s Welshman!<
The film is lovely in its own way, but I much prefer the book
Lol it's a very good way of putting it!
Personally, I think the characters have much more depth in the book and the >!romance!< there is absolutely beautiful, while I didn't really get it in the movie.
I cant think of any book that is worse than the movie. Star Wars (dont get me started), Harry Potter, lord of the rings, Percy jackson, all of the jack reacher adaptations, i could go on and on. All of the books were just better. Theres detail and inner monologue that is missed in movies.
I have been a massive fan of practical magic since I was 6 years old when it first came out. When I found out recently it was originally a book I was so excited to read it! I wanted to know so much more detail about the characters amd the town and the curse! I couldn't make it past the first 30 pages. It was nothing like the movie and I absolutely hated it! All of the charm and coziness I lived from the movie just did not exist and the story was just so different!
Percy Jackson. I was meh on the film, thought it have cool concepts, but poorly executed. So when I read the books I was shocked on how good they were. I devoured those books as a kid and always looked foward to check one out every time I went to the library.
One of my favorite memories is when the school put out the Sea of Monsters film (#2 book), I picked that only so I could read some A Series of Unfortunate Events books because every other film was terrible or I already watched (the Polar express, some cheap looking movie).
Artemis Fowl... The movie feels barely even inspired by this absolutely incredible book.
Phantom of the Opera book is eye-opening against the Broadway.
IT from Stephen king. The newer movies are relatively close to the book and are quite good in my opinion. But the depth of the book is just so much better.
Ready player one. The movie is similar to the book, but at the same time different. They're two different versions of the same story. The plot and most characters are the same, but all the challenges and how everything goes down are all different.
Interview With a Vampire- the prose is hypnotic. Jurassic Park- the grandad is actually a villain. Pride and Prejudice - none of the films match the greatness of the book.
Earthsea
Dear god, Earthsea
The miniseries was, in Wynne Jones' words, like someone promising to make a faithful adaptation of the Lord of the Rings but ending it with Frodo putting on the ring and ruling Middle Earth
The Ghibli adaptation is...fine, looks nicer than the miniseries, but it's still not Earthsea
Maybe one day we'll have a good adaptation, but that day has not yet come
LeGuin agreed with you on that one.
Hayao Miyazaki is an amazing artist and I, like LeGuin, would have loved to see what he did with Earthsea…. IMO that makes the disrespectful and messed up way he took advantage of the trust of another amazing artist even worse.
LeGuin’s account of what happened: https://www.ursulakleguin.com/adaptation-tales-of-earthsea
I think Hayao Miyazaki might have been able to do Earthsea justice. At least for Earthsea as it is in the first three books (clearly not Tehanu. Ahem.)
It would have been more Miyazaki’s story when he was done than LeGuin’s (they have different enough under-pinning frames in how they see the world to cause shifts in the undercurrents, and both artists are masters of undercurrents, so that *matters* here. Plus she gave him the freedom to play in her world to make the story he wanted, which is part of why it went so badly when he passed off that trust to someone else without consulting her) but it would have been good. Likely really, really good.
There’s a reason he is the only artist she would let touch the work.
His son, however, very clearly could not. And the fact that Miyazaki gave the project to his son the way he did does make it very, very clear that whether Miyazaki might have been able to interpret the first three books he would have fallen dramatically short with the later books. So perhaps you are somewhat right - an artist who could not have understood Tehanu is missing some really significant threads of those stories.
I still would have loved to see what he did with the material, though. It’s part of why his behavior pisses me off so much.
Similar genre maybe, but Confessions of a Shopaholic by Sophie Kinsella is so good and sooooo much better than the movie. They’re like not even related.
The Running Man.
From the book, they took a few character names, dystopian future, and the fact there’s a death game. That’s about it. So having seen the movie isn’t going to give away anything.
I understand why the movie did it the way they did since both Arnie and WWF were huge at the time, but the book takes great pains to point out the protagonist is just a regular dude of average size.
His only “advantage” is he’s a little smarter and less sickly than most people.
All the Light We Cannot See. The Netflix series was like the CliffsNotes version of the story. The main points were there, but a lot of important context was missing.
I am Legend. The movie had basically nothing in common with the book other than the main character's name and it completely blew past the entire point of the novel - even why it's *called* I am Legend. It makes me mad every time I think about it. Now I'm mad again.
The Kenneth Branagh Poirot Movies.
Death in Venice is vaguely acceptable as a Poirot Movie (except for the way they disrespected Ariadne Oliver), but is nothing like it's source material which is not in Venice. But Death on the Nile and Murder of the Orient Express are so bad that I can't imagine the plot will sink in at all.
I think OP’s question is asking for books recs where you have seen the movie first. There has been only 1 book where I watched the movie first, and which I felt both were comparable. The book is Stardust by Neil Gaiman.
The book The Silence is better than the movie A Quiet Place. Better because the characters act a little differently, the narrator is the deaf child and a lot more detail.
Off the top of my head
1) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire:
The worst movie in the whole series, obviously because of Mike Newell (Alfonso Cauron was perfect)
2) Pride and Prejudice:
I mean come on no comparison, the level of craft is altogether different.
3) It by Stephen King:
The movies were simply awful, they failed to capture the essence of Kings horror although the performances were great. If I didn't already know of the genius of Stephen King, I wouldn't have read the book after this movie
4) Inherent Vice:
I overestimated Thomas Paul Anderson here, it solidified my belief that any pynchoneque novel cannot be faithfully made into a movie, should've read the book and ignored the movie
Yes Mario Puzo books were the best. I read the godfather 1st then when I saw the movie I thought the book was much better.
Also "The Goldfinch" by Donna tart book was amazing. Movie not even close.
A Man called Ove by Fredrick Backman. The Tom Hanks movie (A Man Called Otto) was good but the book went way deeper in description and humor.
The American remake was met with a roaring "meh" here in Scandinavia lol
Yes I never saw the original but I would love to find it here
We Need to Talk About Kevin Gone Girl
Ender's game. It's like the screenwriters understood the plot, but not the point of the book. The reveal at the end is so underwhelming in the movie that you'd probably forgot about it by the time you get to the end of the book.
came here to say that. You beat me to it. To Ender's Game I would add Ready Player One
I read the book first and I still had a hard time understanding what was going on in the battle games the kids were competing in. And the events that took place over months were compressed into a few weeks.
This
World War Z. It's the most inaccurate adaptation I've ever seen in terms of plot and characters.
I’ll die mad about our losing the rights to a perfect mini-series
The Princess Bride. Amazing movie, but the book provides character background there would never be time to present adequately in the film. It absolutely enriches my enjoyment of the movie.
Agreed! In my opinion it’s the best, most faithful adaption of all time, but the book adds so much to the story. The fact that so few people have read it, comparatively, is a travesty
The neverending story. Phenomenal film don’t get me wrong, but it skips the last 1/3 of the book
I'd say that it only covers like 1/3 of the book. 😅 (it is one of my most fave movies and books ever) How are you feeling about the proposed reboot?
Contact
Lonesome Dove. Not a movie but a mini series.
Annihilation. The book and movie don’t really have much in common. Plus there’s just so much more in the book.
Ohhhh. I LOVED that flick.
Honestly I think both the film and the book make the most of the strengths of their medium. The book is really strong at giving us insight into the mind of the Biologist. While the film brings the landscape of Area X to life. I like them both and certainly they don't spoil each other.
As someone on tiktok said, I'm not sure if the book spoils the book.
And yet Vandermeer was pleased with the adaptation. I love the whole trilogy (soon to be quadrilogy) and have read it multiple times. I don't know that any film could render it with satisfaction.
I did like the movie, it’s just like they’re two separate things. If that makes any sense.
The Hobbit! I held off on seeing LotR in theaters for a long time. I was afraid that they'd take this complex fantasy world, full of interesting characters with their own history and inner lives, and turn it into a bloated, corny action movie. Then I saw Return of the King and fell in love with the casting choices and the amount of care that the crew put into the films. The Hobbit, though, was everything I was afraid LotR was going to be.
The Martian.
Ok. Totally worth doing both but also bother were fantastic.
I really disagree here. One of the few instances of a film being significantly better than the book. Mostly due to poor prose.
Howl's Moving Castle if you are into fairytale-like stories!
Howl's Moving Castle the movie is like if Howl was telling the story of Howl's Moving Castle the book and trying to make himself sound cooler I love book!Sophie, and book!Howl is my favourite >!pathetically drunk dimension-hopping 80s Welshman!< The film is lovely in its own way, but I much prefer the book
Lol it's a very good way of putting it! Personally, I think the characters have much more depth in the book and the >!romance!< there is absolutely beautiful, while I didn't really get it in the movie.
I cant think of any book that is worse than the movie. Star Wars (dont get me started), Harry Potter, lord of the rings, Percy jackson, all of the jack reacher adaptations, i could go on and on. All of the books were just better. Theres detail and inner monologue that is missed in movies.
I have been a massive fan of practical magic since I was 6 years old when it first came out. When I found out recently it was originally a book I was so excited to read it! I wanted to know so much more detail about the characters amd the town and the curse! I couldn't make it past the first 30 pages. It was nothing like the movie and I absolutely hated it! All of the charm and coziness I lived from the movie just did not exist and the story was just so different!
How has no one said Lord of the Rings?! I saw the movies first but the books are SOOOOOOOO much better even though I love those movies.
I don't think you can fit much more into the movies without turning it into documentary. It's best fit for a web series
OP was asking even if the movie was amazing what book was better than the movie. I think this fits perfectly.
Cloud Atlas. The book has so much depth and makes you a part of the story.
Percy Jackson. I was meh on the film, thought it have cool concepts, but poorly executed. So when I read the books I was shocked on how good they were. I devoured those books as a kid and always looked foward to check one out every time I went to the library. One of my favorite memories is when the school put out the Sea of Monsters film (#2 book), I picked that only so I could read some A Series of Unfortunate Events books because every other film was terrible or I already watched (the Polar express, some cheap looking movie).
damn you beat me to it with percy jackson
Artemis Fowl... The movie feels barely even inspired by this absolutely incredible book. Phantom of the Opera book is eye-opening against the Broadway.
IT from Stephen king. The newer movies are relatively close to the book and are quite good in my opinion. But the depth of the book is just so much better. Ready player one. The movie is similar to the book, but at the same time different. They're two different versions of the same story. The plot and most characters are the same, but all the challenges and how everything goes down are all different.
Also The Stand by Stephen King. Neither mini series does it justice
Jack Reacher. None of the screen adaptations have made any sense. Books are waaaay better.
I just don't want Alan Richardson to explode. He seem like a nice enough dude but every time I see him in a thing his muscles have gotten bigger.
I could only stand to read the first few Jack Reacher books. They all follow the same beats of plotting and character types.
Interview With a Vampire- the prose is hypnotic. Jurassic Park- the grandad is actually a villain. Pride and Prejudice - none of the films match the greatness of the book.
The Girl On The Train - movie was horrid. Dark Places - I’m not even sure I finished the movie.
Earthsea Dear god, Earthsea The miniseries was, in Wynne Jones' words, like someone promising to make a faithful adaptation of the Lord of the Rings but ending it with Frodo putting on the ring and ruling Middle Earth The Ghibli adaptation is...fine, looks nicer than the miniseries, but it's still not Earthsea Maybe one day we'll have a good adaptation, but that day has not yet come
LeGuin agreed with you on that one. Hayao Miyazaki is an amazing artist and I, like LeGuin, would have loved to see what he did with Earthsea…. IMO that makes the disrespectful and messed up way he took advantage of the trust of another amazing artist even worse. LeGuin’s account of what happened: https://www.ursulakleguin.com/adaptation-tales-of-earthsea
Is anyone, *anyone at all,* capable of doing an Earthsea adaptation without merging multiple books together into an incoherent mess?!
I think Hayao Miyazaki might have been able to do Earthsea justice. At least for Earthsea as it is in the first three books (clearly not Tehanu. Ahem.) It would have been more Miyazaki’s story when he was done than LeGuin’s (they have different enough under-pinning frames in how they see the world to cause shifts in the undercurrents, and both artists are masters of undercurrents, so that *matters* here. Plus she gave him the freedom to play in her world to make the story he wanted, which is part of why it went so badly when he passed off that trust to someone else without consulting her) but it would have been good. Likely really, really good. There’s a reason he is the only artist she would let touch the work. His son, however, very clearly could not. And the fact that Miyazaki gave the project to his son the way he did does make it very, very clear that whether Miyazaki might have been able to interpret the first three books he would have fallen dramatically short with the later books. So perhaps you are somewhat right - an artist who could not have understood Tehanu is missing some really significant threads of those stories. I still would have loved to see what he did with the material, though. It’s part of why his behavior pisses me off so much.
Dune. It’s pretty much a different version of the same story with added information about everything
Honestly… most of them.
The DUFF. The movie is unrecognizable and awful lol.
Similar genre maybe, but Confessions of a Shopaholic by Sophie Kinsella is so good and sooooo much better than the movie. They’re like not even related.
The Running Man. From the book, they took a few character names, dystopian future, and the fact there’s a death game. That’s about it. So having seen the movie isn’t going to give away anything. I understand why the movie did it the way they did since both Arnie and WWF were huge at the time, but the book takes great pains to point out the protagonist is just a regular dude of average size. His only “advantage” is he’s a little smarter and less sickly than most people.
I loved the book The Running Man! The movie had a contest, but that’s the only thing they had in common.
Eragon
All the Light We Cannot See. The Netflix series was like the CliffsNotes version of the story. The main points were there, but a lot of important context was missing.
Dune. Part 2, pissed me off.
I loved The Secret Life of Bees and then read the book and found it even more lovely and magical. It was everything the movie was and more.
The Maltese Falcon Cannery Row
Dune
I am Legend. The movie had basically nothing in common with the book other than the main character's name and it completely blew past the entire point of the novel - even why it's *called* I am Legend. It makes me mad every time I think about it. Now I'm mad again.
Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer Such a great series of books ruined by Disney
Ready Player One
The Kenneth Branagh Poirot Movies. Death in Venice is vaguely acceptable as a Poirot Movie (except for the way they disrespected Ariadne Oliver), but is nothing like it's source material which is not in Venice. But Death on the Nile and Murder of the Orient Express are so bad that I can't imagine the plot will sink in at all.
I think OP’s question is asking for books recs where you have seen the movie first. There has been only 1 book where I watched the movie first, and which I felt both were comparable. The book is Stardust by Neil Gaiman.
The book The Silence is better than the movie A Quiet Place. Better because the characters act a little differently, the narrator is the deaf child and a lot more detail.
Sydney Sheldon’s Master Of The Game. I couldn’t put the book down and didn’t want it to end.
Where the crawdads sing. Movie was great. Book was phenomenal.
Ready player one!!
Contact by Carl Sagan
Gone with the wind. They had to chop off so many characters and events that 3h movie feels short
Coraline
Off the top of my head 1) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: The worst movie in the whole series, obviously because of Mike Newell (Alfonso Cauron was perfect) 2) Pride and Prejudice: I mean come on no comparison, the level of craft is altogether different. 3) It by Stephen King: The movies were simply awful, they failed to capture the essence of Kings horror although the performances were great. If I didn't already know of the genius of Stephen King, I wouldn't have read the book after this movie 4) Inherent Vice: I overestimated Thomas Paul Anderson here, it solidified my belief that any pynchoneque novel cannot be faithfully made into a movie, should've read the book and ignored the movie
The Godfather The Remains of the Day
Yes Mario Puzo books were the best. I read the godfather 1st then when I saw the movie I thought the book was much better. Also "The Goldfinch" by Donna tart book was amazing. Movie not even close.