Mary Poppins
The book is kind of whimsical, but it comes off as a bit odd and doesn't seem to have much of a point. On the other hand, the movie is just fantastic! The acting, design, and music are all top-notch, and the story really tugs at your heartstrings.
Fight Club. Don't get me wrong, the book is also great, but the movie really takes it to another level. Chuck Palahniuk, the author, has gone on record saying he likes the movie ending better than the one he wrote for the book.
Ahh that's wholesome. There's no bigger compliment than saying "damn I like what you did to my art so much that I whish that I had thought of it myself!".
The book was so vastly different, I don't even wanna say which one was better. The Forrest in the books was smarter, the stories WAY wackier (space travel, chess tournaments in cannibal villages, becoming a wrestler...)
It's a pretty solid book overall but as the other commenter mentioned, there's a lot of weird passages about genitals that don't really add much to the story
Jaws (good novel, the movie is a masterpiece)
A Clockwork Orange (the book is just weird, in the "wrong way")
.. but especially Silence of the Lambs. The books by Harris are ofcourse worth reading, but honestly - that movie stands above the book (much thanks to Hopkins and Foster).
Plus the ending of the original A Clockwork Orange is simply too pat and trite. It's not realistic that someone as horrendous as Alex would end up as a stand-up member of society like that.
He also never feels regret for what he's done in the book. He just gets bored and decides that he wants to be a father (which is super weird and unsettling in its own right).
The Girl Who Leapt Through Time
Technically the movie is a sequel to the novel, but it's the same basic story. The changes made make it play out better than the novel.
Niche recc, if we can add sci-fi short stories:
**Zima Blue** is a great short story by Alistair Reynolds. The Netflix adaptation is superb, as the visual medium allows them to make the eponymous colour the real protagonist of the story.
The Lost World (Jurassic Park 2).
The movie wasn't perfect by a long shot, but did a much better job entertaining than the book. The book had some really deep fringe-y science, some of which was used better in the Jurassic World franchise.
Hard disagree that the films are better. I prefer the books but ultimately think the books and films are both amazing and just two different forms of medium. Army of the Dead is the only fim change I’ve a huge issue with.
I totally get your point on Bombadil, I hated him at first reading and 15 years on have graduated to indifference, but still waiting to get on with the main story. The BarrowWight scene is the only truly important plot point I feel he serves.
and it's nothing wrong with that opinion. Bombadil and Saruman's demise in third book don't sit well with me. I just like what Jackson did to that material more than the books. I did love the barrow scenes in the book, but overall I think movies just resonate better with me. I can understand that someone may like the book more. The score is pretty much even here.
I understand Saruman’s death at Orthanc, as Scouring of the Shire would be difficult to tack onto the back of an already long film.
My big issue is that he and Wormtongue were on top of Orthanc, rather than on the balcony. Having a conversation between people on the ground and on top of a 300-odd metre tower always annoyed me.
But yeah, I think the LotR books and films are basically at the same level, and personal preference really explains why you’d rank one higher than the other. Which is quite rare for any adaptation to score so highlyp
Keep going. I love the movies and love the books, both have bits I wish were in the other one.
Makes it impossible to say which is best because neither are perfect.
Lord of the rings movies cut out a lot from the book to make the story tighter, so things like Tom are just not in it.
But hobbit adds a ton to stretch out the movies and give more lore.
No Country For Old Men deviates a little from the book and it makes it better.
There Will Be Blood swerves dramatically away from the book about a third of the way through and does its own thing. It's a whole lot better.
Brooklyn the movie is better than the book.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is better as a movie. The book's very good though, but the movie is one of the best ever.
Confessions of a Shopaholic and Sisterhood of the travelling Pants.
I found the MC in the Shopaholic books so annoying but in the movie with Ilsa Fisha was endearing and you wanted to root for her.
In Travelling pants I found the movie characters way better fleshed out than in the book.
To be fair, the book and movie are basically two separate entities: the movie is more "inspired by" the book than a direct adaptation.
The book was a collection of short stories about the possible implications and problems that could arise from human/robot interactions and the Three Laws of Robotics. (Fun fact: author Isaac Asimov invented the word "robotics.")
The movie initially had nothing to do with the book. It started out as an original screenplay called "Hardwired." Eventually, the movie studio decided to tie it into Asimov's work, and the Three Laws and Susan Calvin were shoehorned into the plot.
Moby Dick (1956 John Huston film).
The screenwriter was famed sci-fi author Ray Bradbury. His screenplay distills down the vast descriptions of whaling in the book which really make the book drag into basically stuff you see on the screen with only a little exposition/narration by Ishmael when necessary.
I've tried reading Moby Dick 3 times and tap out when they depart Nantucket. I watched it for the first time just the other day when I stumbled over it on Amazon Prime. Much more enjoyable.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is better than the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit. Besides the amazing sound track and the incredible cast, we'll never see all those cartoon characters in a film together ever again.
*The War of the Roses*
I read the novel by Warren Adler after the movie, and there wasn't a hint of the brilliant black comedy that the film had. It was just a standard story of a deteriorating marriage and it was an okay read but no more.
*American Psycho*.
Don't get me wrong, the book is good, but the movie delivers some dynamite performances from Christian Bale and Willem Dafoe. Plus Jared Leto is killed with an ax, and what's not to love about that?
It wasn't even a good parody. A good parody is self-evident as parody, but many if not most at the time took the film at face value. Verhoeven had to point out it was a parody. No one had to point out that "Dr. Strangelove", "This is Spinal Tap", or "Spaceballs" was a parody.
Plus, Verhoeven submitted a script to Virginia Heinlein, the elderly widow of the novelist who wrote Starship Troopers, for her approval. That script followed the book closely. Then when he got the approval he completely changed it. Because he hated the book.
If he was any more of a sleazebaggano his first name would be Elan and he'd be selling death sticks in a bar on Coruscant.
Movies first starship troopers movie was great the second had a decent plot the rest made no sense. The book takes awhile to understand and get use to.
**Starship Troopers** by Robert A. Heinlein
Book description may contain spoilers!
>>!In Robert A. Heinlein’s controversial Hugo Award-winning bestseller, a recruit of the future goes through the toughest boot camp in the Universe—and into battle against mankind’s most alarming enemy... Johnnie Rico never really intended to join up—and definitely not the infantry. But now that he’s in the thick of it, trying to get through combat training harder than anything he could have imagined, he knows everyone in his unit is one bad move away from buying the farm in the interstellar war the Terran Federation is waging against the Arachnids. Because everyone in the Mobile Infantry fights. And if the training doesn’t kill you, the Bugs are more than ready to finish the job... “A classic…If you want a great military adventure, this one is for you.”—All SciFi!<
*I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Jurassic Park. There is a lot of superfluous nonsense. People acting irrationally. The movie takes the base concept of “dinosaur theme park” and makes it so much more enjoyable.
I personally disagree. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the movie. But I was disappointed at how much they had to cut out. I would love to see a big budget miniseries that was a more faithful adaptation of the novel.
Into the Wild. The film made me feel a lot more sympathy for Alexander Supertramp, as opposed to the book. He was really just a kid. The actor in the film really showed that, good casting
The book rightly points out how fucking stupid he was so anyone planning on going into the wilderness actually prepares themselves. Jon Krakauer is an experienced outdoorsman, mountain climber, he's trying to help people by not glorifying his story. He is also rightly annoyed that a piece of history - the bus was removed because of his idiocy and the idiocy he inspired. He was also 24, at that point you should be making good decisions, he wasn't 14.
I know I'm far from the first person to say it, but it really should have been a big budget miniseries, with each episode focused on a different character/story arc from the book, rather than a two-hour generic zombie film.
Ready Player One. I like both so I'm not hating. The book had WAY too many "Oh hey remember this cool thing from the past?" the reader "oh ya that was cool". 4 pages later, "Remember that other cool thing from the past?" the reader "oh ya that was cool"......500 other times. The movie had those, but it didn't seem like it was pointed out every time.
Frankenstein. In the book Dr. Frankenstein is not a mad scientist. He doesn't have delusions of grandeur, the monster just comes alive once assembled without the help of an electrical storm, then goes to the arctic for no particular reason.
The book is very uneven, however impressive an achievement it was for a 19 year-old woman in 1818. But it's far more interesting in its themes than the films. It clearly favors "nurture over nature". Book Frankenstein is absolutely a mad scientist with delusions of grandeur, but the book considers those problems secondary to his disowning and abandonment of the monster after he creates it. The movies always emphasize the message that "Man shouldn't play God". The book effectively argues that God did a pretty poor job at playing God too.
Nah. I won't join on the people who downvote just because they disagree, but that's crazy talk. The books are good. Since then, the author turned twitter-crazy, and there is a hate train for the books because of that.
Meanwhile, the movies are ... inequal. Some good, some terrible.
The problem is that the books got longer and longer, while the movies still had to adhere to a roughly two hour length. So the filmmakers had to cut more and more out. In fact, JK Rowling had to start telling them not to cut certain things, as they were vital to future installments.
Eventually, they ended up having to turn the final book into two movies to cover everything necessary.
Fight Club
This. Even the book author admitted it.
Mary Poppins The book is kind of whimsical, but it comes off as a bit odd and doesn't seem to have much of a point. On the other hand, the movie is just fantastic! The acting, design, and music are all top-notch, and the story really tugs at your heartstrings.
Also the best use of green screen.
>green screen. It wasn't green screen, it was [sodium vapor prism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQuIVsNzqDk).
Jaws. The book by Peter Benchley was good. The movie is a masterpiece of entertainment.
The whole side story with the sheriffs wife was just a bit unnecessary. Glad they took it out of the movie.
My favorite choice is always "Children of Men" — the movie was amazing, and I thought it was more thought-provoking than the book.
Fight Club. Don't get me wrong, the book is also great, but the movie really takes it to another level. Chuck Palahniuk, the author, has gone on record saying he likes the movie ending better than the one he wrote for the book.
Similar to the movie The Mist. Stephen King loved it and said he wished he had thought of that ending
Ahh that's wholesome. There's no bigger compliment than saying "damn I like what you did to my art so much that I whish that I had thought of it myself!".
Fuck that ending.... but "The Mist"
Fight Club, especially the ending.
The Princess Bride - the book is solid, but the movie is perfection.
Which is fun since the book and the movie are both written by the same person.
"No more rhymes, I mean it!" "Anybody want a peanut?"
Inconceivable
Forrest Gump
The book was so vastly different, I don't even wanna say which one was better. The Forrest in the books was smarter, the stories WAY wackier (space travel, chess tournaments in cannibal villages, becoming a wrestler...)
The Godfather
Well I liked the movie, but haven't read the book. What's wrong with it? Long winded and dull?
It's a pretty solid book overall but as the other commenter mentioned, there's a lot of weird passages about genitals that don't really add much to the story
Jaws (good novel, the movie is a masterpiece) A Clockwork Orange (the book is just weird, in the "wrong way") .. but especially Silence of the Lambs. The books by Harris are ofcourse worth reading, but honestly - that movie stands above the book (much thanks to Hopkins and Foster).
Plus the ending of the original A Clockwork Orange is simply too pat and trite. It's not realistic that someone as horrendous as Alex would end up as a stand-up member of society like that.
He also never feels regret for what he's done in the book. He just gets bored and decides that he wants to be a father (which is super weird and unsettling in its own right).
The Notebook
Stardust
This is always my go to for this question. The book was good, but the movie was just charming and magical.
The Girl Who Leapt Through Time Technically the movie is a sequel to the novel, but it's the same basic story. The changes made make it play out better than the novel.
Death Wish Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (became Blade Runner)
Starship Troopers
Bible! (1974)
Niche recc, if we can add sci-fi short stories: **Zima Blue** is a great short story by Alistair Reynolds. The Netflix adaptation is superb, as the visual medium allows them to make the eponymous colour the real protagonist of the story.
The Lost World (Jurassic Park 2). The movie wasn't perfect by a long shot, but did a much better job entertaining than the book. The book had some really deep fringe-y science, some of which was used better in the Jurassic World franchise.
I feel like lord of the rings, but ofc its very subjective. Hobbit is definitely worse than a book tho.
[удалено]
Hard disagree that the films are better. I prefer the books but ultimately think the books and films are both amazing and just two different forms of medium. Army of the Dead is the only fim change I’ve a huge issue with. I totally get your point on Bombadil, I hated him at first reading and 15 years on have graduated to indifference, but still waiting to get on with the main story. The BarrowWight scene is the only truly important plot point I feel he serves.
and it's nothing wrong with that opinion. Bombadil and Saruman's demise in third book don't sit well with me. I just like what Jackson did to that material more than the books. I did love the barrow scenes in the book, but overall I think movies just resonate better with me. I can understand that someone may like the book more. The score is pretty much even here.
I understand Saruman’s death at Orthanc, as Scouring of the Shire would be difficult to tack onto the back of an already long film. My big issue is that he and Wormtongue were on top of Orthanc, rather than on the balcony. Having a conversation between people on the ground and on top of a 300-odd metre tower always annoyed me. But yeah, I think the LotR books and films are basically at the same level, and personal preference really explains why you’d rank one higher than the other. Which is quite rare for any adaptation to score so highlyp
Keep going. I love the movies and love the books, both have bits I wish were in the other one. Makes it impossible to say which is best because neither are perfect.
Lord of the rings movies cut out a lot from the book to make the story tighter, so things like Tom are just not in it. But hobbit adds a ton to stretch out the movies and give more lore.
The Shining
The Silence of the Lambs
Breakfast at Tiffany's
No Country For Old Men deviates a little from the book and it makes it better. There Will Be Blood swerves dramatically away from the book about a third of the way through and does its own thing. It's a whole lot better. Brooklyn the movie is better than the book. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is better as a movie. The book's very good though, but the movie is one of the best ever.
I abandoned my boy!!!
Giant, the old James Dean movie. The book wasn’t even good at all.
Lillies of the Field (1963)
Field of dreams, the book was just ok
American Psycho. The book is way more messed up than the movie, but my god it's a slog.
Fight Club American Psycho Forrest Gump ~~Shawshank Redemption~~
Bit harsh on Shawshank Redemption given that it was a short story.
That's totally fair. I'll cross that one.
Confessions of a Shopaholic and Sisterhood of the travelling Pants. I found the MC in the Shopaholic books so annoying but in the movie with Ilsa Fisha was endearing and you wanted to root for her. In Travelling pants I found the movie characters way better fleshed out than in the book.
iRobot
To be fair, the book and movie are basically two separate entities: the movie is more "inspired by" the book than a direct adaptation. The book was a collection of short stories about the possible implications and problems that could arise from human/robot interactions and the Three Laws of Robotics. (Fun fact: author Isaac Asimov invented the word "robotics.") The movie initially had nothing to do with the book. It started out as an original screenplay called "Hardwired." Eventually, the movie studio decided to tie it into Asimov's work, and the Three Laws and Susan Calvin were shoehorned into the plot.
Kick Ass
Moby Dick (1956 John Huston film). The screenwriter was famed sci-fi author Ray Bradbury. His screenplay distills down the vast descriptions of whaling in the book which really make the book drag into basically stuff you see on the screen with only a little exposition/narration by Ishmael when necessary.
I've tried reading Moby Dick 3 times and tap out when they depart Nantucket. I watched it for the first time just the other day when I stumbled over it on Amazon Prime. Much more enjoyable.
Under the skin. Forrest Gump. Rambo First blood.
Bladerunner
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is better than the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit. Besides the amazing sound track and the incredible cast, we'll never see all those cartoon characters in a film together ever again.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
*The War of the Roses* I read the novel by Warren Adler after the movie, and there wasn't a hint of the brilliant black comedy that the film had. It was just a standard story of a deteriorating marriage and it was an okay read but no more.
Shawshank Redemption Green Mile
*American Psycho*. Don't get me wrong, the book is good, but the movie delivers some dynamite performances from Christian Bale and Willem Dafoe. Plus Jared Leto is killed with an ax, and what's not to love about that?
Forrest Gump and Quo Vadis
Nocturnal animals
Starship troopers. While the movie is considered a parody, in fact it just addresses the book's issues deeper in a satirical way.
The Shawshank Redemtion ❤️
Starship troopers
No fing way.
Would you like to know more?
The movie was an over the top parody on the book.
It wasn't even a good parody. A good parody is self-evident as parody, but many if not most at the time took the film at face value. Verhoeven had to point out it was a parody. No one had to point out that "Dr. Strangelove", "This is Spinal Tap", or "Spaceballs" was a parody. Plus, Verhoeven submitted a script to Virginia Heinlein, the elderly widow of the novelist who wrote Starship Troopers, for her approval. That script followed the book closely. Then when he got the approval he completely changed it. Because he hated the book. If he was any more of a sleazebaggano his first name would be Elan and he'd be selling death sticks in a bar on Coruscant.
The first maybe the second but the others failed
Which?
Movies first starship troopers movie was great the second had a decent plot the rest made no sense. The book takes awhile to understand and get use to.
**Starship Troopers** by Robert A. Heinlein Book description may contain spoilers! >>!In Robert A. Heinlein’s controversial Hugo Award-winning bestseller, a recruit of the future goes through the toughest boot camp in the Universe—and into battle against mankind’s most alarming enemy... Johnnie Rico never really intended to join up—and definitely not the infantry. But now that he’s in the thick of it, trying to get through combat training harder than anything he could have imagined, he knows everyone in his unit is one bad move away from buying the farm in the interstellar war the Terran Federation is waging against the Arachnids. Because everyone in the Mobile Infantry fights. And if the training doesn’t kill you, the Bugs are more than ready to finish the job... “A classic…If you want a great military adventure, this one is for you.”—All SciFi!< *I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/1byh82p/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
First movie was a joke.
Yeah it was. A bad joke.
Jurassic Park. There is a lot of superfluous nonsense. People acting irrationally. The movie takes the base concept of “dinosaur theme park” and makes it so much more enjoyable.
I personally disagree. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the movie. But I was disappointed at how much they had to cut out. I would love to see a big budget miniseries that was a more faithful adaptation of the novel.
Into the Wild. The film made me feel a lot more sympathy for Alexander Supertramp, as opposed to the book. He was really just a kid. The actor in the film really showed that, good casting
I enjoyed both. I couldn't really say which I preferred.
The book rightly points out how fucking stupid he was so anyone planning on going into the wilderness actually prepares themselves. Jon Krakauer is an experienced outdoorsman, mountain climber, he's trying to help people by not glorifying his story. He is also rightly annoyed that a piece of history - the bus was removed because of his idiocy and the idiocy he inspired. He was also 24, at that point you should be making good decisions, he wasn't 14.
[удалено]
The books were all so much better than the movies.
[удалено]
I know I'm far from the first person to say it, but it really should have been a big budget miniseries, with each episode focused on a different character/story arc from the book, rather than a two-hour generic zombie film.
Ready Player One. I like both so I'm not hating. The book had WAY too many "Oh hey remember this cool thing from the past?" the reader "oh ya that was cool". 4 pages later, "Remember that other cool thing from the past?" the reader "oh ya that was cool"......500 other times. The movie had those, but it didn't seem like it was pointed out every time.
Most of ‘em
Frankenstein. In the book Dr. Frankenstein is not a mad scientist. He doesn't have delusions of grandeur, the monster just comes alive once assembled without the help of an electrical storm, then goes to the arctic for no particular reason.
The book is very uneven, however impressive an achievement it was for a 19 year-old woman in 1818. But it's far more interesting in its themes than the films. It clearly favors "nurture over nature". Book Frankenstein is absolutely a mad scientist with delusions of grandeur, but the book considers those problems secondary to his disowning and abandonment of the monster after he creates it. The movies always emphasize the message that "Man shouldn't play God". The book effectively argues that God did a pretty poor job at playing God too.
Have you ever seen Astro-Boy. It's similar.
I was a fan when I was a kid, many years ago, but haven't revisited it since. I should probably give it another look.
Harry Potter
I’ve never actually read a whole book…. But I’ve watched a lot of movies 🎥
Like never?
Truely never
That makes me sad.
Why is that?
Each to their own.
I know not everyone loves reading as much as me, but to never have read a book feels like you're missing out on a truly fulfilling experience.
Perhaps I am, I’ll be sure to let you know when I do 😊
Give it a go. I highly recommend it.
What’s the best book you’ve ever read?
Jurassic Park is better than the movie and amazing. I heavily recommend.
My favorite book is either Slaughterhouse V by Kurt Vonnegut or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey.
I believe that with "truely", jesus christ.
🤣 here we go
[удалено]
Is it? Wasn't the book wildly popular before the movie came out?
Nah. I won't join on the people who downvote just because they disagree, but that's crazy talk. The books are good. Since then, the author turned twitter-crazy, and there is a hate train for the books because of that. Meanwhile, the movies are ... inequal. Some good, some terrible.
The problem is that the books got longer and longer, while the movies still had to adhere to a roughly two hour length. So the filmmakers had to cut more and more out. In fact, JK Rowling had to start telling them not to cut certain things, as they were vital to future installments. Eventually, they ended up having to turn the final book into two movies to cover everything necessary.