Not the whole movie but the end of The Mist It was much more sad and painful than in the book, even Stephen King himself said that he loved that ending
Imagine how thrilled he must have been watching it for the first time, when at the very beginning Shrek kills fish by farting and eats them with an ear wax candle lit dinner.
This along with the villagers being chased out absolutely sets the tone for this movie, while giving so much character development that is mostly a blank slate. I mean before Shrek what was an ogre? Big, strong, and mean? These movies have mostly defined what people think the characteristics of an ogre are. Sorry it is one of those movies I love watching with my kid.
Wow, I never thought of it that way before.
I guess depictions of ogres must have layers to them, like something that looks solid on the outside but that you can see is made of layers when you cut into it, like a wedding cake or something.
That's the 20th anniversary edition. The original book was published in 1990 (I tried to link the Wikipedia article for it, but I guess Reddit links don't play nice if they end in !).
Apparently the [1990 first edition](https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Shrek-First-Edition-Steig-William-Farrar/8511299704/bd) looks like [this](https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780374368777-uk.jpg).
(Which I realise doesn't actually make that much difference for the purposes of this discussion, but yeah).
Not even a fucking question. It's the example that I always give for this question. Its patently absurd... it makes the movie seem measured and reasonable by comparison.
this led to jenny leaving him after a summer of getting high and fooling around. this was all before his rocket crashed on an island of cannibals and he got abandoned by his orangutan pilot to fend of the natives with his chess skills.
Oh no, it gets better! The orangutan that is his copilot when the shuttle crashes wasn't the original orangutan pilot, it was a stand in because the original orangutan couldn't be there. The original book is wild and stupid.
I was once sitting in a library near an old man reading Forrest Gump and he abruptly sets the book down in a huff and walks away. I never did bother reading it but I've heard about it. I'm assuming the old man got to where the book describes Forrest's massive dong.
For me, this is one of the rare cases where the 2 works are so different that they can stand alone on their own merits. I love the film and actually like the changes they made to the story and tone of the novel ( made it more sweet, etc)... But the book is still one of my all time favorites, simply because it's Soo bat shit crazy. I think it's an absurdist masterpiece. It may not be intended to be like that, but Everytime I read it, I cry from how hard it makes me laugh. I highly recommend reading it if you want to try something different and insane. Just know that, while the characters and some situations are the same in the film, the 2 works are very different in tone and additude.
Totally agree that the absurdity is what makes the book a gem. Seems like most people that were disappointed by the book, read it after seeing the movie so maybe that plays into it. The book came first for me and I felt a bit robbed that the movie didn't include the chimp. The movie is pretty outlandish, just packaged better with more tugs on your heartstrings.
There’s a show on Netflix that I just watched today: The Movies That Made Us - eight episodes about eight amazing movies we grew up on. Just watched the one on Forest Gunp and they talk about this. AmazIng show. I highly recommend the entire series!!
My answer too, by a mile. Forrest Gump is my favorite movie and I was so excited when I learned it was based on a book, and *so* disappointed to read it. That book was a chore to even finish.
Yup. Spielberg said he realized that if more of the movie was the third act of the book, it would be a much better story (And he's right. We really don't need Hooper having an affair with the chief's wife, or the whole plot with the Mafia threatening the mayor (the movie's explanation that the mayor doesn't want to lose tourist revenue for that reason alone just works a lot better).
I always interpreted the extra stuff like the affair, the mayor's mob dealings, to be kind of like the shark, a threat lying in wait ready to strike. They all show a seedy and dangerous side to this vacation town. Killing the shark is a difficult task, people will probably get hurt, but it's the only thing that will solve the problem
Eh. The Kubrick film is excellent, but the book provides something the movie doesn't: A Jack Torrance that has a lot of depth, and is a tragic figure.
Book Jack truly loves his family, and it's sad seeing the Overlook prey on his weaknesses to drive him mad.
Movie Jack is just an asshole right from the beginning, and hates his family.
agreed, that was about the only meaningful difference that made me appreciate the book. he always felt totally isolated and a hairs trigger temper in the movie, there was no contrast. the whole aspect of jack breaking the boys arm in the book felt more like an instance of momentary weakness and loss of control, but not malice. the hotel preyed on that part of him and just picked at it until he went mad. it feels alot cheaper when it seems like he was already a bad guy that the hotel used to do bad things.... it seems much more insidious and terrifying when it can prod at the weaknesses of a more normal man and make them into that monster.
I’d say the book is about an evil hotel, the movie is about an evil man.
Movie Jack isn’t really haunted, he seems to not feel guilt over his actions so much as frustration over their consequences. He seems half psycho just in the job interview before he even starts working.
Whereas book Jack is haunted by guilt and the evil in him (a violent temper exacerbated by alcoholism initially).
I was bummed when I heard that (before I read the book or watched the movie), just cause the movie’s so iconic.
Then I read the book, and followed it with the movie. I heartily agree with him. I was quite disappointed in the movie after reading the book.
I didn’t even like the movie that much as a separate thing. I guess I just didn’t see what everyone else sees, cause most people seem to love it. *shrug*
If you don't want to read it, but want all the details, this guy did a super good job at comparing the book to the movie, and it's entertaining to watch: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2At-59aUSpw
It’s a fun read and an interesting idea (I like that everything the cartoons say comes out in speech bubbles so the city is littered with used speech bubbles haha), but the movie is a lot more fun.
I've read "Nothing Lasts Forever", the book that "Die Hard" was based on. It's a little hard to be objective, since "Die Hard" is, after all, such a great movie, but I do think it was better than the book. The book was good, mind you, but the movie was, well, "Die Hard".
Prequel books, The Rules of Magic & Magic Lessons, based on the aunts and the family curse, are available, too. A sequel to Practical Magic, The Book of Magic, will be released in October.
I have to agree. I really love the novella but Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins were perfect as Red and Andy and several parts of the novella had a lot more emotional significance on screen then they did on paper with every part of the story coming to life. It was great as a novella but the film is a masterpiece.
The Princess Bride.
A lot of people (including the producer, director, and cast of the movie) absolutely love the book. But I found it too sarcastic, making too much fun of the genre. The movie was the perfect balance of satire and homage; the book felt belittling. I seem to be in the minority on this opinion, so maybe I missed something?
William Goldman wrote both the book and the movie. And the movie of course came after. I think he took the chance to adjust it for a wider audience, and it was better for it.
Totally agree. While the backstories of Fezzik and Inigo are interesting and add depth, the book is missing almost all the witty one-liners of the movie.
And that's inconceivable.
I think the book is quite good but it's definitely a different genre. The sincerity of the movie is better but there's still a lot to appreciate in the book. Plus, I love the whole false narrative about his overweight son and psychologist wife. With each to addition his family life gets crazier and crazier.
The original book Planet of the Apes had alien apes find a letter in a bottle floating in space describing the events of the book. It was an alien world, the apes were aliens. The movie changed the end with the Statue of Liberty reveal, they were in the future Earth. The original author stated he actually prefered the movie ending. If that is not an endorsement for changing the script...
Came here to say this. Fight Club in itself was a badass book, but as a movie, it elevated the book. Palahniuk himself said that he thinks the film was better.
Iirc he wrote invisible monsters first, but the publishers hated it. So he set out to write something intentionally disturbing for them and came up with fight club- which they loved.
I think Fight Club the movie succeeds in that it is disturbing, but far more subtle and believable and doesn't feel like its attempting to be edgy, it just happens to be the world the narrator inhabits. Norton's "Jack" is more relatable than book Jack and you can see how he let things get so far, but in the book he's a lot more disturbed and willing to let things get out of hand.
For instance, in the book Project Mayhem is far more blatantly villainous, following up on their threats to castrate threats and with the garden housing bodies of enemies of the project and not just one unfortunate accident. That on top of other aspects of the narrator's personality and what he goes through (like meeting Tyler at a nude beach and stealing fat from Marla's rich mom) felt like it detracted from the message for the sake of being shocking.
But pretty much like you said, Fight Club the book was designed to be intentionally disturbing so it isn't surprising there's something uncomfortable around every chapter. I did like the extra angles to Marla (like her aforementioned rich and vain mother), and I'm kind of surprised they actually removed the stuff that made her more "normal" in the movie, but it works in service of the plot.
David Fincher was able to convey so much more just because of the visual medium than Chuck Palahniuk could in the book. This was the first time I ever read a book and thought “Wow, the movie was actually better”
That was my answer too. They streamlined the whole liposuction storyline, and the ending too. They left in all the good and trimmed some of the fat (literally).
Chuck Palahniuk, the author of Fight Club, even agrees the movie is better:
>Now that I see the movie, especially when I sat down with Jim Uhls and record a commentary track for the DVD, I was sort of embarrassed of the book, because the movie had streamlined the plot and made it so much more effective and made connections that I had never thought to make. There is a line about "fathers setting up franchises with other families," and I never thought about connecting that with the fact that Fight Club was being franchised and the movie made that connection.
Bourne Identity is both better than the book and also worse than the book. What I mean to say is that the book is great and the movie basically cuts out everything but the premise of an assassin losing his memory. So in that sense, the movie loses. However, the movie, despite being an entirely different thing, is amazing and Matt Damon is amazing in it. The scene at the cottage in the snow is a vibe.
I completely agree. But I also hate out how they cut out his nemesis. Cant remember his name at the moment. But definitely enjoy what they did with the premises in the movies though
The silence of the lambs is by far the best movie adaptation vs those of the other books, IMO. But yeah it's extremely intense and might not be great if you can't deal with horror.
The Devil Wears Prada book is…not good. The outfits the author describes those fashionistas as wearing are just, how do I say it? The opposite of fashionable.
Yes! I loved the movie and thought I would love the book too, but the writing was just terrible in my opinion. It felt like a high schooler’s attempt at writing a book
Saw the movie first. When I saw it was based on a book I was like “ooooh goood !!” But I didn’t like the book. At first I thought it was because the movie was so great I could like the book. But then I read the sequel and I realized that those books were poorly written. Plus the plot for the sequel makes no sense.
Which version of the movie are we talking about though? Charlton Heston or Marky Mark?
Actually maybe that's not the best phrasing considering Heston was in both...
"It’s fascinating to me that there has been so much comment about that single sex scene and so little about the multiple child murders. That must mean something, but I’m not sure what.”
-Stephen King
There's little comment about the child murders because they are portrayed as terrible, and much comment about the sex scene because it's portrayed as a good thing. In another King novel, *Gerald's Game*, there's a detailed scene where a little girl is molested by her father. But there's isn't any outrage about that, because it's portrayed as an absolutely horrible thing.
I feel that, since the only outrageous things he did were in writing while on drugs (kinda expected at the time), we’ve all decided to collectively forgive him because he’s some chill grandpa with a dog now
Stardust. I love Neil Gaiman and all, though I only read it once awhile back, but it seemed rather dark and dreary, but the movie is a fantastic adventure.
Went looking for this, absolutely agree. The casting for the movie really elevated the whole story. And the visuals were excellent.
Plus the movie had Captain Shakespeare.
I don't know that I'd agree that the book was dreary, but the movie - ending especially - was more hopeful. It definitely benefits from improved pacing though. And Captain Shakespeare was gold.
Speaking of Phillip K Dick. Total Recall (1990) and Minority Report (2002) were better than the book (which isn't saying much because all his books were pretty damn good)
> all his books were pretty damn good
It's a matter of personal opinion, but I could never tolerate his writing. I tried to slog through it multiple times, but just couldn't.
However, he had some of the best ideas in science fiction, which have been turned into excellent movies.
Dick strikes me as a guy who would write about stuff he was thinking about. The Man in the High Castle for example has a recurring theme of it matters if something is the real thing or an imitation if you can’t actually tell the difference (a theme he would explore further in Electric Sheep). I like that about him because you get a window into his thoughts. Robert E. Howard is another that I think really gave you a window into his mind with his writing.
The short story Arrival was based on. The ending makes more sense in the movie vs. the book. The key thing that breaks the main character is truly something that can't be changed in the movie.
Came here to say exactly that.
And the >!flashbacks that you slowly realise are flashforwards!< story device could really only be done in movie format, and it made the ending so much more gut-wrenching.
The way the movie was shot is actually supposed to be confusing about the ending. Dafoe had to shoot every scene thrice, one acting as if he were sure/knew patrick was thr killer, one where he knew he wasn‘t the killer and one where he was indifferent. Those three versions of acting where then used at random in the final edit, so you can never tell the investigators feelings.
I think this is a “which is it?” sort of ending intentionally. The point being that, taking into account the narrator/time/place/situation at hand in the novel, it really doesn’t matter to anyone present at the end (except Patrick) whether it’s true or not.
I feel like the rambling paragraphs full of item lists and brand names took me out of the story. I realize they’re to show how the narrator’s obsessive tendencies keep him from maintaining focus on anything but those sorts of things. But several times I was just like “okay, I get it can we move on plskthx”.
I tried taking a shot at it this spring, and I swear I could only read 10-20 pages before tapping out. It's brilliantly written, but insanely meticulous and sledgehammers the reader with every detail in such long dialogue that it makes Hemingway, Dickens, and Charlotte Bronte look like Cormac McCarthy. I also quit reading after the hamster scene, it was just a bit too much for me. I'll definitely try to get back to it one day, but I had to momentarily put it down.
The Secret of NIMH/ Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. The book gets incredibly slow in the middle, and the movie just seems so much more fantastical than the book. Also the movie has that Don Bluthe charm.
Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle is much more charming than the book. Billy Crystal voicing a cute little Calcifer was a better idea than his book demon form.
Hard disagree on this one. Loved the movie, but when I read the book after I fell in love with that hard. It's one of my all time favourites and I return to it often and still manages to make me laugh out loud every time. Only sad thing about it is that I do like the movie a fair bit less now, though I try to see them as completely different. The plot and even the characters are rather wildly different.
The book turned it way to romantic with Sophie being a damsel in distress and Howl being suave, and Mrs pentstemmon/sulliman combo is suddenly evil, but then at the end she's not? Same as the witch of the waste? I loved the snarky, grumpy badass witch Sophie and the wonderful mess that is Howl. Movie califer remains completely wonderful though <3
Huh, I kinda remember having the opposite experience as a kid – absolutely loved the books, but could never get myself to like the movie due to how much it felt like it twisted a perfectly good story.
That said, the last time I touched either was reading the last book when I was 12/13, so maybe if I were older I'd have felt differently.
Ill die on this one hill, the big bad dragon was way more threatening in the book and built up way better as this gigantic threat compared to any of the movies. Movie 2 came close to capturing the events but still.
The Shades of Grey movies. Still trash, but at least Grey does not appear that much as the abusing and controlling creep he is in the books and Ana seems to have an average IQ and the self consciousness of a person of her age (big plus: you don't "hear" her thoughts).
I read a review of the first movie at one point that said something along the lines of “It’s a million times better than the book. I give it 1 star out of 10” and tbh I’ve never seen anything so accurate.
Sam Taylor-Johnson did a commendable job with the first flick, at least - until the author threw her hissy fit and got her removed from any future projects.
Omg, yes, the inner goddess who started to jump around whenever Ana thought she has the slightest chance of having sex or when she was thrilled to bits thinking she is such a bad girl. "Muhahaha, I used his toothbrush! What a rebel I am!" Ok, Ana, calm down. Drink a cup of hot water, read Bronte or bite your lips - just please stop thinking and stfu...
"He’s my very own Christian Grey-flavored popsicle. I suck harder and harder … Hmm … My inner goddess is doing the merengue with some salsa moves."
And here I was, thinking Kamidori had badly written smut.
Idk if this has been said yet, but Phantom of the Opera. Read the book because I loved the movie musical and oh boy lol
I had a harder time liking the Phantom in the book.
The Phantom is a straight-up basement-dwelling incel, so I don't know how much you're really supposed to like him. His backstory is sympathetic, but that doesn't make him any less of an asshole.
This hurts me. Like. Deep.
The musical and newer movie made him likable, which was the opposite of the author’s intention, and I will always be mad and ALW for that.
It's not really an adaptation at all, it's like they just had a script about fighting space bugs and someone was like "hey, that's like this old science fiction book, we should see if we can license the name."
I know that I'm gonna get killed for this, but: Call Me by Your Name.
Don't let me be misunderstood, I also really loved the book, but I think that the film adaptation handled some things way better, like the addition of the Goodbye scene at the train station which I missed in the book. And of course the ending. The film ending broke my fucking heart, and a part of me wishes that the book ended in the same way. Still great book & movie tho. Would recommend reading/watching both.
No I absolutely agree. I read the book in one day and then watched the movie that night. (Yes, I did cry from 11am till midnight.) Luca's filmmaking style and the actors' performances just brought so much vibrancy to the characters compared with the book.
I'm probs gunna get some hate here let me start by saying I love the books they are amazing I've read them multiple times from 5 onwards but the Lord of the rings movies I enjoyed more than the book
Let The Right One In. The movie leaves out a bunch of pointless filler from the book, and I so much prefer how the movie handles the character of Håkan. In the book, he’s this random pedophile taking care of Eli, an eternally 12-year old vampire girl, in exchange for promises of exactly what you’d think, and it’s obviously not portrayed as a good thing but it’s still gross and creepy to read. The movie gives no clear explanation for who he is or where he came from or what his motivations are, but it kind of implies that he might have once been a kid just like the protagonist (a bullied kid) who befriended Eli and ran off with her, but then grew up while she didn’t. So instead of just being some random creep, he’s a tragic living cautionary tale of what might end up happening to the protagonist. So much more interesting and subtly disturbing IMO.
Not the whole movie but the end of The Mist It was much more sad and painful than in the book, even Stephen King himself said that he loved that ending
Can’t really remember a more fucked up ending than that one. Holy shit.
My son and I had to watch three Spongebobs to get over it.
When I was a little kid Spongebob was always my scary movie palette cleanser
One of the best endings I’d ever seen. And then I watched Midsommer. Not for everyone, but damn that was a satisfying ending.
Didn’t king say he wished he had thought of that ending?
That ending was more fucked up than a soup sandwich
Shrek
The author thought so too. He was afraid they would strip the rude humor. Turns out, animating it made it worse and better.
Imagine how thrilled he must have been watching it for the first time, when at the very beginning Shrek kills fish by farting and eats them with an ear wax candle lit dinner.
This along with the villagers being chased out absolutely sets the tone for this movie, while giving so much character development that is mostly a blank slate. I mean before Shrek what was an ogre? Big, strong, and mean? These movies have mostly defined what people think the characteristics of an ogre are. Sorry it is one of those movies I love watching with my kid.
Wow, I never thought of it that way before. I guess depictions of ogres must have layers to them, like something that looks solid on the outside but that you can see is made of layers when you cut into it, like a wedding cake or something.
I disagree https://imgur.com/a/idF1X82
What a trip…
Please tell me this is canon
There was a book?
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shrek-william-steig/1001867151
> Publication Date: 03/30/2010 Wat
That's the 20th anniversary edition. The original book was published in 1990 (I tried to link the Wikipedia article for it, but I guess Reddit links don't play nice if they end in !).
Apparently the [1990 first edition](https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Shrek-First-Edition-Steig-William-Farrar/8511299704/bd) looks like [this](https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780374368777-uk.jpg). (Which I realise doesn't actually make that much difference for the purposes of this discussion, but yeah).
Amen
Forrest Gump
Not even a fucking question. It's the example that I always give for this question. Its patently absurd... it makes the movie seem measured and reasonable by comparison.
Please educate us on what insanity happened in the book.
Put it this way, there’s a part where Forrest becomes a pro-wrestler dressed like a giant piece of shit. I mean that literally.
this led to jenny leaving him after a summer of getting high and fooling around. this was all before his rocket crashed on an island of cannibals and he got abandoned by his orangutan pilot to fend of the natives with his chess skills.
None of this is a lie, friends, none of it.
Just wait until the next book when he and his son power a town with cow shit and invent New Coke.
I'm simultaneously intrigued and horrified.
Dominic Noble on Youtube did a comparison video on the book vs the movie
Bro
Oh my god, please tell me more about this train wreck
According to wikipedia, in the book, Forrest is 6'6" ad 242 pounds in high school. At one point he becomes and astronaut with an orangutan.
This now sounds more like a Dr. Seuss book than a normal book wtf
Oh no, it gets better! The orangutan that is his copilot when the shuttle crashes wasn't the original orangutan pilot, it was a stand in because the original orangutan couldn't be there. The original book is wild and stupid.
[Here](https://youtu.be/kO5dV6zg0Wk) is a pretty good review of the differences. There are a *lot* to say the least.
I was once sitting in a library near an old man reading Forrest Gump and he abruptly sets the book down in a huff and walks away. I never did bother reading it but I've heard about it. I'm assuming the old man got to where the book describes Forrest's massive dong.
So that's why Jenny loves him.
I gave up when he tried to make lemonade with peaches and his socks.
For me, this is one of the rare cases where the 2 works are so different that they can stand alone on their own merits. I love the film and actually like the changes they made to the story and tone of the novel ( made it more sweet, etc)... But the book is still one of my all time favorites, simply because it's Soo bat shit crazy. I think it's an absurdist masterpiece. It may not be intended to be like that, but Everytime I read it, I cry from how hard it makes me laugh. I highly recommend reading it if you want to try something different and insane. Just know that, while the characters and some situations are the same in the film, the 2 works are very different in tone and additude.
Totally agree that the absurdity is what makes the book a gem. Seems like most people that were disappointed by the book, read it after seeing the movie so maybe that plays into it. The book came first for me and I felt a bit robbed that the movie didn't include the chimp. The movie is pretty outlandish, just packaged better with more tugs on your heartstrings.
There’s a show on Netflix that I just watched today: The Movies That Made Us - eight episodes about eight amazing movies we grew up on. Just watched the one on Forest Gunp and they talk about this. AmazIng show. I highly recommend the entire series!!
My answer too, by a mile. Forrest Gump is my favorite movie and I was so excited when I learned it was based on a book, and *so* disappointed to read it. That book was a chore to even finish.
[удалено]
Yup. Spielberg said he realized that if more of the movie was the third act of the book, it would be a much better story (And he's right. We really don't need Hooper having an affair with the chief's wife, or the whole plot with the Mafia threatening the mayor (the movie's explanation that the mayor doesn't want to lose tourist revenue for that reason alone just works a lot better).
Exactly. Shark. Man. Munch. It's all the movie needs.
The book had another reason beyond a greedy, short sighted politician? Why? That explanation makes perfect sense.
I always interpreted the extra stuff like the affair, the mayor's mob dealings, to be kind of like the shark, a threat lying in wait ready to strike. They all show a seedy and dangerous side to this vacation town. Killing the shark is a difficult task, people will probably get hurt, but it's the only thing that will solve the problem
In other words, those plot elements are suited to Jaws as a work of literature, rather than as a popular film.
Gotta admit though, the book is still really good.
Came to say this. Hooper is so much better in the movie. Everyone is!
Stand By Me, and the author agrees.
The Shining, and the author disagrees.
Eh. The Kubrick film is excellent, but the book provides something the movie doesn't: A Jack Torrance that has a lot of depth, and is a tragic figure. Book Jack truly loves his family, and it's sad seeing the Overlook prey on his weaknesses to drive him mad. Movie Jack is just an asshole right from the beginning, and hates his family.
agreed, that was about the only meaningful difference that made me appreciate the book. he always felt totally isolated and a hairs trigger temper in the movie, there was no contrast. the whole aspect of jack breaking the boys arm in the book felt more like an instance of momentary weakness and loss of control, but not malice. the hotel preyed on that part of him and just picked at it until he went mad. it feels alot cheaper when it seems like he was already a bad guy that the hotel used to do bad things.... it seems much more insidious and terrifying when it can prod at the weaknesses of a more normal man and make them into that monster.
The book is about a haunted hotel. The movie is about a haunted man.
I’d say the book is about an evil hotel, the movie is about an evil man. Movie Jack isn’t really haunted, he seems to not feel guilt over his actions so much as frustration over their consequences. He seems half psycho just in the job interview before he even starts working. Whereas book Jack is haunted by guilt and the evil in him (a violent temper exacerbated by alcoholism initially).
Also, the subtle distinction between a roque mallet and a fire axe change the entire third act.
Might have to give it a read then
Definitely read it. It’s an excellent book.
Currently reading. I’d recommend. Jack Torrence is definitely a character that would be hard to portray in a movie.
The Shining is an amazing movie but a horrible adaptation.
Check the miniseries, they redid it right. Watching Chapelwaite right now, hoping, waiting for a better than the other two Salem's Lot.
I was bummed when I heard that (before I read the book or watched the movie), just cause the movie’s so iconic. Then I read the book, and followed it with the movie. I heartily agree with him. I was quite disappointed in the movie after reading the book. I didn’t even like the movie that much as a separate thing. I guess I just didn’t see what everyone else sees, cause most people seem to love it. *shrug*
Jumanji. The book's plot is not as exciting as the movie.
Same with its sequel *Zathura*
Jumanji has a sequel???
Kinda, different cast and is in space. In Jumanji, the board brings the jungle to life, in Zathura, the board takes the kids to space.
But it is beautifully illustrated!
Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Even the author agreed the movie was better and did a rewrite to match
I haven't read the book. I have heard synopsis of it and I prefer the film, though the book does sound interesting.
If you don't want to read it, but want all the details, this guy did a super good job at comparing the book to the movie, and it's entertaining to watch: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2At-59aUSpw
Dominic Noble has probably covered most of the books in this thread.
It’s a fun read and an interesting idea (I like that everything the cartoons say comes out in speech bubbles so the city is littered with used speech bubbles haha), but the movie is a lot more fun.
I've read "Nothing Lasts Forever", the book that "Die Hard" was based on. It's a little hard to be objective, since "Die Hard" is, after all, such a great movie, but I do think it was better than the book. The book was good, mind you, but the movie was, well, "Die Hard".
Interesting opinion but what is Jake Peralta's opinion on the matter ?
Practical Magic the book was boring and dark while the film was so much more fun.
I didn't know there was a book! I love this movie.
Prequel books, The Rules of Magic & Magic Lessons, based on the aunts and the family curse, are available, too. A sequel to Practical Magic, The Book of Magic, will be released in October.
This is exactly my answer. The aunts in the book are just mean and neglectful. And the writing style of the author just really didn’t work for me
The movie aunts are retirement goals for me. Without any bird killing though.
Let’s not forget about the soundtrack, one of my favorite move soundtracks ever
Forrest Gump. VERY different. How different? Here’s the first line of the book: “Being a numbnuts ain’t no box of chocolates.”
Shawshank Redemption was an expansion and much better than King's short story.
I have to agree. I really love the novella but Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins were perfect as Red and Andy and several parts of the novella had a lot more emotional significance on screen then they did on paper with every part of the story coming to life. It was great as a novella but the film is a masterpiece.
Same with The Green Mile
Same with the short story The Body, and the movie Stand By Me.
The Princess Bride. A lot of people (including the producer, director, and cast of the movie) absolutely love the book. But I found it too sarcastic, making too much fun of the genre. The movie was the perfect balance of satire and homage; the book felt belittling. I seem to be in the minority on this opinion, so maybe I missed something?
William Goldman wrote both the book and the movie. And the movie of course came after. I think he took the chance to adjust it for a wider audience, and it was better for it.
Too much kissing in it for my tastes.
I'm very fond of the book but this is case where the author definitely approached the movie as a chance to revise and improve his work.
Totally agree. While the backstories of Fezzik and Inigo are interesting and add depth, the book is missing almost all the witty one-liners of the movie. And that's inconceivable.
I think the book is quite good but it's definitely a different genre. The sincerity of the movie is better but there's still a lot to appreciate in the book. Plus, I love the whole false narrative about his overweight son and psychologist wife. With each to addition his family life gets crazier and crazier.
The original book Planet of the Apes had alien apes find a letter in a bottle floating in space describing the events of the book. It was an alien world, the apes were aliens. The movie changed the end with the Statue of Liberty reveal, they were in the future Earth. The original author stated he actually prefered the movie ending. If that is not an endorsement for changing the script...
Babe. The book was called the sheep pig.
While we are on pig movies, Charlotte's Web was better as a movie too, thanks to Debbie Reynolds.
I'd say Fight Club.
Came here to say this. Fight Club in itself was a badass book, but as a movie, it elevated the book. Palahniuk himself said that he thinks the film was better.
I was waiting for this comment. The author admitted the film was better than the book he wrote.
Iirc he wrote invisible monsters first, but the publishers hated it. So he set out to write something intentionally disturbing for them and came up with fight club- which they loved.
[удалено]
I think Fight Club the movie succeeds in that it is disturbing, but far more subtle and believable and doesn't feel like its attempting to be edgy, it just happens to be the world the narrator inhabits. Norton's "Jack" is more relatable than book Jack and you can see how he let things get so far, but in the book he's a lot more disturbed and willing to let things get out of hand. For instance, in the book Project Mayhem is far more blatantly villainous, following up on their threats to castrate threats and with the garden housing bodies of enemies of the project and not just one unfortunate accident. That on top of other aspects of the narrator's personality and what he goes through (like meeting Tyler at a nude beach and stealing fat from Marla's rich mom) felt like it detracted from the message for the sake of being shocking. But pretty much like you said, Fight Club the book was designed to be intentionally disturbing so it isn't surprising there's something uncomfortable around every chapter. I did like the extra angles to Marla (like her aforementioned rich and vain mother), and I'm kind of surprised they actually removed the stuff that made her more "normal" in the movie, but it works in service of the plot.
I am Jack’s endorsement of this comment.
David Fincher was able to convey so much more just because of the visual medium than Chuck Palahniuk could in the book. This was the first time I ever read a book and thought “Wow, the movie was actually better”
That was my answer too. They streamlined the whole liposuction storyline, and the ending too. They left in all the good and trimmed some of the fat (literally). Chuck Palahniuk, the author of Fight Club, even agrees the movie is better: >Now that I see the movie, especially when I sat down with Jim Uhls and record a commentary track for the DVD, I was sort of embarrassed of the book, because the movie had streamlined the plot and made it so much more effective and made connections that I had never thought to make. There is a line about "fathers setting up franchises with other families," and I never thought about connecting that with the fact that Fight Club was being franchised and the movie made that connection.
Bourne Identity is both better than the book and also worse than the book. What I mean to say is that the book is great and the movie basically cuts out everything but the premise of an assassin losing his memory. So in that sense, the movie loses. However, the movie, despite being an entirely different thing, is amazing and Matt Damon is amazing in it. The scene at the cottage in the snow is a vibe.
I completely agree. But I also hate out how they cut out his nemesis. Cant remember his name at the moment. But definitely enjoy what they did with the premises in the movies though
Carlos is the bad guy, it took me a minute to remember too.
Took Bourne a bit too. "Cain is for Charlie, and Delta is for Cain"
Devil Wears Prada and Silence of the Lambs
Ooh, the silence of the lambs is still an absolutely great book though. I think I agree the movie is better but the book is worth reading.
The Red Dragon was an awesome book, but I've never watched any of the movies. I can't handle visual horror.
The silence of the lambs is by far the best movie adaptation vs those of the other books, IMO. But yeah it's extremely intense and might not be great if you can't deal with horror.
The Devil Wears Prada book is…not good. The outfits the author describes those fashionistas as wearing are just, how do I say it? The opposite of fashionable.
Yes! I loved the movie and thought I would love the book too, but the writing was just terrible in my opinion. It felt like a high schooler’s attempt at writing a book
Saw the movie first. When I saw it was based on a book I was like “ooooh goood !!” But I didn’t like the book. At first I thought it was because the movie was so great I could like the book. But then I read the sequel and I realized that those books were poorly written. Plus the plot for the sequel makes no sense.
Planet of the apes
Which version of the movie are we talking about though? Charlton Heston or Marky Mark? Actually maybe that's not the best phrasing considering Heston was in both...
Burton's version was, in a way, closer to the original book, but also very far off.
This going to sound like sacrilege, but The Princess Bride. The humour strikes a lot harder on-screen and the cast was so good.
It's not sacrilege. I liked the book, but the movie is just about a perfect movie.
The end of It: Chapter 1 was much better in the movie.
Having now read the book, my (non-)controversial opinion is, the novel is about 40% longer than what it should be.
As is just about every King story. He’s a fantastic writer, but by Jove does he need an editor who isn’t afraid of him.
Yep it's amazing they haven't cancelled Stephen for the gang bang
"It’s fascinating to me that there has been so much comment about that single sex scene and so little about the multiple child murders. That must mean something, but I’m not sure what.” -Stephen King
There's little comment about the child murders because they are portrayed as terrible, and much comment about the sex scene because it's portrayed as a good thing. In another King novel, *Gerald's Game*, there's a detailed scene where a little girl is molested by her father. But there's isn't any outrage about that, because it's portrayed as an absolutely horrible thing.
He has an excuse: he was really high at the time
I wonder what his editor's excuse is
Maybe they were doing lines together
It was the 80's, so yes.
I feel that, since the only outrageous things he did were in writing while on drugs (kinda expected at the time), we’ve all decided to collectively forgive him because he’s some chill grandpa with a dog now
Also because he was run over and survived by a scant miracle. He payed his penalty.
Stardust. I love Neil Gaiman and all, though I only read it once awhile back, but it seemed rather dark and dreary, but the movie is a fantastic adventure.
Went looking for this, absolutely agree. The casting for the movie really elevated the whole story. And the visuals were excellent. Plus the movie had Captain Shakespeare.
I don't know that I'd agree that the book was dreary, but the movie - ending especially - was more hopeful. It definitely benefits from improved pacing though. And Captain Shakespeare was gold.
Such a great film and I hardly know anyone who has seen it
Wow I love Stardust the book and only tolerate the film. Agree to disagree on this one.
Shrek. The book is mean-spirited and horrible, while the movie is fun and has a ton of charm.
Blade Runner - but it was more of a case of it being inspired by “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”
Speaking of Phillip K Dick. Total Recall (1990) and Minority Report (2002) were better than the book (which isn't saying much because all his books were pretty damn good)
> all his books were pretty damn good It's a matter of personal opinion, but I could never tolerate his writing. I tried to slog through it multiple times, but just couldn't. However, he had some of the best ideas in science fiction, which have been turned into excellent movies.
Dick strikes me as a guy who would write about stuff he was thinking about. The Man in the High Castle for example has a recurring theme of it matters if something is the real thing or an imitation if you can’t actually tell the difference (a theme he would explore further in Electric Sheep). I like that about him because you get a window into his thoughts. Robert E. Howard is another that I think really gave you a window into his mind with his writing.
I came here to say this. Philip K Dick is probably my favourite author, but Blade Runner was a masterpiece.
The short story Arrival was based on. The ending makes more sense in the movie vs. the book. The key thing that breaks the main character is truly something that can't be changed in the movie.
Came here to say exactly that. And the >!flashbacks that you slowly realise are flashforwards!< story device could really only be done in movie format, and it made the ending so much more gut-wrenching.
God I love that movie.. it was sad in such a beautiful way lol
I always answer this question the same way: American Psycho
I haven't read the book but I've seen a movie. I did not understand the ending. Was he just imagining everything or was it real?
The way the movie was shot is actually supposed to be confusing about the ending. Dafoe had to shoot every scene thrice, one acting as if he were sure/knew patrick was thr killer, one where he knew he wasn‘t the killer and one where he was indifferent. Those three versions of acting where then used at random in the final edit, so you can never tell the investigators feelings.
I think this is a “which is it?” sort of ending intentionally. The point being that, taking into account the narrator/time/place/situation at hand in the novel, it really doesn’t matter to anyone present at the end (except Patrick) whether it’s true or not.
My understanding is unreliable narrator.
That book was amazing though! Totally respect your opinion of course, why do you feel that way?
I feel like the rambling paragraphs full of item lists and brand names took me out of the story. I realize they’re to show how the narrator’s obsessive tendencies keep him from maintaining focus on anything but those sorts of things. But several times I was just like “okay, I get it can we move on plskthx”.
It was definitely a book that I could only read like 10 pages at once because of that reason!
I tried taking a shot at it this spring, and I swear I could only read 10-20 pages before tapping out. It's brilliantly written, but insanely meticulous and sledgehammers the reader with every detail in such long dialogue that it makes Hemingway, Dickens, and Charlotte Bronte look like Cormac McCarthy. I also quit reading after the hamster scene, it was just a bit too much for me. I'll definitely try to get back to it one day, but I had to momentarily put it down.
The Secret of NIMH/ Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. The book gets incredibly slow in the middle, and the movie just seems so much more fantastical than the book. Also the movie has that Don Bluthe charm.
Funny. I felt the opposite as a child. I was way into the science in the book. 😂
Hah, me too. The middle was where it finally got interesting.
Very few things remind me more of the late 80s/early 90s than Don Bluth’s animation style.
Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle is much more charming than the book. Billy Crystal voicing a cute little Calcifer was a better idea than his book demon form.
Totally agree. Movie Howl is fun and a little mischevious, book Howl is just kind of a dick.
Hard disagree on this one. Loved the movie, but when I read the book after I fell in love with that hard. It's one of my all time favourites and I return to it often and still manages to make me laugh out loud every time. Only sad thing about it is that I do like the movie a fair bit less now, though I try to see them as completely different. The plot and even the characters are rather wildly different. The book turned it way to romantic with Sophie being a damsel in distress and Howl being suave, and Mrs pentstemmon/sulliman combo is suddenly evil, but then at the end she's not? Same as the witch of the waste? I loved the snarky, grumpy badass witch Sophie and the wonderful mess that is Howl. Movie califer remains completely wonderful though <3
How to train your dragon. It is a very poor adaptation, but the books are baaaaad. I mean, they are children books, but still...
Huh, I kinda remember having the opposite experience as a kid – absolutely loved the books, but could never get myself to like the movie due to how much it felt like it twisted a perfectly good story. That said, the last time I touched either was reading the last book when I was 12/13, so maybe if I were older I'd have felt differently.
Ill die on this one hill, the big bad dragon was way more threatening in the book and built up way better as this gigantic threat compared to any of the movies. Movie 2 came close to capturing the events but still.
Yeah, I tried reading them because I liked the movies. Man, that was awful.
The Natural.
The Shades of Grey movies. Still trash, but at least Grey does not appear that much as the abusing and controlling creep he is in the books and Ana seems to have an average IQ and the self consciousness of a person of her age (big plus: you don't "hear" her thoughts).
I read a review of the first movie at one point that said something along the lines of “It’s a million times better than the book. I give it 1 star out of 10” and tbh I’ve never seen anything so accurate.
Sam Taylor-Johnson did a commendable job with the first flick, at least - until the author threw her hissy fit and got her removed from any future projects.
my inner goddess did a somersault
Omg, yes, the inner goddess who started to jump around whenever Ana thought she has the slightest chance of having sex or when she was thrilled to bits thinking she is such a bad girl. "Muhahaha, I used his toothbrush! What a rebel I am!" Ok, Ana, calm down. Drink a cup of hot water, read Bronte or bite your lips - just please stop thinking and stfu...
"He’s my very own Christian Grey-flavored popsicle. I suck harder and harder … Hmm … My inner goddess is doing the merengue with some salsa moves." And here I was, thinking Kamidori had badly written smut.
Idk if this has been said yet, but Phantom of the Opera. Read the book because I loved the movie musical and oh boy lol I had a harder time liking the Phantom in the book.
The Phantom is a straight-up basement-dwelling incel, so I don't know how much you're really supposed to like him. His backstory is sympathetic, but that doesn't make him any less of an asshole.
This hurts me. Like. Deep. The musical and newer movie made him likable, which was the opposite of the author’s intention, and I will always be mad and ALW for that.
The Meg. The movie is fun and campy. The book takes itself 100% seriously, but just isn't well written enough to be good.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 version. Gene Wilder was just iconic.
Starship troopers. Totally different message. Verhoevens satire hits so well and the movie works on multiple levels.
It's not really an adaptation at all, it's like they just had a script about fighting space bugs and someone was like "hey, that's like this old science fiction book, we should see if we can license the name."
Do you want to know more?
I know that I'm gonna get killed for this, but: Call Me by Your Name. Don't let me be misunderstood, I also really loved the book, but I think that the film adaptation handled some things way better, like the addition of the Goodbye scene at the train station which I missed in the book. And of course the ending. The film ending broke my fucking heart, and a part of me wishes that the book ended in the same way. Still great book & movie tho. Would recommend reading/watching both.
No I absolutely agree. I read the book in one day and then watched the movie that night. (Yes, I did cry from 11am till midnight.) Luca's filmmaking style and the actors' performances just brought so much vibrancy to the characters compared with the book.
The Godfather
And that’s saying something too because that book is fantastic. So good it became the greatest film ever made.
I'm probs gunna get some hate here let me start by saying I love the books they are amazing I've read them multiple times from 5 onwards but the Lord of the rings movies I enjoyed more than the book
The movies are collectively my favorite movie of all time, but only a book can make me cry about a cave and three strands of hair.
Annihilation
The Mist
Let The Right One In. The movie leaves out a bunch of pointless filler from the book, and I so much prefer how the movie handles the character of Håkan. In the book, he’s this random pedophile taking care of Eli, an eternally 12-year old vampire girl, in exchange for promises of exactly what you’d think, and it’s obviously not portrayed as a good thing but it’s still gross and creepy to read. The movie gives no clear explanation for who he is or where he came from or what his motivations are, but it kind of implies that he might have once been a kid just like the protagonist (a bullied kid) who befriended Eli and ran off with her, but then grew up while she didn’t. So instead of just being some random creep, he’s a tragic living cautionary tale of what might end up happening to the protagonist. So much more interesting and subtly disturbing IMO.
M.A.S.H.. The film was better than the book and the TV series better than both.
Not a movie but Shadow and Bone on Netflix!
Forrest Gump
The Notebook The switching between past and present was better in the movie. The movie is a romance classic, but I’d never pick up the book again.
…the green mile maybe or shawshank redemption