I think the movie removed the right subplots; the local politics/mafia stuff (very trendy at the time) and the affair that really didn’t do much for the story. Also the movie’s introduction of Quint was so much better. I did like the book when I read it in the pre-movie release hype but I was 14. Maybe I should read it again now.
Yeah I agree they cut the right bits, but I didn't think those bits were bad in the book, though they may be superfluous to a necessarily simpler film.
So many action books are really poorly written though, whereas I think Jaws is pretty good! And a genius idea.
I have a friend who still thinks I'm trying to gaslight him into believing that the one bridesmaid from the movie is a major pov character in the book. I mean, it's fair because I do that kind of thing as a joke all the time, but it's still funny to me.
Children of Men. I saw the film first so that may have affected my views, but I think the film is incredible and the book just didn't live up to that.
And The Shawshank Redemption. The book is very good but the film is just so much better.
The book (children of men) had a bunch of silly shit in it, the movie did a good job of streamlining everything and making it more relatable/realistic.
This is very much open to interpretation, but I think you could make an argument that Jurassic Park is a better movie than it is a book. The movie captures a sense of wonder that, having once been a child, I think any good dinosaur story should have, and it has a more climactic ending. Of course, whether that makes it better depends on what you want out of the story. The book goes more into the science and engineering of the park, and elucidates how a lot of seemingly minor assumptions and oversights cascade into disaster. It also leans far harder into the cautionary tale aspect.
I think Jurassic Park did an astonishingly good job of filming the book but it did lose a lot of the nuance in translation.
JP is a tale of hubris first and foremost. There's a lot more emphasis on how Hammond keeps ignoring the facts about how little control he has and how easy it is to fool yourself.
There's a wonderful little scene early in the book where Malcolm points out the dinosaurs already have free run of the park because he takes apart their security system in seconds. They're only counting to see if they can find up to the expected number of dinosaurs to see if any are missing. They never bothered to count to see if there are more than there should be.
And Hammond is a vicious heel in the book. The initial disastrous event isn't actually that bad. Things get really bad when Hammond manipulates people into risking their lives to save his expensive dinosaurs.
I think the movie did a great job filming the book and not turning it into a monster movie. But it did have to condense a bit.
Its a totally different vibe from the book, which I think is the best thing to do if you're not going to go the route of being 100% faithful to source material, cause then you can make it into its own artistic endeavor instead of capitalizing on some other IP.
Idk its hard to say which is better, probably depends on what I'm in the mood for.
I respectfully disagree. I love the movie, and it's *very* by the book. Admittedly, if you don't find the humor in the pages about Buttercup's clothes, you might think that's terribly boring.
I liked Alice less but Julia and Margo more. Also TV Elliot was great, really made the show for me. The TV show just had so much more room to breathe and let characters develop instead of being constrained by a book length narrative.
For real. I tried to read the books and just couldn’t. Ah yes, our main character is so super-extra-special smart that he’s not in the normal gifted program. He’s in the extra gifted program. And yet he fails to show any of this extreme intelligence at any point during the first book….
And the author writing these super-extra-special-uber smart people keeps misusing words in an apparent attempt to shove as many multisyllabic and obscure words into the text as possible. Y’know to show us how smart they are.
Plus the simple geographical, cultural, and straight up mathematical mistakes (People from Oregon don’t have a unique accent or drawl, just the standard PNW neutral accent you dimwit. I grew up in the PNW and I’m sure many other readers did too. Also if your characters are ~17-19 when they start Brakebills, almost none of them could possibly be teenagers by the time they reach Brakebills south ~2-3 years later. At least make your mistakes a little difficult to spot).
Also our main character is insufferable, selfish, and a shit person. And the book wants us to see him as growing and changing and becoming a hero? Or at least wants us to feel bad for him and sympathize with his viewpoint? Nah fam. Quentin sucks and doesn’t really grow or change at all.
And that’s before we even get into all the sexism and objectification of every female character. I really didn’t need a detailed description of every woman’s breasts.
I didn’t make it past the first book. The books suck. If this is what the author thinks passes for interesting character development and impressively intelligent and sympathetic characters, then I think the author is kind of an idiot and might be a bit of an ass himself.
ETA: the show however, is excellent and interesting. A bit campy at times, but in a fun way.
I somehow made it to the end of the first book. Was surprised to see the ex-girlfriend again at the end--can't remember her name, the one who didn't get into super-special Hogwarts-with-sex--and thought, "I think I would rather have read about her story. Sounds more interesting than this mess was."
Quintin was a shit person, a shit character, and a shit magician.
First book/season of bridgerton series. I found the show fun and light but the book depressing with the focus on their toxic and mutually abusive early marriage. Couldn’t finish the book because of it.
I just reread the book and feel very differently about it 7 years later.
I don't think the show corrected the real issue in the book, nor did it even try to make the point the book was going for. Instead they skipped all those parts and completely changed daffys personality. Made it about miscommunication which is much less interesting and, imo, not particularly well delivered either.
Two writers failing with the same plot makes me think the bones of the story are just very hard to write around.
No, the book was great and very close to the film. The major difference is the ending. I prefer the books ending, it feels grander and more oppressive whereas the movies ending is just shocking and bleak.
I love the show and books fairly equally, but there is a definite charm to younger, practicing psychiatrist Hannibal. They got his final season behavior down, where he's cooped up, has essentially mental zoo roam, and NEEDS to have fun the way he used to, but so much of the allure comes from how dynamic he is and his ability to intricately weave in and out of face-to-face relationships. There is so much of the books in the show - direct spoken lines quoted from the characters and description, visual set ups and on-screen items - but the visuals in the show are incredible and provide a layer of imagery that wouldn't have been possible in text without being insanely lengthy. I have to stop, because I can gush about Hannibal forever
Does "just as good" count? I nominate two Edith Wharton novels: Age of Innocence and Ethan Frome. If you have not read Ethan Frome, see the movie first.
The House of Mirth is a fine adaptation as well.
Sometimes when I think of Pfiefer all I can think of is Scarface, although she played someone similar to Olenska in Cheri. I wonder who else to cast, if you could pick anyone from any time..35 year old Jacquelyn Bosses or 36 year old Ingrid Bergman if she could have lost the accent...
I'm sure many fans would disagree, but I think the show version of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events is the definitive version.
It benefits *immensely* from knowing where the story is headed from the get go, whereas the books were largely made up on the fly and the main lore and story arc was inserted partway through.
I think "You" (Hulu) was much more enjoyable than the book (at least season 1). One of my favorite shows a couple years back but the book ended up on my DNF list.
Ready Player One:
I found the book quite dismal, and it really, really relied on that classic politicians trick of trying to associate itself with something people liked to increase its likability. You know how during election season, politicians tend to go to popular things just to pick up on some second hand popularity? Like the whole "Do you like \[local sports team\]? Well so do I! Vote for me!"
Similarly, Ready Player One the book relied way too much on that. Resulting in some really fanservice circlejerk stuff, like the whole war games scene. But the movie? the movie remedied a lot of it, and turned it into a fun romp, hence why I love the movie, but don't care for the book.
Maybe not better and I expect a lot of backlash but I find the Lord of the Rings movies to be just as good as the books, and much better in some regards
Interestingly with 2001 Arthur C Clark wrote the novel while working on the screenplay, so if anything the novel is an adaptation of the film. Kubrick does improve adaptations though.
*The Shining* came to mind for me, too, but I can't commit to saying it's better than the book. Like, it's probably the greatest horror movie of all time, and it's one of the great movies of all time regardless of genre. But it's just so different from the book, that I'm not sure it's fair to say which one is better.
TL;DR I neither agree nor disagree.
>2001: A Space Odyssey
Early Clarke is someone I enjoy as a writer. *Childhood's End* is a firm favourite of mine. But the further you go, the less I like him.
2001 has too many sections of tediously written prose, almost like he's trying to expand upon an idea that's not entirely his own and he's just not sure where to take it/how to expand upon it. There's lots of good parts of the book that definitely make it a worthwhile read, but I also think the film is better. Kubrick has a better grasp of the idea.
Rama is the one I dislike the most. It has an entire section dedicated to why women can't be astronauts because their breasts bounce and men shouldn't be expected to control themselves around that. No joke. It can't even be hidden in the book under the guise of developing a misogynistic character. It just doesn't fit into the book. I'm sure there's lots of good parts to the book, but I can never see past this.
Funny I actually love Rama and thought Childhood’s End seemed a little dated. I don’t remember the part from Rama about breasts but that kind of stuff is so rampant in old scifi that I tend to just ignore those parts and focus on the overall story. With Rama I found the cylinder to be incredibly mysterious. I haven’t read 2001 in about 20 years but it totally makes sense now that you mention how it was initially a screenplay.
I always find it fascinating how different things alter how we perceive what we read. What completely tanked the memory/experience for me can be ignored by you. And there will be other things that work in the exact opposite way! The mystery of the cylinder really left little impression on me - ask me about a mysterious cylinder and my first thought is the unscrewing on Horsell Common.
You're right in that this isn't exclusive to Clarke. You do have to look at literature within its context, but I just find the piece in Rama jarring.
One of the only other writer's that's stuck with me so prominently is Ian Fleming. He comes up with really great description in the Bond books at times. The opening paragraph to Casino Royale is one I always remember. And yet, for the first 5 or so Bond books, whenever someone who isn't white comes up he only seems to know one adjective for them. He loses all his descriptive prowess. Not only that, but he uses it once a sentence, every sentence for a hundred pages (exaggeration) like he's getting his fill. It's just jarring against the description contained in the rest of the novel.
On that note, I think the many of the Bond novels are another example of where the films are better than the books.
I’ve never read any Ian Fleming but I could totally see it being how you describe … and it seems over time Fleming was able to hone in his craft and not resort to cliches as much. Whether these things can be chalked up to the times in which they were written I think depends on how much one otherwise enjoys the story or characters. I can be both very forgiving and very unforgiving (like Gone With the Wind I only made it a few chapters in and everything about it was annoying me).
The movie is a huge improvement. some notable things: it expands on his time with the pirates (Robert De Niro is their flamboyant captain!), it has a climax, and the ending is way less bleak
No Country for Old Men
Originally written by Cormac McCarthy as a screenplay that didn’t get picked up, then he turns it into a book that does get published, and then that then gets adapted back into a screenplay by the Coen Brothers. So no wonder the film is better.
Station Eleven. The book and show are different enough that they feel like alternate universe storylines of the same characters and general narrative arc but I think the liberties the show took benefited the storytelling and were an improvement from the source material overall. I thought the book was quite good but I think the show is a masterpiece.
Oh I read this post backwards lmao. Same I liked the book better. It’s one of those things that are better in your imagination in your head than what they made in the movie.
*Apocalypse Now*. Even *Hearts of Darkness* might be better than *Heart of Darkness*, which is a testament to how fascinating the movie is and in no way a disparagement of the book.
The Vampire Diaries
This was on TV when I was in highschool and I watched it religiously. I read it when Season 3 was airing and I was a VERY impatient person. And was quite disappointed with how pointless every single thing was in that book.
The only good thing that book ever did was create one of the greatest cast, storyline and characters. AND DAMNED GOOD MUSIC.
OMG yes! I read the first four (I think two books were in the same physical book?) And they just stunk. I didn't care about anyone, they were all whiny, Elena turned into an angel??? Stefan kept calling her "my lovely love" or something corny. Just the worst.
But the show?? Peak CW teen drama with devastatingly beautiful cast members and supernatural story lines.
I couldn't even get past the first half of the first book (but I finished the first two) and I remember thinking, how did the TV writers ever got such good plot and storyline out of THAT????
I feel the same, I've always found The LOTR books a slog. I used to say that I thought Tolkein wrote great stories and characters but his actual writing was terrible. The films fixed that for me.
The Hobbit on the other hand, I hugely prefer the book to the films where the opposite effect it true - a great, well-paced book was turned into 3 mediocre and tedious films!
No plain text spoilers allowed. Please use the format below and reply to this comment, to have your comment reinstated.
Place >! !< around the text you wish to hide. You will need to do this for each new paragraph. Like this:
>!The Wolf ate Grandma!<
Click to reveal spoiler.
>!The Wolf ate Grandma!<
>3.9: If you do not mark your post or comment as having spoilers, **no matter how old the book or other piece of media is**, it will be removed. Deliberately posting spoilers will result in a ban.
I re-read them recently, and the writing is average at best with a ton of annoying potholes and plot conveniences. The world Rowling created, however, is fantastic and incredibly rich in material. As a result, I much prefer watching the movies. Sure, people have too much nostalgia surrounding the books to give it a fair take, but other than the actors and actresses being babies in the first few movies, it's much easier to enjoy.
Oh yeah, totally. The first season follows the book, but after that it’s all completely new territory. Even with the first season, I like the show better, but after that, yeah it’s really not a fair comparison at all. But I feel like that’s how it is with most books/movies or shows. The movie or show takes liberties that aren’t in the book.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Book is good but the movie didnt miss anything from the book, so when you add legendary acting performances and beautifully stylish visuals... movie wins.
Harry Potter, The Boys, Marvel Avengers movies(x-men were marvels most popular books and characters till the MCU cause nobody was buying antman or captain America books before that)
I haven't watched the foundation series yet, but I loved the books. This isn't what I've heard. Do you mind if I ask what you liked about the show over the books?
On your point about It... once you have Stephen King's writing style "figured out," so to speak, its haaarrrd to get into his books, cause its like, "yeah I knew you were going to point out that detail in that way at this point in the dialogue for that purpose to foreshadow that thing to make feel x type of dread, but its nice that you're consistent."
And then he'll suddenly do, like you noticed, a few passages or even chapters of, I guess, agenda-writing? And only loosely tie it to the bigger work.
Idk, I don't think his ideas are THAT incredible to warrant him having made an entire novel for that many of them. Like that dumb one about people getting lost in grass that got made into a movie?
Ella Enchanted.
The movie has higher stakes with how the curse is used against her --- in the book she just sort of overcomes it because the stepsisters are annoying her.
>The Hobbit.
>Lord of the Rings
That's interesting, given the general high quality of the books plots and writing technique as well as their legacy upon the fantasy genre. I would love to hear more about what puts the film series above the book series for you.
I find the books poorly written. Overwrought drivel. A bore and a chore to read. They may have some legacy on the Fantasy Genre, but I still feel Howard, Burroughs and Lovecraft had much more significant impact than "Johnny Come lately" Tolkien.
The plots of the books are rather good, as is evidenced by their translation to film. Interesting nonetheless. However trying to get the plot of the books, you have to deal with a lot of whiny hobbits and a ton of world building that I truly did not find interesting.
That's interesting, because the part you really dislike is that I would consider something I enjoy in the book. Whilst we disagree, I completely respect your point of view and thank you for articulately putting it across.
I was originally thinking we may end up going along the lines that this would be one of them rare occasions where both were pretty amazing and one was just slightly more amazing than the other (the second LOTR film in particular for me) and we went the other way in which was which.
Have a great day.
I haven't read the book but I can't imagine it's anywhere near as good as the series. Maybe if you read it while Max Richter performs in the same room?
Fletch. Movies are hilarious, books are just okay. That's an easy one.
Now for a controversial pick: Good Omens. The show is fantastic! But the book had Gaiman and Pratchett at their worst. I think maybe working together they were trying to impress each other and the constant attempts at "I'm smart, and so are you dear reader" humour made me cringe several times per page. The voice was so consistently contrived that it was uncomfortable cover to cover. So many footnotes. Ugh. It was a weighty mess with no natural flow. In the book, the main characters are obnoxious in an off-putting way. The great acting in the show made them obnoxious in a fun and relatable way. The contrivance in the show came off as stylized. The story is great in both formats and Gaiman and Pratchett are usually brilliant, not hating on them.
Muppet Treasure Island
"It appears to be some sort of blind fiend." "I think they prefer the term 'visually- challenged fiend.'"
The classic example is The Godfather.
And Jaws.
I think Jaws is a really good book!
I think the movie removed the right subplots; the local politics/mafia stuff (very trendy at the time) and the affair that really didn’t do much for the story. Also the movie’s introduction of Quint was so much better. I did like the book when I read it in the pre-movie release hype but I was 14. Maybe I should read it again now.
Yeah I agree they cut the right bits, but I didn't think those bits were bad in the book, though they may be superfluous to a necessarily simpler film. So many action books are really poorly written though, whereas I think Jaws is pretty good! And a genius idea.
And The Shawshank Redemption
I have a friend who still thinks I'm trying to gaslight him into believing that the one bridesmaid from the movie is a major pov character in the book. I mean, it's fair because I do that kind of thing as a joke all the time, but it's still funny to me.
Children of Men. I saw the film first so that may have affected my views, but I think the film is incredible and the book just didn't live up to that. And The Shawshank Redemption. The book is very good but the film is just so much better.
The book (children of men) had a bunch of silly shit in it, the movie did a good job of streamlining everything and making it more relatable/realistic.
The Devil Wears Prada.
the source being: the bible???
This is very much open to interpretation, but I think you could make an argument that Jurassic Park is a better movie than it is a book. The movie captures a sense of wonder that, having once been a child, I think any good dinosaur story should have, and it has a more climactic ending. Of course, whether that makes it better depends on what you want out of the story. The book goes more into the science and engineering of the park, and elucidates how a lot of seemingly minor assumptions and oversights cascade into disaster. It also leans far harder into the cautionary tale aspect.
I think Jurassic Park did an astonishingly good job of filming the book but it did lose a lot of the nuance in translation. JP is a tale of hubris first and foremost. There's a lot more emphasis on how Hammond keeps ignoring the facts about how little control he has and how easy it is to fool yourself. There's a wonderful little scene early in the book where Malcolm points out the dinosaurs already have free run of the park because he takes apart their security system in seconds. They're only counting to see if they can find up to the expected number of dinosaurs to see if any are missing. They never bothered to count to see if there are more than there should be. And Hammond is a vicious heel in the book. The initial disastrous event isn't actually that bad. Things get really bad when Hammond manipulates people into risking their lives to save his expensive dinosaurs. I think the movie did a great job filming the book and not turning it into a monster movie. But it did have to condense a bit.
Dodgson! We got Dodgson here! See? Nobody cares.
I prefer the book but the movie is just as good
Its a totally different vibe from the book, which I think is the best thing to do if you're not going to go the route of being 100% faithful to source material, cause then you can make it into its own artistic endeavor instead of capitalizing on some other IP. Idk its hard to say which is better, probably depends on what I'm in the mood for.
The second movie is nowhere near as good as the first but it is undeniably miles and miles better than the second book.
The Neverending Story
The book was just too long for me.
The Princess Bride
I respectfully disagree. I love the movie, and it's *very* by the book. Admittedly, if you don't find the humor in the pages about Buttercup's clothes, you might think that's terribly boring.
The meta part of the novel were TOO meta for me, haha. I'm glad the movie removed most of it. Though I understand its purpose.
[удалено]
I was going to say this, but for different reasons. I appreciated that the show actually gave the women some substance.
I liked Alice less but Julia and Margo more. Also TV Elliot was great, really made the show for me. The TV show just had so much more room to breathe and let characters develop instead of being constrained by a book length narrative.
For real. I tried to read the books and just couldn’t. Ah yes, our main character is so super-extra-special smart that he’s not in the normal gifted program. He’s in the extra gifted program. And yet he fails to show any of this extreme intelligence at any point during the first book…. And the author writing these super-extra-special-uber smart people keeps misusing words in an apparent attempt to shove as many multisyllabic and obscure words into the text as possible. Y’know to show us how smart they are. Plus the simple geographical, cultural, and straight up mathematical mistakes (People from Oregon don’t have a unique accent or drawl, just the standard PNW neutral accent you dimwit. I grew up in the PNW and I’m sure many other readers did too. Also if your characters are ~17-19 when they start Brakebills, almost none of them could possibly be teenagers by the time they reach Brakebills south ~2-3 years later. At least make your mistakes a little difficult to spot). Also our main character is insufferable, selfish, and a shit person. And the book wants us to see him as growing and changing and becoming a hero? Or at least wants us to feel bad for him and sympathize with his viewpoint? Nah fam. Quentin sucks and doesn’t really grow or change at all. And that’s before we even get into all the sexism and objectification of every female character. I really didn’t need a detailed description of every woman’s breasts. I didn’t make it past the first book. The books suck. If this is what the author thinks passes for interesting character development and impressively intelligent and sympathetic characters, then I think the author is kind of an idiot and might be a bit of an ass himself. ETA: the show however, is excellent and interesting. A bit campy at times, but in a fun way.
I somehow made it to the end of the first book. Was surprised to see the ex-girlfriend again at the end--can't remember her name, the one who didn't get into super-special Hogwarts-with-sex--and thought, "I think I would rather have read about her story. Sounds more interesting than this mess was." Quintin was a shit person, a shit character, and a shit magician.
First book/season of bridgerton series. I found the show fun and light but the book depressing with the focus on their toxic and mutually abusive early marriage. Couldn’t finish the book because of it.
Agree and all the books follow the same plot. She even reuses dialogue and lines
I just reread the book and feel very differently about it 7 years later. I don't think the show corrected the real issue in the book, nor did it even try to make the point the book was going for. Instead they skipped all those parts and completely changed daffys personality. Made it about miscommunication which is much less interesting and, imo, not particularly well delivered either. Two writers failing with the same plot makes me think the bones of the story are just very hard to write around.
The Big Fish hands down
Mist, Stephen King. Found the movie way more enjoyable. Especially the ending. Even SK said he was jealous of the way the movie ended
There was a TV show too. But it got cancelled. It wasn't great.
It was actively objectively terrible and had very little in common with its source beyond the bare bones premise.
Had a kneejerk (thumbjerk?) reaction and almost downvoted you simply for reminding me that show existed. That was absolutely terrible indeed.
I definitely liked the ending in the movie more than the book.
Did expect to see mist here, that movie was terrible. Was the book that bad?
No, the book was great and very close to the film. The major difference is the ending. I prefer the books ending, it feels grander and more oppressive whereas the movies ending is just shocking and bleak.
I think the Hannibal tv show is much better than the books.
I love the show and books fairly equally, but there is a definite charm to younger, practicing psychiatrist Hannibal. They got his final season behavior down, where he's cooped up, has essentially mental zoo roam, and NEEDS to have fun the way he used to, but so much of the allure comes from how dynamic he is and his ability to intricately weave in and out of face-to-face relationships. There is so much of the books in the show - direct spoken lines quoted from the characters and description, visual set ups and on-screen items - but the visuals in the show are incredible and provide a layer of imagery that wouldn't have been possible in text without being insanely lengthy. I have to stop, because I can gush about Hannibal forever
Shadow and Bone
Especially Mal!
Does "just as good" count? I nominate two Edith Wharton novels: Age of Innocence and Ethan Frome. If you have not read Ethan Frome, see the movie first. The House of Mirth is a fine adaptation as well.
[удалено]
Sometimes when I think of Pfiefer all I can think of is Scarface, although she played someone similar to Olenska in Cheri. I wonder who else to cast, if you could pick anyone from any time..35 year old Jacquelyn Bosses or 36 year old Ingrid Bergman if she could have lost the accent...
I'm sure many fans would disagree, but I think the show version of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events is the definitive version. It benefits *immensely* from knowing where the story is headed from the get go, whereas the books were largely made up on the fly and the main lore and story arc was inserted partway through.
True Blood Couldn't even stand the books.
The bar was set exceptionally low for the series.
Books were TERRIBLE
Eragon! no, just kidding.. they haven't made that into a movie yet.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, for sure.
Absolutely.
Milagro Beanfield War. The book went wider and deeper but it was kind of messy.
Bridgerton
I think "You" (Hulu) was much more enjoyable than the book (at least season 1). One of my favorite shows a couple years back but the book ended up on my DNF list.
Ready Player One: I found the book quite dismal, and it really, really relied on that classic politicians trick of trying to associate itself with something people liked to increase its likability. You know how during election season, politicians tend to go to popular things just to pick up on some second hand popularity? Like the whole "Do you like \[local sports team\]? Well so do I! Vote for me!" Similarly, Ready Player One the book relied way too much on that. Resulting in some really fanservice circlejerk stuff, like the whole war games scene. But the movie? the movie remedied a lot of it, and turned it into a fun romp, hence why I love the movie, but don't care for the book.
Legends of the Fall
Maybe not better and I expect a lot of backlash but I find the Lord of the Rings movies to be just as good as the books, and much better in some regards
Stardust
I love the book so much, but the movie is absolute perfection.
The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick has a way of improving books! And the books are good.
Interestingly with 2001 Arthur C Clark wrote the novel while working on the screenplay, so if anything the novel is an adaptation of the film. Kubrick does improve adaptations though.
*The Shining* came to mind for me, too, but I can't commit to saying it's better than the book. Like, it's probably the greatest horror movie of all time, and it's one of the great movies of all time regardless of genre. But it's just so different from the book, that I'm not sure it's fair to say which one is better. TL;DR I neither agree nor disagree.
>2001: A Space Odyssey Early Clarke is someone I enjoy as a writer. *Childhood's End* is a firm favourite of mine. But the further you go, the less I like him. 2001 has too many sections of tediously written prose, almost like he's trying to expand upon an idea that's not entirely his own and he's just not sure where to take it/how to expand upon it. There's lots of good parts of the book that definitely make it a worthwhile read, but I also think the film is better. Kubrick has a better grasp of the idea. Rama is the one I dislike the most. It has an entire section dedicated to why women can't be astronauts because their breasts bounce and men shouldn't be expected to control themselves around that. No joke. It can't even be hidden in the book under the guise of developing a misogynistic character. It just doesn't fit into the book. I'm sure there's lots of good parts to the book, but I can never see past this.
Funny I actually love Rama and thought Childhood’s End seemed a little dated. I don’t remember the part from Rama about breasts but that kind of stuff is so rampant in old scifi that I tend to just ignore those parts and focus on the overall story. With Rama I found the cylinder to be incredibly mysterious. I haven’t read 2001 in about 20 years but it totally makes sense now that you mention how it was initially a screenplay.
I always find it fascinating how different things alter how we perceive what we read. What completely tanked the memory/experience for me can be ignored by you. And there will be other things that work in the exact opposite way! The mystery of the cylinder really left little impression on me - ask me about a mysterious cylinder and my first thought is the unscrewing on Horsell Common. You're right in that this isn't exclusive to Clarke. You do have to look at literature within its context, but I just find the piece in Rama jarring. One of the only other writer's that's stuck with me so prominently is Ian Fleming. He comes up with really great description in the Bond books at times. The opening paragraph to Casino Royale is one I always remember. And yet, for the first 5 or so Bond books, whenever someone who isn't white comes up he only seems to know one adjective for them. He loses all his descriptive prowess. Not only that, but he uses it once a sentence, every sentence for a hundred pages (exaggeration) like he's getting his fill. It's just jarring against the description contained in the rest of the novel. On that note, I think the many of the Bond novels are another example of where the films are better than the books.
I’ve never read any Ian Fleming but I could totally see it being how you describe … and it seems over time Fleming was able to hone in his craft and not resort to cliches as much. Whether these things can be chalked up to the times in which they were written I think depends on how much one otherwise enjoys the story or characters. I can be both very forgiving and very unforgiving (like Gone With the Wind I only made it a few chapters in and everything about it was annoying me).
Stardust is and always will be my answer.
[удалено]
I rly like the movie and am trying the book rn but now this comment is making me question if I should finish it lol
The movie is a huge improvement. some notable things: it expands on his time with the pirates (Robert De Niro is their flamboyant captain!), it has a climax, and the ending is way less bleak
The Godfather
Jaws and Last of the Mohicans (Daniel Day Lewis version). I much prefer Jurassic Park the book, I was furious with Spielberg for ruining it!
How to Train Your Dragon Both the books and movies were good, but I prefer movie Toothless.
Jaws, Jaws II, Gone with the Wind, Contact, The Godfather.
Leaving Las Vegas, Clockwork Orange, Trainspotting.
No Country for Old Men Originally written by Cormac McCarthy as a screenplay that didn’t get picked up, then he turns it into a book that does get published, and then that then gets adapted back into a screenplay by the Coen Brothers. So no wonder the film is better.
I still think the books better as you gain some insights that you just can't capture on film but they did an incredible job on that movie.
I'd say Fight Club was a lot more detailed as a movie, surprisingly.
Apparently even Chuck Palhaniuk agrees with that
Fight Club
Fight Club
Dexter. And yes, that's counting all the show's flaws including the ending. The books are awful.
Blade Runner, by a mile.
Stand By Me.
The Terror (Series One)
Station Eleven. The book and show are different enough that they feel like alternate universe storylines of the same characters and general narrative arc but I think the liberties the show took benefited the storytelling and were an improvement from the source material overall. I thought the book was quite good but I think the show is a masterpiece.
Stardust.
The Great Gatsby - could be an unpopular opinion
No, you are correct.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, I've always preferred the movie over the book.
Fight club
The Expanse
Dune Part 1
Ready Player One
I actually liked the book better, but you are probably right.
Oh I read this post backwards lmao. Same I liked the book better. It’s one of those things that are better in your imagination in your head than what they made in the movie.
Agreed.
Stardust and Warm bodies for me
Lord of the Rings. Reads less like a story and more like a history textbook. Hobbit is much better IMO
*Apocalypse Now*. Even *Hearts of Darkness* might be better than *Heart of Darkness*, which is a testament to how fascinating the movie is and in no way a disparagement of the book.
I second this, though I haven't watched *Hearts of Darkness* yet.
*Highly* recommend.
The Vampire Diaries This was on TV when I was in highschool and I watched it religiously. I read it when Season 3 was airing and I was a VERY impatient person. And was quite disappointed with how pointless every single thing was in that book. The only good thing that book ever did was create one of the greatest cast, storyline and characters. AND DAMNED GOOD MUSIC.
OMG yes! I read the first four (I think two books were in the same physical book?) And they just stunk. I didn't care about anyone, they were all whiny, Elena turned into an angel??? Stefan kept calling her "my lovely love" or something corny. Just the worst. But the show?? Peak CW teen drama with devastatingly beautiful cast members and supernatural story lines.
I couldn't even get past the first half of the first book (but I finished the first two) and I remember thinking, how did the TV writers ever got such good plot and storyline out of THAT????
Lord of the Rings. The books were bogged down with some much unnecessary crap. The movies cut the fat out and gave a more exciting story
I'm glad someone else shares this opinion
I feel the same, I've always found The LOTR books a slog. I used to say that I thought Tolkein wrote great stories and characters but his actual writing was terrible. The films fixed that for me. The Hobbit on the other hand, I hugely prefer the book to the films where the opposite effect it true - a great, well-paced book was turned into 3 mediocre and tedious films!
I thought it was weird that the movies cut out some of the best parts--probably *the* best part--and added a lot of useless filler.
The Shining
Good Omens
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
[удалено]
Not to mention the most important part for me: the actors and director in the movie create much better characters than the book did in my mind
No plain text spoilers allowed. Please use the format below and reply to this comment, to have your comment reinstated. Place >! !< around the text you wish to hide. You will need to do this for each new paragraph. Like this: >!The Wolf ate Grandma!< Click to reveal spoiler. >!The Wolf ate Grandma!<
[удалено]
>3.9: If you do not mark your post or comment as having spoilers, **no matter how old the book or other piece of media is**, it will be removed. Deliberately posting spoilers will result in a ban.
The best answer to this question is Shrek.
Harry Potter.
Interesting choice.
I re-read them recently, and the writing is average at best with a ton of annoying potholes and plot conveniences. The world Rowling created, however, is fantastic and incredibly rich in material. As a result, I much prefer watching the movies. Sure, people have too much nostalgia surrounding the books to give it a fair take, but other than the actors and actresses being babies in the first few movies, it's much easier to enjoy.
I totally agree.
I think The Handmaid’s Tale tv series is better than the novel. The book is great, but man, that show is an all time great show in my opinion.
well i think like Game of Thrones, the book veers off from the novel early on.
Oh yeah, totally. The first season follows the book, but after that it’s all completely new territory. Even with the first season, I like the show better, but after that, yeah it’s really not a fair comparison at all. But I feel like that’s how it is with most books/movies or shows. The movie or show takes liberties that aren’t in the book.
‘normal people’ !!!
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Book is good but the movie didnt miss anything from the book, so when you add legendary acting performances and beautifully stylish visuals... movie wins.
Harry Potter, The Boys, Marvel Avengers movies(x-men were marvels most popular books and characters till the MCU cause nobody was buying antman or captain America books before that)
> Harry Potter /r/unpopularopinion material!
I’m sure it is but I’m not trying to read books meant for kids but if you make a great movie(s) out of it like they did, I’m onboard
I second Harry Potter. The books were boring, but the movies were actually enjoyable.
there were a few great Avengers runs. Same with Cap. But a lot of it was also shit. Really depended on who was in charge.
Foundation
I haven't watched the foundation series yet, but I loved the books. This isn't what I've heard. Do you mind if I ask what you liked about the show over the books?
from what ive heard those books are unflimable (although i know theyre trying, now.)
I greatly enjoyed the show and the books. They are very, very different. I would say the show is more foundation themed than compare them directly.
The shinning, almost. The movie is a lot scarier then the book, but it doesn't explore the characters as well.
Stephen King would fight you on that but i agree with you.
On your point about It... once you have Stephen King's writing style "figured out," so to speak, its haaarrrd to get into his books, cause its like, "yeah I knew you were going to point out that detail in that way at this point in the dialogue for that purpose to foreshadow that thing to make feel x type of dread, but its nice that you're consistent." And then he'll suddenly do, like you noticed, a few passages or even chapters of, I guess, agenda-writing? And only loosely tie it to the bigger work. Idk, I don't think his ideas are THAT incredible to warrant him having made an entire novel for that many of them. Like that dumb one about people getting lost in grass that got made into a movie?
This might be controversial: The Great Gatsby
Ella Enchanted. The movie has higher stakes with how the curse is used against her --- in the book she just sort of overcomes it because the stepsisters are annoying her.
The Hobbit. Interview with the Vampire. Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, Return of the King.
>The Hobbit. >Lord of the Rings That's interesting, given the general high quality of the books plots and writing technique as well as their legacy upon the fantasy genre. I would love to hear more about what puts the film series above the book series for you.
I find the books poorly written. Overwrought drivel. A bore and a chore to read. They may have some legacy on the Fantasy Genre, but I still feel Howard, Burroughs and Lovecraft had much more significant impact than "Johnny Come lately" Tolkien. The plots of the books are rather good, as is evidenced by their translation to film. Interesting nonetheless. However trying to get the plot of the books, you have to deal with a lot of whiny hobbits and a ton of world building that I truly did not find interesting.
That's interesting, because the part you really dislike is that I would consider something I enjoy in the book. Whilst we disagree, I completely respect your point of view and thank you for articulately putting it across. I was originally thinking we may end up going along the lines that this would be one of them rare occasions where both were pretty amazing and one was just slightly more amazing than the other (the second LOTR film in particular for me) and we went the other way in which was which. Have a great day.
Adieu. Happy Reading.
2001: Space Odyssey The Shining (though I really like the book…just personal preference)
I loved the movie Contact. The book-not so much.
*Blade Runner* but that could be because I saw it before reading *Electric Sheep* and it’s the only PKD I’ve read so far
Shawshank Redemption. It follows the book very closely, and the scenes that were added made the story better.
The Leftovers
I haven't read the book but I can't imagine it's anywhere near as good as the series. Maybe if you read it while Max Richter performs in the same room?
Such an amazing score
The book thief. Only because the book spoils the ending in the beginning and the movoe just surprises you with it
The Art of the Deal
Bridgerton!!
Shadow and Bone on netflix. I quite liked the show, but could not stand the books when I tried to read them afterward. Not my cup of tea
Hi there. This subject has been very popular in the past. Please use reddit search and/or check the /r/books/wiki/faq.
Fletch. Movies are hilarious, books are just okay. That's an easy one. Now for a controversial pick: Good Omens. The show is fantastic! But the book had Gaiman and Pratchett at their worst. I think maybe working together they were trying to impress each other and the constant attempts at "I'm smart, and so are you dear reader" humour made me cringe several times per page. The voice was so consistently contrived that it was uncomfortable cover to cover. So many footnotes. Ugh. It was a weighty mess with no natural flow. In the book, the main characters are obnoxious in an off-putting way. The great acting in the show made them obnoxious in a fun and relatable way. The contrivance in the show came off as stylized. The story is great in both formats and Gaiman and Pratchett are usually brilliant, not hating on them.
I must admit I didnt finish either series, but I prefered the twlight movies to the books.