No, it was not. Battleship, for me, doesn’t feel, sound or look like a real, legitimate movie. It’s more like some underground vanity project, that needs to go straight to VHS, and then on to MST3K.
@@mayneric well, it depends on how the daugthers are/were.When I was a kid I used to read books that were supposed to be for older readers.I read children's books for an easy and fast reading (not that I didn't like them, I did). And, anyway, sometimes you enjoy things in a certain way as a kid and then, when you are an adult, you go back to these things and enjoy them in a different way, getting things that you missed as a kid. For instance, The little Prince was one of my favourite books when I was a kid, when I read it now I still love it, but for completely different reasons. (English is my third language, apologies in advance for any mistake).
To me, i would say they were equally good, different yet good. The book was great and while the movie's script wasn't as good, the casting and acting just brought it all together.
When the author of the book confesses that the movie adaptation was better, it should be mentioned. And Stephen King himself said himself that the Stand by Me movie was better.
@@scaper8 The book ending of The Mist didn't hold a candle to Darabont's movie ending. I mean you could feel his anguish at the end of the movie. Spectacular!
Stand by me was a short story. Same with Shawshank redemption; which is my vote for way better as a movie. But that was a great collection of short stories with 3 of 4 adapted for movies. The third was The Pupil, another great movie.
The movie is a classic for a reason. The book wasn’t able to capture the same tension that sharks eye view did in the film with that iconic score behind it.
I saw (Yeah, I am definitely dating myself here. I was in grade school.) "Jaws" in a single theater at a local mall at the initial noon showing. It was before all the hype started. By the time the 6 O'clock news was on they had started talking about it. By the next day there was stories showing the huge lines to get in. It was one of the initial "Summer Blockbuster" movies and you "had to go see it" type thing. No home video yet. It blew me and my grade school friends away. We told everybody about it that afternoon, and it finished and we walked home about three PM. Yes, I got hold of the book later. It and "Battlefield Earth" (L. Ron Hubbard) are one of two books I couldn't finish. It was poorly written. It and "Carrie" (Original) were ten times better than the book. King's book was good, but DePalma knocked that one out of the park.
The Princess Bride deserves a spot on this list. The original book is a good read, but it does get a bit boring at times in spite of the metafictional presentation. The movie has that fantastic framework of the grandpa reading the book to his grandson, and the commentary they provide help emphasize the fairy tale aspect of this movie as well as keep the comedic tone from getting too hammy. We’re also right there with the grandson when it starts getting dramatic, and really only notice how invested we’re getting when the grandpa points it out. It’s one of the best examples I’ve ever seen of a movie taking all the best parts of the source material and perfectly depicting them while simultaneously elevating the entire work.
Which is pretty much what we got in Game of Thrones season 1. Regardless of what you can say about subsequent seasons, season 1 was incredibly close to the books.
I think people want to see their favorite books turned into movie masterpieces, and they blame not liking it on being a poor adaptation, when realistically, every adaptation can't be Jurassic Park or LotR. Even movies that are pretty faithful to the source material, like the Hunger Games, lose a lot of luster in the translation to the big screen. Ultimately, I think movie makers should try to make great movies and people will think they're great adaptations, even if they're not that faithful to the source material.
They shouldnt be making changes unless theres a good reason to. Harry Potter movies left out entire characters and storylines. That's why I fuck with plays the actors dont get to improvise they must follow the script
@rokeYouuer even lotr which is ont he greatest adaptations of all time still totally changed and ruined the ending for no good reason. This is why page to page would be better
@@nickpeitchev7763 Immediately proving my point. The very fact that these are two different mediums is going to result in changes. You can not have a film adaptation without making cuts for a better flowing narrative. There are things the book can expand on that can work there that wouldn't be well translated into the film. Adaptations have never been nor will never be page for page remakes. To expect such a thing is silly.
Who Censored Roger Rabbit. The ending of the book just fell so flat for me but Who Framed Roger Rabbit went off in a completely different direction with the characters and told a really fun noir story that has an excellently set up payoff. Easily the best example of a movie that's better than the book, imo. And that's without taking in to consideration how important the film was for the animation and practical fx industries at the time.
The book was significantly different. The biggest change was having Roger not die (he is murdered in the book), and also in the book the toons are comic book characters come to life, not animated characters. They speak in literal speech bubbles (appearing out of thin air, which the humans have to read to understand them), and that would not work in a movie.
@@Rocket1377indeed! That script went through multiple treatments by several writers over the course of many years before it became what it is, and it shows. Every beat in the film feels earned, there’s so much well layered foreshadowing for the final act that really just doesn’t feel like it’s there in the book. The ending of the book, for me at least, felt rushed and disconnected from the preceding events. Heck, even Gary K Wolfe preferred the film in the end, choosing to base his sequels in the Disney Roger Rabbit universe rather than his own. Whether the plots are different or not, merely taking the two narratives at a base value of which is more enjoyable, the film is better.
@@tracedowning1840 NLF isn't exactly "pulp" (as least not technically); haven’t read it yet myself yet, but I did read The Detective, which NLF is a sequel to, and it is actually very good.
I definitely like the movie better, but I did find some of the themes in the book interesting. I liked how it is greed that kills the daughter and how the protagonist is not heralded as a hero in the end, which I believe was a Vietnam allegory.
@@gordonbrinkmann Jim Broadbent seems to be under some kind of curse where people can't retain his name and he's referred to as "that old guy who's in everything" a lot. I don't understand the issue as I see him and instantly think "Oh it's Jim Broadbent".
Fight Club. Book was meh and didn’t have the balls to follow through with the developing story the way the movie does. Also, David Fincher elevates the story with Easter eggs and killer cinematography
I can't agree with this one. The book is a criticism of toxic masculinity and "of course men can only feel emotions when they beat the shit out of each other". The book does such a good job of breaking down the image of the modern man down to the ending where the bombs don't go off because modern masculinity is a farce, it's all fake posturing, a show. I'm not saying the movie is bad. Fincher did an excellent job and does translate some of the themes, but he didn't have the balls to say what the book is saying.
2001. I know the book was written simultaneously with the movie being filmed so perhaps its unfair since it wasn't a true adaptation of an existing book, but the film's visuals made it an experience that couldn't be recreared in the book.
I liked the short story but the movie was certainly more sprawling and visually stunning. I found the book more in-depth and detailed but I liked it just as well as the movie.
It's called something else "The Hellbound Heart" and not Hellraiser. I was surprised too when I saw Clive Barkers name on a book and found out it was the novella that became the hellraiser film.
Years earlier, they made a movie based on one of his other books, Rawhead Rex, and it did so poorly, and Barker allegedly hated it so much that when they decided to make on of The Hellbound Heart, he was like “fuck it, I’ll do it myself.”
@@ArcaneCowboy I dunno, it's pretty much 1984, just a very dark comedy. Did you note, for example, that the little "Decision" toy that drops a weight onto "yes" or "no" always drops onto "no"?
The working title for Brazil was "1984 and a 1/2", so they knew what they were doing. You also don't need to have read the book "1984" to know how it goes.
I would add Minority Report to this list. The short story was good, but the movie embellished it in many interesting and compelling ways and made it worth watching to the end.
The book was so much better. They toned down so much of the violence and suspense so that the movie would appeal to older kids. It's not a kids' novel in any way shape, or form.
The book does somethings better while the movie does somethings better. Hammond in the book is basically just an over the mustache twirling greedy capitalist stereotype who literally only cares about money and nothing else, not even his grand kids. Meanwhile the movie version is a more complex and realistic. He's an ambitious entrepreneur who gets way too caught up in his vision until it blows up in his face. The book can also be a bit too self indulgent and preachy which ends up damaging the pacing, unlike the movie where most of the discussions of morality or chaos theory tend to be in the background with much more focus on the dinosaurs. And the book mostly portrays the dinosaurs as horrifying Sci fi monsters unlike the movie where the dinosaurs are more animal like and are portrayed as majestic and awe inspiring. Overall I'd say it's a 50/50. The book would work much better as a mini series than a movie.
"Holes". The book is terrific (it won the Newbery Medal), and tight and gripping and funny and suspenseful. But Louis Sachar also wrote the screenplay for the movie, and used it as a way to just add one more layer of gloss and sand a few more burrs off the story.
There is the obvious: Goldfinger. This James Bond film took all of the criticism of the novel's plot about how Goldfinger's scheme to actually rob Fort Knox was impossible, and crafted a movie version of the scheme that feels truly a work of criminal genius.
Ok, there is a trick done in the book version of "Cloud Atlas" that a lot of people miss. The stories are nested the way they are to make the reader a part of the story. The reader opens the book, then the first character opens a book, then the character in that story opens a book, etc. Each character finishes the story they are reading and closes their book. Finally the reader finishes the book and closes it ending the chain. YOU are just another link in the chain of stories. It literally makes you a part of the of the book.
No they don't. The novel opens on a beach. The first character doesn't read anything. Starting with the second character they read/see/hear the story of the previous character. It's a story but it's not always a book (in one case it's letters, in another it's a holographic recording device called an orison). Eweing doesn't end the novel by closing any book. I don't know what you read, but maybe you're mistaking it with Cloud Atlas
The Prestige. The film removes the current day plot which includes the journalist having an affair with the Lady who owns the property and she is the ancestor of the magician and blah blah blah. The book is bad.
Dangerous Liaisons. They set it in an earlier period for more extreme costumes, they changed a couple of key lines, and most of all, they came up with a much better ending.
First, the best part was, "Introducing Uma Thurman." Well, kidding, but also kinda not... Second, the book is fucking GENIUS in terms of literary structure. The ENTIRE novel is written as actual letters sent between the main characters. (At least in the French copy I read. First book i i ordered on Amazon... in 1996! It arrived from Paris to the US in six days, so I got sucked into the Bezos abyss EARLY.) Third, it's not really fair to add something like this to the list. The book was published 242 years ago! I'm pretty sure half the crappy Musketeer movies I've seen are better than Dumas in text. Okay, Frankenstein is amazing. Shakespeare and Jane Austen were brilliant. But literature in general has come a long way.
@@kjaime7030 Lordy be! Dumas' Musketeer novels being worse than 50% of the crappy movie adaptions? That is one take that, back in the day of the novels' setting, would be deserving of a challenge to a duel ;-) Regarding "literature has come a long way in the last few centuries": This is a very 19th century view, which gave rise to something we today call "Bowdlerization".
The Thin Man (1934), 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Jaws (1975), The Thing (Who Goes There?) (1982), Jurassic Park (1993), to name a few.
My go-to for this has always been The Godfather. The book is excellent but bloated and the movie distilled it down perfectly while remaining supremely faithful.
One flew over the cuckoos nest. In the book, the Indian narrates the book, so you know he's cognizant, can see and hear and understand what's happening. In the movie, it's the big surprise.
No, sorry, that’s not true at all. In the novel when we meet him the Big Chief is clearly insane (he’s convinced that Nurse Ratched can control the flow of time) and it’s only as the story progresses and he’s exposed to McMurphy’s lust for living that you see him come back to sanity.
I hate this movie because it grossly misrepresents shock therapy and overall gives bad rep to psychiatric institutions, glorifying absolute scumbag of a protagonist.
@@FairyRat You may be unaware of the conditions common to psychiatric institutions during the period when the story is set, and the way shock therapy was routinely abused. And the story is more a metaphor about the struggle between bureaucratic conformity vs. freedom in any case.
Exorcist III. The author of the 1st book (The Exorcist) wrote this sequel (Legion) AND its screen adaptation, AND directed George C. Scott in the movie. BOTH novel and movie are strong, but the film really puts you there with stellar performances (looking at you, Brad Dourif), music, sound editing, and film editing. It colors in many details and touches that the first movie chose not to include. I appreciate it so much that I found a copy of the shooting script from the production.
The Godfather 1 & 2. Francis Coppola took an OK mafia melodrama and turned into something Shakespearean. The two movies that draw from Mario Puzo's book are so much better than their source.
Even Mario Puzo admitted that he wrote "below his gifts" and that the book was written mostly because he needed the money and wanted something that would sell. It can't compare to the greatness of the movies.
I agree, apart from pretty much anything that involves Luca Brasi. In the movie, you're told he's a scary guy, but all you see is him with the godfather and not long after he gets taken out. In the book you understand why everyone is so afraid of him.....he's a f@cking monster!!
Puzo was a newspaper writer and his style of writing in Godfather really was in that vein, it's an excellent story hiding in a mediocre book, Coppola really made it sing.
Yes. Comic books have some of the greatest stories. If people didn't look down on them. One exception is EC Comics. Tales from The Crypt and so on. Mostly faithfully adapted.
Superhero comics are terrible and nobody reads them anyway, so they've nothing to lose there. The movie adaptions are terrible too, but at least they have an audience. Unfortunately.
@@danielwesterlund1905 tell that to all the D.C. and Marvel fans. They have changed over the years and not always for the best. But even now they are some great stories. The biggest problem is the price is too high and the stories lean dark. But decades and decades of comics have proven there worth as art and literature.
I think you need to put Starship Troopers in the same category as The Shining; they might tell the same 'story,' but the meaning is so different the stories are different.
Kubrick's The Shining is so different from the book that you could rename the characters and the location and it would be unrecognizable. It didn't help that Kubrick didn't read the book himself. According to his daughter Vivian, he had *her* read it and submit typewritten summaries of each chapter.
Verhoeven took some of the themes from the book, twisted them until they screamed, and added enough cringeworthy details to make it a cartoon parody. The lack of powered armor, the utterly laughable military tactics, making the Arachnids a technology-free species that can somehow throw rocks across the galaxy... the list goes on. Finding out that the movie was originally "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine" before they acquired the rights to the book, and that Verhoeven didn't even read the book told me it would be a "Nutri-Matic Tea" version of the book - something almost, but not quite, completely unlike the source material.
@@seanmalloy7249 that bit you mentioned about 'Bug Hunt at outpost nine' reminds me of the story with the 'I Robot' movie where they also bought to rights to the book just to slap the title on something else called 'Hardwired' that had nothing to do with Asimov's writing.
How _Shawshank Redemption_ isn’t on this list is beyond me. Also I disagree vehemently with the last two titles in this video, so taking one of those off to make room for _Shawshank_ would be super easy.
Unpopular opinion: Lord of the Rings; The films wisely cut out most of the singing, 300 pages of walking, and Tom f*cking Bombadil, and didn't feel like any of it was missed.
@@Elora445 Agreed. The movies, in their own rights, are brilliant adaptations which, while not letter perfect reflections of the novels, are surprisingly faithful to the themes and gestalt of the novels.
I kinda get tired of people saying "you have to read the book before you see the movie" and "the book is ALWAYS better than the movie". Goldfinger is my ultimate example of the movie being better. The movie became the template that later Bond films used and the book has a lot of problems.
In their defence, they're almost always right. The book will have a lot more texture than you can pack in a 2-3 hour movie with rare exceptions. eg. As good as the most recent Shogun 2024 series is, it's still a portion of the intrigue and drama of the book.
@@Mondomeyeragreed. I read all the Fleming books because I’m married to someone whose last name is actually Bond, but many of those books are problematic for a variety of reasons .
@@b.lloydreese2030depends. Casino Royale is pretty much a straight upgrade over the book. Moonraker is an In Name Only adaptation. And Goldfinger is about on par.
I actually like the third category where the books and film are equally competent. Stephen King owns this with Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption - I have to watch the film after reading them every time. Literally perfect adaptations. Gary Sinise's Of Mice and Men also hold up here. I also think Bicentennial Man stands in this category, but there are differences in each version that pull it down from a 10/10.
I'm glad you admit that this is just your opinion. I respect that you talked about The Shining. I was expecting it on your list, and I was going to say 'no, the movie was too different to call better or worse'. Then you fell into the same mistake with Starship Troopers. Starship Troopers was a fun movie, but it barely played lip service to the book.
Somewhere in Time is better than Bid-time Return. Richard Matheson wrote both the book and the script and I think he saw that as an opportunity to improve on the story and characters and cut some unnecessary things. I love that the movie is pretty clear about the truth of the time travelling and the spiritual meeting in the end, as the book makes it unclear if it's real or not because the protagonist has a brain-tumour in it. In the movie he has not. And Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour together with that beautiful John Barry soundtrack. What a masterpiece!
Man .... Richard Matheson is such a weird figure when it comes to these things because you mention Somewhere in Time being better and I think about the beautiful journey that was What Dreams May Come and some of his other amazing work. But then I am brought low by the absolute abomination that is I am Legend, which ties with World War Z for me as the gold standard in how to absolutely ruin and horribly adapt a book into a movie. But Richard Matheson man .... some truly high highs but some mighty low lows.
Entirely agree, and I normally love Richard Matheson books and short stories. I enjoyed Jack Finney's Time and Again which is very similar. So much so I initially thought Bid Time Return was going to be a sequel or an homage! Instead it was the first Matheson story I couldn't finish. Maybe Matheson's type of heroes just aren't a good fit for a romance. Now, I'm leary of reading What Dreams May Come.
I am one of those heretics that often prefers films over the books. But, in my defence I realised relatively recently that most people can create the images from the book in their minds. That was wild to me! It turns out I have a condition called aphantasia (no minds eye), and it suddenly it all made sense why I always preferred character driven fiction over books full of overly descriptive paragraphs. A massive benefit of this though has been that I get to enjoy books even more after seeing the films.
I don't have aphantasia, but what I've realized is that some directors simply have much better visual imagination than I do, and are able to bring to full, dynamic, colorful life, what in my own mind was the equivalent of vague and muted cartoon.
Is that for real? I always thought it was a extreme exaggeration how people can see and imagine the characters in a book. I can enjoy a good book. But I could never do that. Nice to know that I am not a lone .
A good friend of mine has aphantasia. For me although I have a good imagination and "inner eye", I am always struck by how a movie such as Blade Runner or Dune are so visually mind blowing.
I have that too. It's utterly wild to me that people can see stuff in their heads. I do love reading books, and get lost in the story, I much prefer watching a film or telly programme.
Aphantasia here as well. It is hard to compare to something I haven't experienced, but I believe it changed how I read (and wrote) significantly. It does bring out the beauty of language more. There are still plenty of books I'd consider better than their movie, but I do like adaptations as their own thing. I collect Stephen King movies, for a start.
I liked the movie Clockwork Orange more than the book. The book carried more of the theme of the cycle of violence in a generational context, while the movie explores the cycle of violence in a more societal context which I found more compelling.
The first thing I thought when seeing the title of this video was, "Oh, I wonder if Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is on his list. I didn't notice your shirt until you were discussing it. After the video I realized that I too was wearing an E;ectric Sheep shirt :) I'm a huge PKD fan too and totally agree.
Love the mention of roadside picnic and stalker, Annihilation is one of my favorite books and I have the ouroboros tattoo from the film. I'm obsessed with that specific kind of story setup.
One that immediately came to mind for me is Cormac McCarthy's The Road. There was something so haunting and beautify in Viggo Mortensen's performance. I've seen the movie and read the book, and I definitely rank the movie over the book.
For that one, I think the book is a thousand times better than the movie. The book is based on a real story, but the movie took all of that away and turned it into a fictional story to make it more dramatic. That's also the reason why the real Susanna Kaysen doesn't like it. I always find it a bit disrespectful when filmmakers change a true story into something entirely else, especially when it's about a serious topic.
Life of Pi was an excellent read, almost a masterpiece, but Ang Lee made it into a beautiful SFX movie that adapted the story word for word with great acting and wonderful cinematography.
I’d agree (and in fact would say that the prologue set in India is better in the movie) right up till the twist ending, where the director made the choice of telling the audience what “really” happened as opposed to showing it to them. For my money it gave that version of events far less narrative weight, and much less impact.
I really like the book. I think the movie is great, but I wish they have shown Pi's look on zoo from the begining of the book and pretty important encounter in the middle of the ocean. The biggest advantage of the film are the visuals
I completely disagree, but for entirely stupid reasons. I didn't like the book because I found it utterly boring to read, but then I came to hate it when he kills a turtle. I fucking love turtles, I know it doesn't MATTER, it's a fictional turtle. But it still instilled such white hot rage in me I burnt the book when I was done reading it. And I didn't like the movie because I apparently have no sense of awe or wonder, and was just bored out of my skull watching a movie all about the beauty of nature.
Not a movie but a TV show: the first season of Dexter is far better than the book it's based on. The books are embarrassingly bad to the point where the show ignores them after season 1.
@rammelbroadcasting yep, I read that one, and it's follow-up Dearly Devoted Dexter. They were rough. It goes supernatural with the concept where their dark passengers are entities, and Rita's kid can see them.
I haven't read it, but I think The Shining is an all-time great horror movie. It may be a bad book adaptation, but that doesn't automatically make the movie bad or inferior.
@@malafakka8530 If you had read The Shining (and you should) you’d understand how people like me who love the book really hate that piece of garbage Stanley Kubrick created. What an insult to one of the best books ever written in any genre.
@@ad3673 No, I don't think so and I explained why in that comment. To call the movie a piece of garbage is nonsense to me and a sign that some readers cannot detach themselves enough from the book (and I might be guilty of that as well in a different case). Personally, I doubt that the book is as good as you say because I don't think that King is that good as a writer. That doesn't mean that I won't read the book though.
“Come on you apes!” makes more sense if you read the book where the mech suits have long arms making them look ape-like in proportions. It’s still fine without context but it’s a fun “Ooh, I got that” feeling from the meta context.
Also the movie it was a movie about bugs aliens invading earth that the studio said, hey you need a franchise for that, so they said there is this book put some names a phrase, a pair of things that happened in the books and taran movie adaptation. If you don’t believe me look about it!! This was never an adaptation!
The Starship Troopers movie is a carbon copy of the book? Ok, this guy has either never seen the movie or has never read the book. The director paul verhoeven never even read the book and just made a movie using the name and settings so there is no way it is a carbon copy. It was never intended to be an adaptation. Asking to add things from the movie to the book to make it better is like asking to add things from hockey to figure skating. 2 completely different things that can't be compared. Also, Libertarian vibes? Yeah, this guy didn't read the book. First time seeing his content, and his credibility is down the toilet for me.
One of the best movies of all time. I remember looking for a dvd copy a number of years after it wasn't on the shelves anymore. I found it in this old used goods shop. I remember walking up to the counter and the guy stopped what he was doing and gave this stare. He knew. After a moment he goes, "That is an excellent movie, you have good taste. That's our only copy." He knew I found the gold in the shop.
I thought both were wonderful, but different... Wrestler, chessmaster(?), astronaut ... Versus Walk through history? Yeah, the movie was more engaging, Forest was a good father.
At least to me one of those cases is Nail Gaiman's Stardust, SPOILER if you are reading ahead, basically at the end Gaiman goes all "and our protagonists have a lot of adventures until they decide to be kings, suddenly the King dies and we have an immortal queen" I honestly like more the end in the movie, its way more romantic and less sad.
Agree: not only that, but I found that the witches are more in character in the movie. I mean, in the end of the book (SPOLIER): The witch, to Yvaine: "Why I can't sense you if you are right in front of me?" Yvaine: "Because my heart belongs to Tristan now" The witch: "Oh ok, bye: be good... My sisters'll understand they aren't cruel." F**king what? The 3 murdering sociopatic witches that, in the beginning of the book, murdered a guy just because he was passing by their house? I was stunned when I read that part (after watching the movie, and usually in those cases I re-evaluate the movie in negative and find the book so much better, not in this case) Plus Tristan's mother liberation from slavery (nice touch, better than the movie, but that can be foreseen by anyone the first time she appears): why can't the witch re-enslave her or try something against her but ends up doing what she's asked to?
Starship Troopers -- "the movie is pretty much a carbon copy of the book". I just ended the video here. You should market what ever you are on, or at least read the book and watch the movie. Whether you like either, the biggest takeaway is that beyond a title and some character names they are no more alike than saying the TV series Little House on the Prairie is a perfect portrayal of Tolstoy's War and Peace. 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
I completely agree. The book is so much better than the movie. I liked the movie, but IMHO it's not even close. How can you even think of making this movie and leave out the "mobile infantry" part? Without that, it's just a WWII movie with a new skin.
@@RobertSmith-nc9sd another thing to note. The book you buy today is not actually the original version. Find a printed version from before Heinlein passed. The newer versions have been edited to make them more accessible to modern readers. And it really changes after the movie.
Forrest Gump, The Devil Wears Prada and Bridget Jones Diary are great examples of a movie being better than the book. Edit: Also the Princess Diaries. I've read the first book and hated it.
"Jaws" is far better than the book. All of the characters are awful people in the book, and I found myself hoping that they would all get eaten by the shark. The movie wisely made Chief Brody and Matt Hooper into likeable, relatable characters and greatly expanded on Quint's backstory, which made Quint and the entire story make a lot more sense. The movie is a classic, the book is a bad novel that was made into a classic movie.
Have to agree with that one too! They are so awful in the book, the affair was so unnecessary! And of course that music makes the movie even better!!! That score is perfect!
The 13th Warrior is much better than Eaters of the Dead. Mainly because Crichton was on set to "fix" it to be better for a movie. The 13th Warrior is the first movie that caused me to read the book it came from.
Lol, dunno why, but you saying "in order from the least improvement to the most improvement" made it sound like you're a true book worm and I stand by you brother! 😂
Honorable mention: Brokeback Mountain. When I read it I thought no one could improve on that experience. Then Ang Lee made the movie with Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger. Combine brilliant direction with brilliant casting & performances, plus a perfect score.
I was going to cite 'Brokeback Mountain' as well. The original short story is masterful, but the film takes the characters and their story to a whole new level of poignancy. I respect the short story, while I love the film.
I really like it when the adaptation interprets the concepts of the book. The shining is one of my favorite books. The shining is also one of my favorite movies for VERY different reasons. Cloud Atlas is an adaptation that does so many things that a book cannot. I love the book to death! But it has a lot of barriers to entry for some people. So I HARD recomend the movie to most people. Great video, SUBBED!
Re Children of Men: The book scared the hell out of me. The supposed last generations of humanity slowly, quietly dying (granted, not so quietly in terms of the youngest) created in me palpable fear. Terrifying melancholia. When I saw the trailer for the film adaptation I could tell this film was well crafted and well acted (which it turned out to be), but…the in-the-moment horrors of chaos and death in the streets doesn’t for me hold a candle to what it would feel like to live a quiet life believing that in a few decades humankind would simply cease.
The Fight Club. Chuck himself admitted that Fincher made this story better than he ever could. Also, obscure take - "Woman in Dunes. Still hell of a spectacle more than 60 years later.
The reason that the race swapping was integral to Cloud Atlas was that it is how reincarnation works. While our spirits remain the same, we change on the outside. Different genders and different races. There was no other way to depict this visually that could possibly express this more perfectly. It wasn't a matter of yellow face and more than it was a matter of white face when the race swapped the other way and it wasn't drag when the genders swapped. This was one of the greatest elements of this movie
Yes, I agree - I thought that the controversy was overblown and didn't feel quite fair. I could understand it if only white actors were playing non-white parts and were giving stereotypical/offensive performances , but that wasn't the case at all. It made sense within the context of the film, the characters were played respectfully and you had black actors and asian actors playing other races/ethnicities as well. Halle Berry even mentioned in an interview that this is was something that appealed to her when she agreed to be in the movie, because she could play a character that otherwise she would never be offered as a black woman.
This is one reason i disagree that the movie is better than the book(although i enjoyed them both). The concepts of reincarnation and the souls movie into different bodies over periods of time was well done and explained in the book, in the movie it came off clunky and was only really explained by the fact you had actors playing multiple characters with bad prosthetics. I wasnt offended by the race and gender swapping in the movie but i can see why people who didnt understand the reincarnation concepts of the story might get mad about it.
@@badlydrawn7476 Chuck Palahniuk is a big fan of the film adaptation of Fight Club a lot, but he has been on record saying he liked the ending of the movie better than the ending he had written in the book.
Wondered why RUclips suggested this video until you started talking about Cloud Atlas. Loved that movie. Always wondered why it got dumped on by critics when it came out.
I agree and disagree. The movie is breathtaking. However, in killing off the father, the movie tries to turn the story into a sad contemplation, but the book has numerous comedic moments that rely on visual humor that would have translated brilliantly on film. The Movie misses the point of children dreaming about having their own special horse.
I would like to make another suggestion for an example when the movie is MUCH better than the original source material, and I'm a little surprised this didn't make the list. It may just be that Rammel isn't a big fan of cartoons or live-action/animation films, or he didn't feel a big need to read the original book. I'd like to throw out "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". The movie is technically based off the book "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?" by Gary K. Wolf, but REALLY borrows a lot more from the Roman Polanski film "Chinatown". Anybody who has seen this movie knows that it is a loving homage to the Golden Age of animated short films by the major studios, and almost every notable cartoon character you've heard of makes at least a cameo appearance. The book has absolutely nothing to do with the movie except that that there IS a Roger Rabbit, a Jessica Rabbit, Baby Herman, and a detective named Eddie Valiant. The book instead of taking place in postwar Los Angeles instead is in the contemporary era which at the time the book was written was 1981. And the book isn't about the world of animation but rather newspaper syndicated strip cartoons like "Peanuts." You can buy the Kindle version real cheap, but there's a reason for this---the book isn't NEARLY as good as the movie. Instead of Gary K. Wolfe's book, I would recommend ordering the graphic novel "Weapon Brown" by Gary Yungbluth instead. This book does for syndicated comic strips what Roger Rabbit does for seven-minute cartoon shorts. The protagonist is a bald cyborg named "Weapon Brown" who travels with his faithful dog, a pitbul named "Snoop" through a post-apocalyptic world. The first part of the story focuses on the Peanuts universe, but then the story expands to every notable comic strip character you've ever heard of, culminating in an epic battle between "Chuck" and "Snoop" on one side, and Cal V.1n and H.O.B.S. on the other. (You can't order it through Amazon, but do a Google search and you'll easily find the author's web site---I most highly recommend it!)
I LOVE Cloud Atlas! I had seen it once or twice, loved it... then one day while tripping on Acid I watched it and had ti immediately watch it again (so twice back to back) and I just fell in love with it 10 fold! One of my favorite movies of all time!
Starship Trooper the movie can NEVER match the book. I mean leaving out the powered armor alone in the movie makes it no comparison. Many other ways the book is better also.
The director hated the book, and it shows. The movie was originally was just going to be an aliens vs humans called Bug Hunt. Then they got the rights to the book and crapped all over it.
ABSOLUTELY!! 200% agree here. The book is a good read, but I don't care for the final chapter. I understand what Burgess was saying, but I think the cynicism of Kubrick's version which leaves that bit out is the perfect ending for the story.
It's been a long time since I've read A Clockwork Orange, but I think I might agree with you. If I recall correctly, the ending of the book was changed before the movie was made.
@@simonagree4070 IIRC, the book's proper ending wasn't in the US edition; the US publisher had the last chapter removed. Kubrick was familiar the US version, and based the movie off of that.
@@fisheyenomikoBurgess had presented the final chapter as an option to the publishers. Its not really clear that he preferred the extra chapter, and he certainly understood that the addition was considered weaker by contemporary literary standards. The US publisher went with the literary ending, the British one went with the ending easier to slip by the censors.
So I was hoping someone brought up Neil Gaiman, cause he has this way about him where you take his ideas and put it to film and they just run away with themselves... it's not guaranteed to be better, but it'll definitely give his book a run for it's money. Stardust is one where I can't say it's better, but I can't say it worse... it is different and wonderful.
I think the book Coraline was better because I found it scary. I was an adult when I saw the film, so I found it pretty mild, but the book frightened me as an adult.
@thezenlu I love Neil Gaiman (one of my faves) but I didn't like stardust the book and loved stardust the movie. I think for me, the acting really helped bring the story to life in a way tbe book did not.
@@themarnacle my only issue is there is a level of fantasticalness that the movie sidesteps like the bazaar that happens each year and the weird people who show up for it and the whole relationship situation for Tristan's Dad and his behavior after the night. The movie cuts through the fat to be a far more trim and pointed story, but part of the fun with Gaiman is the fat... as for characters being fleshed out, I think that speaks more to what version speaks most to you... some like the illustrated one more, others might go with the book, and others still the audio book... I'll tell you, the audio book is read by Gaiman, and his choices make for a fun experience.
I have one that I feel the movie is better than the book, the book is "Shoeless Joe" and the film is "Field Of Dreams". Here is my take I saw the film and loved it so much that I searched out the book. I don't want to give too much away, but when I read the book it just didn't have a heart like the movie.
Yeah. I knew the author personally through tournament Scrabble, and his ideas were large but his prose style lacking. It would have been interesting if J.D. Salinger hadn't sued himself out of the movie, but the stand-in was great.
I'm surprised at your review of 'Cloud Atlas' I love that you enjoyed it. You got it! All I heard about the movie from everywhere, including friends, was that it was terrible. But I usually don't listen to that kind of noise. I LOVED IT! If it was presented in chronological order, it would have been boring. It was a total ride and I got it! I don't think many people did. I loved 'Amelie' I spoke about it with a couple of people. And then I stopped. I would mention just how impactful the movie is and I was then hearing how amazing movies like I😂'Independence Day' and 'Armageddon' are. I stopped talking about movies I like. Thank you.
That has been the problem with a lot of Philip K. Dick source material, why mainstream success eluded him. Like i read once, "Dick was a great Sci-fi writer's writer." Stories full of great ideas that are mostly appreciated by other writers.
The Woman in black. book is quite short and not great. The film version with Daniel Radcliff far superior, captured the creepy horror element much better. The sequal film was awful though .
The book for Hellraiser, The Helbound Heart, was excellent, but it was a novella, not a full-length book. Barker expanded upon the novella. As far as the Shining...I have to say the movie was fantastic. The book was fantastic. They aren't the same though. S.K. changed so, many things in the movie, that I don't think it's fair to say that one is better than the other. The family in the movie, other than the names, isn't the same family as in the book. Jack Torrence is scary almost from the beginning of the movie, and I never get the feeling that he is really in love with his family. The Jack in the book, however, is all in, when it comes to Wendy and Danny, and loves them to death. Read/listen to the book/audiobook. You will learn so much about the hotel that you never knew. You will find out why King was so pissed at Kubrik for what he did to his book. Then, if you can find it, watch the Shining miniseries. With the exception of the appearance of Tony from time to time, the performances are incredible, and it's a much truer adaptation of the novel.
I agree with you about almost everything except the mini-series. I didn't like Stephen Weber. He's always been lifeless to me. I don't know who should have been cast instead, but not him.
While the miniseries was true to the book (little wonder with King's heavy involvement), it was boring as hell. No, it redefined the meaning of the word boring. Did I mention how remarkably boring it was? The only good thing that's come of this miniseries was the Nostalgia Critic's hilarious in-depth crucifixion of it.
Kubrick did a brilliant job filming it, but he saw Jack Torrence as a man who ALREADY hated his wife and son, and just needed a nudge by the Overlook ghosts to do WHAT HE SECRETLY ALREADY WANTED TO DO. This is RADICALLY different from the book, and considering that King based the Jack Torrence character on himself, I can't blame him for being offended. My biggest problem is the abuse that Kubrick heaped on Shelley Duvall during filming which I believe either contributed to or caused her mental health problems afterwards. He had no faith in Duvall's ability to portray a traumatized woman, so he had to traumatize her for real.
Yep, read the book first. Liked the movie but was disappointed while waiting for events that were in the book that weren’t there. PS I was a teenager and saw The Shining in a theatre…was so looking forward to it.
I think Kubrick’s The Shining is a masterpiece, but it’s less of an adaptation of the book and more of a reconceptualization. I personally prefer the movie, but I also get why people who really connect with the book would have a distaste for it, including King himself.
The fact that Jaws isn’t on here is wild to me. The book is disgustingly pessimistic, and the characters are just not interesting at all, and are just horrible people. Also, the ending isn’t anywhere near as interesting.
@calebperrin8270 Agreed! The movie was really good, the book.... not so much, as much as I love King! Amazing cast, especially Rebecca Ferguson as Rose the Hat. Really tight story telling that somehow managed to bring together the Kubrick version of the Shining with both novels, in a way that didn't feel forced or outside of the story. WhennDanny says "I'm waking it up," it was such a chilling delivery! Ewan MacGregor is one of my favourite actors. And finally, it left out all the stupidest parts of the book, including the worst of the "battle of the minds" and the "twist" at the end, which was no better than Carrie 2 could do. I mean, Carrie 2 was a bad ripoff of King, which King turned around and ripped off, wtf?
Greetings, fellow Buckeye! Here are 5 more films I think are better than the book: The Silence of the Lambs Psycho Jaws Goldfinger Jurassic Park Honorable mention goes to "50 Shades of Grey" - because that book was neither sexually stimulating, informative, nor well-written! and the film version of "The Shinning" was not superior to the book, but Brian DePalma's "Carrie" definitely was!
Second person who picks Goldfinger. I mean, pretty much every Bond movie is better than the book, but Goldfinger? An epic title song making one of the silliest Bond movies seem way better than it actually is. Also, Jurassic Park as a book is way more interesting and informative than the movie, it's a book I keep coming back to and quoting. The movie just has live action dinos.
@@danguillou713 I would say "From Russia With Love" was better as a book. Also, I'm glad you mined such treasures from the book "Jurassic Park". I did not, but that's okay. Literature is, ultimately, subjective.
Great topic! This is my first time visiting your channel (I believe) and I'm not sure if you are specific to a select few genres (maybe fantasy, sci-fi, and horror), but if not, I have a couple you didn't cover: - The Heiress (1949), which is based on the stage play of the same name by Ruth & Augustus Goetz, which itself is based on the novel "Washington Square" by Henry James. William Wyler directs one of the best performances I have seen in Olivia de Havilland, and really the entire film is loaded with outstanding performances, including from Ralph Richardson (from 1981's Dragonslayer, which landed him a deserved Oscar nomination btw) and Montgomery Clift. The premise: in 1840's NYC, a wealthy heiress (from posh Washington Square in Manhattan!) is being courted by a handsome young man, and her father suspects the man is a gold digger. It's a drama, obviously, but for film lovers, it's an absolute lineup of quality - the score is by famed composer Aaron Copland, Edna Mode herself (Edith Head) did the costumes, the B&W deep focus cinematography is gorgeous, and the dialogue is killer. I consider it impressive that is arguably better than the book considering who wrote it! The film hasn't aged a day and its themes appear timeless. - Rebecca (1940), based on the novel of the same name from Daphne DuMaurier. This a classic directed Alfred Hitchcock and produced by David O. Selznick - it's probably correct to say this is equal parts of both men as Selznick was famously involved during filming, and something Hitchcock didn't have to really "put up with" in his later career. Selznick had just finished producing Gone with the Wind and wanted Hitch to stay faithful to the source material, which he mostly did. This is so very different than the work Hitchcock did in 1950's and 1960's, but still a masterpiece of his. If this film isn't better than book, then it's just as good. Anyways, I'm going to get to watching some of your other videos - good stuff!
It’s not a full book, just a short story, but The Shawshank Redemption is the first one that comes to my mind. And King is one of my favorite authors as well.
I’d say the Battleship movie was better than the “How to Play” instructions the game came with
No, it was not. Battleship, for me, doesn’t feel, sound or look like a real, legitimate movie. It’s more like some underground vanity project, that needs to go straight to VHS, and then on to MST3K.
Agreed - those instructions were so lacking in Rihanna you could feel it like blap blap blap or whatever
Disagree
I don't know. You might want to revisit the instructions.
@@42k78 They are better if you read them in the original Japanese.
Princess Bride. The book is good. The movie is a classic and beautifully done.
I don't think the movie is better though, is really really good, but is also really different, the book is more ironic, less for kids.
@@susannariera which is odd since the author wrote the story for his daughters.
@@mayneric well, it depends on how the daugthers are/were.When I was a kid I used to read books that were supposed to be for older readers.I read children's books for an easy and fast reading (not that I didn't like them, I did). And, anyway, sometimes you enjoy things in a certain way as a kid and then, when you are an adult, you go back to these things and enjoy them in a different way, getting things that you missed as a kid. For instance, The little Prince was one of my favourite books when I was a kid, when I read it now I still love it, but for completely different reasons. (English is my third language, apologies in advance for any mistake).
Yeah. Even though they cut out a lot and changed Buttercups character a tad😅.
To me, i would say they were equally good, different yet good. The book was great and while the movie's script wasn't as good, the casting and acting just brought it all together.
Neil Gaiman's Stardust. I liked the book, but I think the movie was better. It faithfully kept what it should have, and what it added was good fun.
Absolutely! The movie was so much better. On the other hand, I was stunned how badly the American Gods series was compared to the book.
Came here to say this. 😊
When the author of the book confesses that the movie adaptation was better, it should be mentioned. And Stephen King himself said himself that the Stand by Me movie was better.
He said similarly for _The Mist._ He's said that had he thought of the ending they used in the movie, he would have written it himself.
@@scaper8 The book ending of The Mist didn't hold a candle to Darabont's movie ending. I mean you could feel his anguish at the end of the movie. Spectacular!
But didnt Stephen say it's the best novel adaptation of his work....he didn't really say it was better than his book.
@@anonymous891he also loved and overseered Dr sleep movie
Stand by me was a short story. Same with Shawshank redemption; which is my vote for way better as a movie. But that was a great collection of short stories with 3 of 4 adapted for movies. The third was The Pupil, another great movie.
Jaws movie was MUCH better
That only reflects how bad the novel was.
The movie is a classic for a reason. The book wasn’t able to capture the same tension that sharks eye view did in the film with that iconic score behind it.
I saw (Yeah, I am definitely dating myself here. I was in grade school.) "Jaws" in a single theater at a local mall at the initial noon showing.
It was before all the hype started. By the time the 6 O'clock news was on they had started talking about it.
By the next day there was stories showing the huge lines to get in. It was one of the initial "Summer Blockbuster" movies and you "had to go see it" type thing.
No home video yet. It blew me and my grade school friends away. We told everybody about it that afternoon, and it finished and we walked home about three PM.
Yes, I got hold of the book later. It and "Battlefield Earth" (L. Ron Hubbard) are one of two books I couldn't finish. It was poorly written.
It and "Carrie" (Original) were ten times better than the book. King's book was good, but DePalma knocked that one out of the park.
I agree.
None of the characters except for Brody was likable.
The ending was anti-climactic.
Even Benchley said the ending of the movie was better.
Really? I read the book and have not even been a pool ever since!
I like how you mentioned the qualities of the books and the movies without spoiling any of the stories for the people who haven't read nor seen them.
I would argue that, Who Framed Rodger Rabbit? Is the best movie that is better than the book.
Even the author of the book agrees with you. He loved the movie and said it was better than what he wrote. I also agree.
Esp considering that when he wrote sequals to the book he actually made the first book a dream and the events of the movie cannon
I didn't know it was a book
@@jimfaust6342 Yep, the book is called "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?" by Gary Wolf. It is WILDLY different from the movie.
@@jimfaust6342 the book was called “Who censored Roger Rabbit?” It’s quite different from the film, in many ways, but yeah it was a book.
The Princess Bride deserves a spot on this list. The original book is a good read, but it does get a bit boring at times in spite of the metafictional presentation. The movie has that fantastic framework of the grandpa reading the book to his grandson, and the commentary they provide help emphasize the fairy tale aspect of this movie as well as keep the comedic tone from getting too hammy. We’re also right there with the grandson when it starts getting dramatic, and really only notice how invested we’re getting when the grandpa points it out. It’s one of the best examples I’ve ever seen of a movie taking all the best parts of the source material and perfectly depicting them while simultaneously elevating the entire work.
The fact that William Goldman wrote a perfect book, and then adapted it to a perfect screenplay shows how talented he was
Most fans don't want an adaption. They want a page for page remake.
Which is pretty much what we got in Game of Thrones season 1. Regardless of what you can say about subsequent seasons, season 1 was incredibly close to the books.
I think people want to see their favorite books turned into movie masterpieces, and they blame not liking it on being a poor adaptation, when realistically, every adaptation can't be Jurassic Park or LotR. Even movies that are pretty faithful to the source material, like the Hunger Games, lose a lot of luster in the translation to the big screen. Ultimately, I think movie makers should try to make great movies and people will think they're great adaptations, even if they're not that faithful to the source material.
They shouldnt be making changes unless theres a good reason to. Harry Potter movies left out entire characters and storylines. That's why I fuck with plays the actors dont get to improvise they must follow the script
@rokeYouuer even lotr which is ont he greatest adaptations of all time still totally changed and ruined the ending for no good reason. This is why page to page would be better
@@nickpeitchev7763
Immediately proving my point.
The very fact that these are two different mediums is going to result in changes. You can not have a film adaptation without making cuts for a better flowing narrative. There are things the book can expand on that can work there that wouldn't be well translated into the film.
Adaptations have never been nor will never be page for page remakes. To expect such a thing is silly.
Who Censored Roger Rabbit. The ending of the book just fell so flat for me but Who Framed Roger Rabbit went off in a completely different direction with the characters and told a really fun noir story that has an excellently set up payoff. Easily the best example of a movie that's better than the book, imo. And that's without taking in to consideration how important the film was for the animation and practical fx industries at the time.
The book was significantly different. The biggest change was having Roger not die (he is murdered in the book), and also in the book the toons are comic book characters come to life, not animated characters. They speak in literal speech bubbles (appearing out of thin air, which the humans have to read to understand them), and that would not work in a movie.
@@Rocket1377indeed! That script went through multiple treatments by several writers over the course of many years before it became what it is, and it shows. Every beat in the film feels earned, there’s so much well layered foreshadowing for the final act that really just doesn’t feel like it’s there in the book. The ending of the book, for me at least, felt rushed and disconnected from the preceding events. Heck, even Gary K Wolfe preferred the film in the end, choosing to base his sequels in the Disney Roger Rabbit universe rather than his own. Whether the plots are different or not, merely taking the two narratives at a base value of which is more enjoyable, the film is better.
The author liked the movie so much he accepted it as canon for the sequel
Die Hard > Nothing Lasts Forever.
The book was a cheap pulp novel with a mean streak narrative. The film is a classic of action adventure cinema.
@@tracedowning1840 NLF isn't exactly "pulp" (as least not technically); haven’t read it yet myself yet, but I did read The Detective, which NLF is a sequel to, and it is actually very good.
I definitely like the movie better, but I did find some of the themes in the book interesting. I liked how it is greed that kills the daughter and how the protagonist is not heralded as a hero in the end, which I believe was a Vietnam allegory.
The film is a classic -of action adventure cinema- Christmas movie
The movie is a classic. The book is a cheap paperback.
@@DozenDeuce I’d say it’s both an action and a Christmas movie
Walt Disney encouraged the writers for The Jungle Book to not read the book, because he hated the ending.
"I cant remember who played pinhead" 1000 people at the same time: "Doug Bradley" 🤣
He is definitely not a horror fan
Yes, exactly - and I just commented on "the old man in the nursery home"... Jim Broadbent, anyone here?
@@gordonbrinkmann Jim Broadbent seems to be under some kind of curse where people can't retain his name and he's referred to as "that old guy who's in everything" a lot. I don't understand the issue as I see him and instantly think "Oh it's Jim Broadbent".
@@alibushell6762maybe, but if you are going to talk about them in a video.. do your homework!
Not really relevant to what was being conveyed. @@susannariera
Fight Club. Book was meh and didn’t have the balls to follow through with the developing story the way the movie does. Also, David Fincher elevates the story with Easter eggs and killer cinematography
I personally loved the book. But I can't say that it's better than the movie, on that we agree.
I can't agree with this one. The book is a criticism of toxic masculinity and "of course men can only feel emotions when they beat the shit out of each other". The book does such a good job of breaking down the image of the modern man down to the ending where the bombs don't go off because modern masculinity is a farce, it's all fake posturing, a show.
I'm not saying the movie is bad. Fincher did an excellent job and does translate some of the themes, but he didn't have the balls to say what the book is saying.
I liked the book ok but I agree that the movie was so much better
I disagree. The book was full of dark humor that wasn't conveyed well in the movie. it was also less obvious about the twist.
@@kimmcsharry4256 maybe I should read it again. I didn’t catch much for dark humor
2001. I know the book was written simultaneously with the movie being filmed so perhaps its unfair since it wasn't a true adaptation of an existing book, but the film's visuals made it an experience that couldn't be recreared in the book.
I very much agree, Kubrick's movie is better than Clarke's novel even though I love both.
I liked the short story but the movie was certainly more sprawling and visually stunning. I found the book more in-depth and detailed but I liked it just as well as the movie.
Straight up didn't know that Hellraiser was a book.
It's called something else "The Hellbound Heart" and not Hellraiser. I was surprised too when I saw Clive Barkers name on a book and found out it was the novella that became the hellraiser film.
Years earlier, they made a movie based on one of his other books, Rawhead Rex, and it did so poorly, and Barker allegedly hated it so much that when they decided to make on of The Hellbound Heart, he was like “fuck it, I’ll do it myself.”
The Hellbound Heart really read like an early draft to me. Hellraiser was much improved, by Clive Barker himself.
Clive Barker has some great shit. Really pissed The Theif of Always adaptation never got made.
Also, he wrote the Candyman.
Terry Gilliam made an adaptation of 1984 without reading 1984, and made Brazil. Without reading 1984.
Doesn’t really count, but Brazil is good.
@@ArcaneCowboy
I dunno, it's pretty much 1984, just a very dark comedy.
Did you note, for example, that the little "Decision" toy that drops a weight onto "yes" or "no" always drops onto "no"?
Starship Troopers!!!!
The working title for Brazil was "1984 and a 1/2", so they knew what they were doing. You also don't need to have read the book "1984" to know how it goes.
@@DataLal In ex-USSR we just open our windows and look around.
I would add Minority Report to this list. The short story was good, but the movie embellished it in many interesting and compelling ways and made it worth watching to the end.
Most of Dick’s movies are better
Jurassic Park is a fantastic read but the movie is just dripping with masterwork. John Williams work alone makes it better.
The movie was wonderful but the book was definitely better.
I'll say the book is alot more scary
The book was so much better. They toned down so much of the violence and suspense so that the movie would appeal to older kids. It's not a kids' novel in any way shape, or form.
The book does somethings better while the movie does somethings better. Hammond in the book is basically just an over the mustache twirling greedy capitalist stereotype who literally only cares about money and nothing else, not even his grand kids. Meanwhile the movie version is a more complex and realistic. He's an ambitious entrepreneur who gets way too caught up in his vision until it blows up in his face. The book can also be a bit too self indulgent and preachy which ends up damaging the pacing, unlike the movie where most of the discussions of morality or chaos theory tend to be in the background with much more focus on the dinosaurs. And the book mostly portrays the dinosaurs as horrifying Sci fi monsters unlike the movie where the dinosaurs are more animal like and are portrayed as majestic and awe inspiring.
Overall I'd say it's a 50/50. The book would work much better as a mini series than a movie.
I just started the book. It’s fantastic well written.
"Holes". The book is terrific (it won the Newbery Medal), and tight and gripping and funny and suspenseful. But Louis Sachar also wrote the screenplay for the movie, and used it as a way to just add one more layer of gloss and sand a few more burrs off the story.
I was about to say the same thing.
Holes the movie was great. Of course it helps that the author essentially got to rewrite his own story.
Hell nah that film didnt even come close to the original book. Ppl in these comments rlly are on some heavy drugs smh.
@@nickpeitchev7763nah the movie was better.
I really dislike the ending of the book. I'm glad the movie changed it
@@salarzx62090 couldn't disagree more
There is the obvious: Goldfinger. This James Bond film took all of the criticism of the novel's plot about how Goldfinger's scheme to actually rob Fort Knox was impossible, and crafted a movie version of the scheme that feels truly a work of criminal genius.
Ok, there is a trick done in the book version of "Cloud Atlas" that a lot of people miss. The stories are nested the way they are to make the reader a part of the story. The reader opens the book, then the first character opens a book, then the character in that story opens a book, etc. Each character finishes the story they are reading and closes their book. Finally the reader finishes the book and closes it ending the chain. YOU are just another link in the chain of stories. It literally makes you a part of the of the book.
No they don't. The novel opens on a beach. The first character doesn't read anything. Starting with the second character they read/see/hear the story of the previous character. It's a story but it's not always a book (in one case it's letters, in another it's a holographic recording device called an orison). Eweing doesn't end the novel by closing any book. I don't know what you read, but maybe you're mistaking it with Cloud Atlas
@@CrisSelene Yes, I agree. I don't know what dragonpjb read, but my version of "Cloud Atlas" resembles yours 😉
Are you telling me its like a "Never Ending Story" huh? huh? you get it right? Yeah, you get it!
That sounds fascinating.
Man, I need to read this. I loooved the movie
The Prestige. The film removes the current day plot which includes the journalist having an affair with the Lady who owns the property and she is the ancestor of the magician and blah blah blah. The book is bad.
I won't say the book is bad, but I agree the movie is way better. This may be my favorite Christopher Nolan movie.
The book is great. And the movie is perfectly adapted.
And the moron author of the book has the gall to say Nolan's only good movies are Memento and (of course) The Prestige
I agree. The Prestige movie was better than the book.
As a massive hellraiser fan I LOVED the remake the actress for pinhead is incredible
The Princess Bride should be on this list for so, so many reasons.
I'll put Westly's acid washed jeans at the top of the list.
As should The Warriors.
The abridged version is a fun read, the original is a slog
Dangerous Liaisons. They set it in an earlier period for more extreme costumes, they changed a couple of key lines, and most of all, they came up with a much better ending.
First, the best part was, "Introducing Uma Thurman." Well, kidding, but also kinda not...
Second, the book is fucking GENIUS in terms of literary structure. The ENTIRE novel is written as actual letters sent between the main characters. (At least in the French copy I read. First book i i
ordered on Amazon... in 1996! It arrived from Paris to the US in six days, so I got sucked into the Bezos abyss EARLY.)
Third, it's not really fair to add something like this to the list. The book was published 242 years ago! I'm pretty sure half the crappy Musketeer movies I've seen are better than Dumas in text. Okay, Frankenstein is amazing. Shakespeare and Jane Austen were brilliant. But literature in general has come a long way.
@@kjaime7030 Lordy be! Dumas' Musketeer novels being worse than 50% of the crappy movie adaptions? That is one take that, back in the day of the novels' setting, would be deserving of a challenge to a duel ;-)
Regarding "literature has come a long way in the last few centuries": This is a very 19th century view, which gave rise to something we today call "Bowdlerization".
This movie is top 3 for me. The last scene! 😵 Cruel Intentions was also fantastic.
"Earlier period"? The novel was written in the early 1780s.
@@pendorran And the clothes depicted are from earlier decades.
The Thin Man (1934), 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Jaws (1975), The Thing (Who Goes There?) (1982), Jurassic Park (1993), to name a few.
My go-to for this has always been The Godfather. The book is excellent but bloated and the movie distilled it down perfectly while remaining supremely faithful.
I agree! The book covered so much material. The movie streamlined the story without losing any of the tragedy, action or quiet menace.
And some of the book's side plots were bizarre.
@@scotthamman2653Part of its charm.
Enjoyed the book more than the movie tbh.
One flew over the cuckoos nest. In the book, the Indian narrates the book, so you know he's cognizant, can see and hear and understand what's happening. In the movie, it's the big surprise.
Yes, absolutely. I liked the book. I loved the movie.
And the movie has Jack
No, sorry, that’s not true at all. In the novel when we meet him the Big Chief is clearly insane (he’s convinced that Nurse Ratched can control the flow of time) and it’s only as the story progresses and he’s exposed to McMurphy’s lust for living that you see him come back to sanity.
I hate this movie because it grossly misrepresents shock therapy and overall gives bad rep to psychiatric institutions, glorifying absolute scumbag of a protagonist.
@@FairyRat You may be unaware of the conditions common to psychiatric institutions during the period when the story is set, and the way shock therapy was routinely abused. And the story is more a metaphor about the struggle between bureaucratic conformity vs. freedom in any case.
Exorcist III.
The author of the 1st book (The Exorcist) wrote this sequel (Legion) AND its screen adaptation, AND directed George C. Scott in the movie.
BOTH novel and movie are strong, but the film really puts you there with stellar performances (looking at you, Brad Dourif), music, sound editing, and film editing. It colors in many details and touches that the first movie chose not to include.
I appreciate it so much that I found a copy of the shooting script from the production.
The Godfather 1 & 2. Francis Coppola took an OK mafia melodrama and turned into something Shakespearean. The two movies that draw from Mario Puzo's book are so much better than their source.
Even Mario Puzo admitted that he wrote "below his gifts" and that the book was written mostly because he needed the money and wanted something that would sell. It can't compare to the greatness of the movies.
I agree, apart from pretty much anything that involves Luca Brasi.
In the movie, you're told he's a scary guy, but all you see is him with the godfather and not long after he gets taken out.
In the book you understand why everyone is so afraid of him.....he's a f@cking monster!!
Puzo was a newspaper writer and his style of writing in Godfather really was in that vein, it's an excellent story hiding in a mediocre book, Coppola really made it sing.
Totally agree. The book is very trashy.
Loved the book. Movie didn't quite do it for me.
"I didn't read the book before I made the movie." That's how Warner Bros. treats the live action DC universe. 😄
Yes. Comic books have some of the greatest stories. If people didn't look down on them. One exception is EC Comics. Tales from The Crypt and so on. Mostly faithfully adapted.
Superhero comics are terrible and nobody reads them anyway, so they've nothing to lose there. The movie adaptions are terrible too, but at least they have an audience. Unfortunately.
@@danielwesterlund1905 tell that to all the D.C. and Marvel fans. They have changed over the years and not always for the best. But even now they are some great stories. The biggest problem is the price is too high and the stories lean dark. But decades and decades of comics have proven there worth as art and literature.
To all you DC and Marvel fans, capeshit comics are bad, m'kay.
Also, Starship Troopers had the perfect Director. Paul Verhoeven is the perfect person to make a film like that.
I think you need to put Starship Troopers in the same category as The Shining; they might tell the same 'story,' but the meaning is so different the stories are different.
Starship Trooper the book is 1000 times better than the movie. Just the fact they left out the powered armor doomed the movie.
Kubrick's The Shining is so different from the book that you could rename the characters and the location and it would be unrecognizable.
It didn't help that Kubrick didn't read the book himself. According to his daughter Vivian, he had *her* read it and submit typewritten summaries of each chapter.
@@tilmonhocutt8780 also left out an entire other race we were at war with. and that Juan (not John) Rico's father survives and joins up too.
Verhoeven took some of the themes from the book, twisted them until they screamed, and added enough cringeworthy details to make it a cartoon parody. The lack of powered armor, the utterly laughable military tactics, making the Arachnids a technology-free species that can somehow throw rocks across the galaxy... the list goes on. Finding out that the movie was originally "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine" before they acquired the rights to the book, and that Verhoeven didn't even read the book told me it would be a "Nutri-Matic Tea" version of the book - something almost, but not quite, completely unlike the source material.
@@seanmalloy7249 that bit you mentioned about 'Bug Hunt at outpost nine' reminds me of the story with the 'I Robot' movie where they also bought to rights to the book just to slap the title on something else called 'Hardwired' that had nothing to do with Asimov's writing.
Shawshank Redemption
Benjamin Button
Forrest Gump
Princess Bride
I am not sure it is even fair to consider The Princess Bride. The William Goldman book was his sketch for the movie.
FORREST GUMP!!! Omg the book was aweful!!
How _Shawshank Redemption_ isn’t on this list is beyond me. Also I disagree vehemently with the last two titles in this video, so taking one of those off to make room for _Shawshank_ would be super easy.
@@mjjoe76 Shawshank and The Body (Stand By Me) are usually considered short stories. Perhaps that's the difference.
@@philt2170 Yep, and the ending of the third story of that collection to be filmed (Apt Pupil) also put the film above the story.
Unpopular opinion: Lord of the Rings; The films wisely cut out most of the singing, 300 pages of walking, and Tom f*cking Bombadil, and didn't feel like any of it was missed.
Heresy...
The movies were unwatchable.
I love the movies, but they are not better than the book(s). But Peter Jackson and the gang did an excellent job of adapting the story, though.
@@Elora445 Agreed. The movies, in their own rights, are brilliant adaptations which, while not letter perfect reflections of the novels, are surprisingly faithful to the themes and gestalt of the novels.
I'm revisiting LotR, and I'm actually feeling this
I kinda get tired of people saying "you have to read the book before you see the movie" and "the book is ALWAYS better than the movie". Goldfinger is my ultimate example of the movie being better. The movie became the template that later Bond films used and the book has a lot of problems.
In their defence, they're almost always right. The book will have a lot more texture than you can pack in a 2-3 hour movie with rare exceptions. eg. As good as the most recent Shogun 2024 series is, it's still a portion of the intrigue and drama of the book.
@@matthewhood7844 I find Fleming's novels pretty tedious overall. I do prefer the Bond movies.
@@Mondomeyeragreed. I read all the Fleming books because I’m married to someone whose last name is actually Bond, but many of those books are problematic for a variety of reasons .
Of the James Bond novels I've read the book was better every time. the movies are campy
@@b.lloydreese2030depends. Casino Royale is pretty much a straight upgrade over the book. Moonraker is an In Name Only adaptation. And Goldfinger is about on par.
I actually like the third category where the books and film are equally competent. Stephen King owns this with Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption - I have to watch the film after reading them every time. Literally perfect adaptations. Gary Sinise's Of Mice and Men also hold up here.
I also think Bicentennial Man stands in this category, but there are differences in each version that pull it down from a 10/10.
I'll add Jurassic Park and Moby Dick (1956) onto that pile too.
I'm glad you admit that this is just your opinion.
I respect that you talked about The Shining. I was expecting it on your list, and I was going to say 'no, the movie was too different to call better or worse'.
Then you fell into the same mistake with Starship Troopers. Starship Troopers was a fun movie, but it barely played lip service to the book.
Somewhere in Time is better than Bid-time Return. Richard Matheson wrote both the book and the script and I think he saw that as an opportunity to improve on the story and characters and cut some unnecessary things. I love that the movie is pretty clear about the truth of the time travelling and the spiritual meeting in the end, as the book makes it unclear if it's real or not because the protagonist has a brain-tumour in it. In the movie he has not.
And Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour together with that beautiful John Barry soundtrack. What a masterpiece!
Man .... Richard Matheson is such a weird figure when it comes to these things because you mention Somewhere in Time being better and I think about the beautiful journey that was What Dreams May Come and some of his other amazing work. But then I am brought low by the absolute abomination that is I am Legend, which ties with World War Z for me as the gold standard in how to absolutely ruin and horribly adapt a book into a movie. But Richard Matheson man .... some truly high highs but some mighty low lows.
Entirely agree, and I normally love Richard Matheson books and short stories. I enjoyed Jack Finney's Time and Again which is very similar. So much so I initially thought Bid Time Return was going to be a sequel or an homage! Instead it was the first Matheson story I couldn't finish.
Maybe Matheson's type of heroes just aren't a good fit for a romance. Now, I'm leary of reading What Dreams May Come.
I love that movie, I’ll have to check the book now!
I am one of those heretics that often prefers films over the books. But, in my defence I realised relatively recently that most people can create the images from the book in their minds. That was wild to me! It turns out I have a condition called aphantasia (no minds eye), and it suddenly it all made sense why I always preferred character driven fiction over books full of overly descriptive paragraphs.
A massive benefit of this though has been that I get to enjoy books even more after seeing the films.
I don't have aphantasia, but what I've realized is that some directors simply have much better visual imagination than I do, and are able to bring to full, dynamic, colorful life, what in my own mind was the equivalent of vague and muted cartoon.
Is that for real? I always thought it was a extreme exaggeration how people can see and imagine the characters in a book. I can enjoy a good book. But I could never do that. Nice to know that I am not a lone .
A good friend of mine has aphantasia. For me although I have a good imagination and "inner eye", I am always struck by how a movie such as Blade Runner or Dune are so visually mind blowing.
I have that too. It's utterly wild to me that people can see stuff in their heads. I do love reading books, and get lost in the story, I much prefer watching a film or telly programme.
Aphantasia here as well. It is hard to compare to something I haven't experienced, but I believe it changed how I read (and wrote) significantly. It does bring out the beauty of language more. There are still plenty of books I'd consider better than their movie, but I do like adaptations as their own thing. I collect Stephen King movies, for a start.
I liked the movie Clockwork Orange more than the book. The book carried more of the theme of the cycle of violence in a generational context, while the movie explores the cycle of violence in a more societal context which I found more compelling.
A Garfield Christmas is better than the book.
Did you know Garfield likes lasagna?
Everyone knows that
The first thing I thought when seeing the title of this video was, "Oh, I wonder if Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is on his list. I didn't notice your shirt until you were discussing it. After the video I realized that I too was wearing an E;ectric Sheep shirt :) I'm a huge PKD fan too and totally agree.
Love the mention of roadside picnic and stalker, Annihilation is one of my favorite books and I have the ouroboros tattoo from the film. I'm obsessed with that specific kind of story setup.
One that immediately came to mind for me is Cormac McCarthy's The Road. There was something so haunting and beautify in Viggo Mortensen's performance. I've seen the movie and read the book, and I definitely rank the movie over the book.
It's still one of my top five favorite books. Fictional, of course.
Hmmm, I thought the movie was okay but I liked the book a lot better. To each his own.
Strangely, I found the movie incredibly dull But I couldn’t put the book down. I should definitely rewatch it…
I respect your opinion but you might be the only person I have ever heard say they liked the movie better in this case
All the Pretty Horses the movie was better than the book.
Girl, Interrupted always comes to mind. I don't think one is better than the other, but they compliment each other beautifully.
For that one, I think the book is a thousand times better than the movie. The book is based on a real story, but the movie took all of that away and turned it into a fictional story to make it more dramatic. That's also the reason why the real Susanna Kaysen doesn't like it. I always find it a bit disrespectful when filmmakers change a true story into something entirely else, especially when it's about a serious topic.
18:53 but the director of starship troopers didn't even read the book
He read the first two chapters before quitting.
Life of Pi was an excellent read, almost a masterpiece, but Ang Lee made it into a beautiful SFX movie that adapted the story word for word with great acting and wonderful cinematography.
That movie changed my life😢
I’d agree (and in fact would say that the prologue set in India is better in the movie) right up till the twist ending, where the director made the choice of telling the audience what “really” happened as opposed to showing it to them. For my money it gave that version of events far less narrative weight, and much less impact.
This film was almost spot on what i imagined when reading the book. The other notable one was fear and loathing in Las vegas
I really like the book. I think the movie is great, but I wish they have shown Pi's look on zoo from the begining of the book and pretty important encounter in the middle of the ocean. The biggest advantage of the film are the visuals
I completely disagree, but for entirely stupid reasons.
I didn't like the book because I found it utterly boring to read, but then I came to hate it when he kills a turtle. I fucking love turtles, I know it doesn't MATTER, it's a fictional turtle. But it still instilled such white hot rage in me I burnt the book when I was done reading it.
And I didn't like the movie because I apparently have no sense of awe or wonder, and was just bored out of my skull watching a movie all about the beauty of nature.
Not a movie but a TV show: the first season of Dexter is far better than the book it's based on. The books are embarrassingly bad to the point where the show ignores them after season 1.
I had no idea it was based on a book series. What's it called?
I think the first one is called darkly dreaming dexter. I've never read it, but I always wanted to.
@rammelbroadcasting yep, I read that one, and it's follow-up Dearly Devoted Dexter. They were rough. It goes supernatural with the concept where their dark passengers are entities, and Rita's kid can see them.
@@joeabernathy5402 LMAO
I’ll add Longmire to the list. Loved the show; hated the books.
I haven't read it, but I think The Shining is an all-time great horror movie. It may be a bad book adaptation, but that doesn't automatically make the movie bad or inferior.
@@malafakka8530 If you had read The Shining (and you should) you’d understand how people like me who love the book really hate that piece of garbage Stanley Kubrick created. What an insult to one of the best books ever written in any genre.
@@ad3673 No, I don't think so and I explained why in that comment. To call the movie a piece of garbage is nonsense to me and a sign that some readers cannot detach themselves enough from the book (and I might be guilty of that as well in a different case). Personally, I doubt that the book is as good as you say because I don't think that King is that good as a writer. That doesn't mean that I won't read the book though.
I have always said Jumanji the movie was better than the book. The book was a 20 page picture book.
If we're talking the Robin Williams version... I agree. The Dwayne Johnson film is about on par with the picture book (good)
If we're going that way, then we should mention Shrek.
One of the problems people have with the Starship Troopers film is the omission of the Gundam-esque robot suits...
The book was for adults, the movie for children.
@@dchivers9092did you actually watch the movie and forget about the coed shower scene?
If not, "STAY AWAY FROM CHILDREN!"
“Come on you apes!” makes more sense if you read the book where the mech suits have long arms making them look ape-like in proportions. It’s still fine without context but it’s a fun “Ooh, I got that” feeling from the meta context.
@@dchivers9092 Made for children? It's political satire. Kids aren't gonna get that...
Also the movie it was a movie about bugs aliens invading earth that the studio said, hey you need a franchise for that, so they said there is this book put some names a phrase, a pair of things that happened in the books and taran movie adaptation. If you don’t believe me look about it!! This was never an adaptation!
The Starship Troopers movie is a carbon copy of the book? Ok, this guy has either never seen the movie or has never read the book. The director paul verhoeven never even read the book and just made a movie using the name and settings so there is no way it is a carbon copy. It was never intended to be an adaptation. Asking to add things from the movie to the book to make it better is like asking to add things from hockey to figure skating. 2 completely different things that can't be compared.
Also, Libertarian vibes? Yeah, this guy didn't read the book. First time seeing his content, and his credibility is down the toilet for me.
For me Gone Girl and No Country for Old Men were better films. They were awesome books, but the films were masterpieces imho.
I'm reading Gone Girl now, and I agree that the movie is better.
Yes. I’m a big McCarthy fan, but. . . The Cohen Bros created lightning in a bottle.
One of the best movies of all time. I remember looking for a dvd copy a number of years after it wasn't on the shelves anymore. I found it in this old used goods shop. I remember walking up to the counter and the guy stopped what he was doing and gave this stare. He knew. After a moment he goes, "That is an excellent movie, you have good taste. That's our only copy." He knew I found the gold in the shop.
Gone Girl is the one I always use as an example. That book was not as good as the movie.
I'll be honest, I was expecting Forest Gump or The Princess Bride to be on the list.
Holt shit the forrest gump boook is something else the move classic
I thought both were wonderful, but different...
Wrestler, chessmaster(?), astronaut ...
Versus
Walk through history?
Yeah, the movie was more engaging, Forest was a good father.
At least to me one of those cases is Nail Gaiman's Stardust, SPOILER if you are reading ahead, basically at the end Gaiman goes all "and our protagonists have a lot of adventures until they decide to be kings, suddenly the King dies and we have an immortal queen" I honestly like more the end in the movie, its way more romantic and less sad.
Agree: not only that, but I found that the witches are more in character in the movie.
I mean, in the end of the book (SPOLIER):
The witch, to Yvaine: "Why I can't sense you if you are right in front of me?"
Yvaine: "Because my heart belongs to Tristan now"
The witch: "Oh ok, bye: be good... My sisters'll understand they aren't cruel."
F**king what?
The 3 murdering sociopatic witches that, in the beginning of the book, murdered a guy just because he was passing by their house?
I was stunned when I read that part (after watching the movie, and usually in those cases I re-evaluate the movie in negative and find the book so much better, not in this case)
Plus Tristan's mother liberation from slavery (nice touch, better than the movie, but that can be foreseen by anyone the first time she appears): why can't the witch re-enslave her or try something against her but ends up doing what she's asked to?
Starship Troopers -- "the movie is pretty much a carbon copy of the book". I just ended the video here. You should market what ever you are on, or at least read the book and watch the movie. Whether you like either, the biggest takeaway is that beyond a title and some character names they are no more alike than saying the TV series Little House on the Prairie is a perfect portrayal of Tolstoy's War and Peace. 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
Yup the movie got the same treatment as Monster Hunter and Children of Men…. Aka the director got a cliff notes summary and went with that instead.
I completely agree. The book is so much better than the movie. I liked the movie, but IMHO it's not even close. How can you even think of making this movie and leave out the "mobile infantry" part? Without that, it's just a WWII movie with a new skin.
@@RobertSmith-nc9sd another thing to note. The book you buy today is not actually the original version. Find a printed version from before Heinlein passed. The newer versions have been edited to make them more accessible to modern readers. And it really changes after the movie.
@@spencesanders7879what did they do?
@@spencesanders7879 Interesting. I didn't know that. My copy is about 50 years old so I'm probably good. 🙂
Forrest Gump, The Devil Wears Prada and Bridget Jones Diary are great examples of a movie being better than the book.
Edit: Also the Princess Diaries. I've read the first book and hated it.
Forrest Gump is debatable. The book is an almost completely different beast then the movie, which actually misses the point of the book.
Logan’s Run - to me, the book is a series of disconnected, exaggerated vignettes compared to the movie.
"Jaws" is far better than the book. All of the characters are awful people in the book, and I found myself hoping that they would all get eaten by the shark. The movie wisely made Chief Brody and Matt Hooper into likeable, relatable characters and greatly expanded on Quint's backstory, which made Quint and the entire story make a lot more sense. The movie is a classic, the book is a bad novel that was made into a classic movie.
I agree. Although I saw the movie before I read the book, which is rare for me. I wonder if that affected my opinion.
Have to agree with that one too! They are so awful in the book, the affair was so unnecessary! And of course that music makes the movie even better!!! That score is perfect!
The 13th Warrior is much better than Eaters of the Dead. Mainly because Crichton was on set to "fix" it to be better for a movie. The 13th Warrior is the first movie that caused me to read the book it came from.
I haven't read the book, but the movie is amazing.❤
Apart from Jurassic Park all the films are better than his books. Probably because he increasingly became anti science.
Lol, dunno why, but you saying "in order from the least improvement to the most improvement" made it sound like you're a true book worm and I stand by you brother! 😂
"Dr. Strangelove" was better than "Red Alert."
Honorable mention: Brokeback Mountain. When I read it I thought no one could improve on that experience. Then Ang Lee made the movie with Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger. Combine brilliant direction with brilliant casting & performances, plus a perfect score.
I was going to cite 'Brokeback Mountain' as well. The original short story is masterful, but the film takes the characters and their story to a whole new level of poignancy. I respect the short story, while I love the film.
Swift, clean, heartbreaking book.....but the movie had grandeur, grit and beauty.
I really like it when the adaptation interprets the concepts of the book. The shining is one of my favorite books. The shining is also one of my favorite movies for VERY different reasons. Cloud Atlas is an adaptation that does so many things that a book cannot. I love the book to death! But it has a lot of barriers to entry for some people. So I HARD recomend the movie to most people.
Great video, SUBBED!
Re Children of Men: The book scared the hell out of me. The supposed last generations of humanity slowly, quietly dying (granted, not so quietly in terms of the youngest) created in me palpable fear. Terrifying melancholia.
When I saw the trailer for the film adaptation I could tell this film was well crafted and well acted (which it turned out to be), but…the in-the-moment horrors of chaos and death in the streets doesn’t for me hold a candle to what it would feel like to live a quiet life believing that in a few decades humankind would simply cease.
The Princess bride is so much better than the book! 📖
The Fight Club. Chuck himself admitted that Fincher made this story better than he ever could.
Also, obscure take - "Woman in Dunes. Still hell of a spectacle more than 60 years later.
The reason that the race swapping was integral to Cloud Atlas was that it is how reincarnation works. While our spirits remain the same, we change on the outside. Different genders and different races. There was no other way to depict this visually that could possibly express this more perfectly. It wasn't a matter of yellow face and more than it was a matter of white face when the race swapped the other way and it wasn't drag when the genders swapped. This was one of the greatest elements of this movie
Yes, I agree - I thought that the controversy was overblown and didn't feel quite fair. I could understand it if only white actors were playing non-white parts and were giving stereotypical/offensive performances , but that wasn't the case at all. It made sense within the context of the film, the characters were played respectfully and you had black actors and asian actors playing other races/ethnicities as well. Halle Berry even mentioned in an interview that this is was something that appealed to her when she agreed to be in the movie, because she could play a character that otherwise she would never be offered as a black woman.
This is one reason i disagree that the movie is better than the book(although i enjoyed them both).
The concepts of reincarnation and the souls movie into different bodies over periods of time was well done and explained in the book, in the movie it came off clunky and was only really explained by the fact you had actors playing multiple characters with bad prosthetics.
I wasnt offended by the race and gender swapping in the movie but i can see why people who didnt understand the reincarnation concepts of the story might get mad about it.
Fight Club
Can't personally confirm this one, but my grandma says Forrest Gump. The book is the only one in her life that she threw in the garbage.
Even the author agrees with you on Fight Club
"Forrest Gump" (the book) has lots of racism. It's not a tight story. And the flourishes that make the movie sly largely aren't there.
@@NybergCarl she'd mentioned that Forrest also had a monkey friend.
@@badlydrawn7476 Chuck Palahniuk is a big fan of the film adaptation of Fight Club a lot, but he has been on record saying he liked the ending of the movie better than the ending he had written in the book.
You beat me to it :)
Wondered why RUclips suggested this video until you started talking about Cloud Atlas.
Loved that movie. Always wondered why it got dumped on by critics when it came out.
The Black Stallion. The book is a nice young adult novel. The movie is a breathtaking masterpiece of cinematography.
I was massively in love with both when I was younger.
I agree and disagree. The movie is breathtaking. However, in killing off the father, the movie tries to turn the story into a sad contemplation, but the book has numerous comedic moments that rely on visual humor that would have translated brilliantly on film. The Movie misses the point of children dreaming about having their own special horse.
I would like to make another suggestion for an example when the movie is MUCH better than the original source material, and I'm a little surprised this didn't make the list. It may just be that Rammel isn't a big fan of cartoons or live-action/animation films, or he didn't feel a big need to read the original book. I'd like to throw out "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". The movie is technically based off the book "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?" by Gary K. Wolf, but REALLY borrows a lot more from the Roman Polanski film "Chinatown". Anybody who has seen this movie knows that it is a loving homage to the Golden Age of animated short films by the major studios, and almost every notable cartoon character you've heard of makes at least a cameo appearance. The book has absolutely nothing to do with the movie except that that there IS a Roger Rabbit, a Jessica Rabbit, Baby Herman, and a detective named Eddie Valiant. The book instead of taking place in postwar Los Angeles instead is in the contemporary era which at the time the book was written was 1981. And the book isn't about the world of animation but rather newspaper syndicated strip cartoons like "Peanuts." You can buy the Kindle version real cheap, but there's a reason for this---the book isn't NEARLY as good as the movie.
Instead of Gary K. Wolfe's book, I would recommend ordering the graphic novel "Weapon Brown" by Gary Yungbluth instead. This book does for syndicated comic strips what Roger Rabbit does for seven-minute cartoon shorts. The protagonist is a bald cyborg named "Weapon Brown" who travels with his faithful dog, a pitbul named "Snoop" through a post-apocalyptic world. The first part of the story focuses on the Peanuts universe, but then the story expands to every notable comic strip character you've ever heard of, culminating in an epic battle between "Chuck" and "Snoop" on one side, and Cal V.1n and H.O.B.S. on the other. (You can't order it through Amazon, but do a Google search and you'll easily find the author's web site---I most highly recommend it!)
I LOVE Cloud Atlas! I had seen it once or twice, loved it... then one day while tripping on Acid I watched it and had ti immediately watch it again (so twice back to back) and I just fell in love with it 10 fold! One of my favorite movies of all time!
Starship Trooper the movie can NEVER match the book. I mean leaving out the powered armor alone in the movie makes it no comparison. Many other ways the book is better also.
Their infantry tactics sucked as well.
Nah, the movie is better, most of the best parts are movie original
The director hated the book, and it shows.
The movie was originally was just going to be an aliens vs humans called Bug Hunt. Then they got the rights to the book and crapped all over it.
Hate to say it cuz I love Anthony Burgess, but for me Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is way better than the book.
ABSOLUTELY!! 200% agree here. The book is a good read, but I don't care for the final chapter. I understand what Burgess was saying, but I think the cynicism of Kubrick's version which leaves that bit out is the perfect ending for the story.
Personally, just the fact that 3very other 2ord was babble and it having an appendix explaining the words made me crazy
It's been a long time since I've read A Clockwork Orange, but I think I might agree with you. If I recall correctly, the ending of the book was changed before the movie was made.
@@simonagree4070 IIRC, the book's proper ending wasn't in the US edition; the US publisher had the last chapter removed. Kubrick was familiar the US version, and based the movie off of that.
@@fisheyenomikoBurgess had presented the final chapter as an option to the publishers. Its not really clear that he preferred the extra chapter, and he certainly understood that the addition was considered weaker by contemporary literary standards. The US publisher went with the literary ending, the British one went with the ending easier to slip by the censors.
Pretty much anything by PK Dick. Honorable mention: "we can remember it for you wholesale" vs "total recall".
Psycho should be an honorable mention... actually that honorable mentions list should be a lot longer!
Silence of the Lambs
Coraline
So I was hoping someone brought up Neil Gaiman, cause he has this way about him where you take his ideas and put it to film and they just run away with themselves... it's not guaranteed to be better, but it'll definitely give his book a run for it's money. Stardust is one where I can't say it's better, but I can't say it worse... it is different and wonderful.
I think the book Coraline was better because I found it scary. I was an adult when I saw the film, so I found it pretty mild, but the book frightened me as an adult.
Gone with the wind.
@thezenlu I love Neil Gaiman (one of my faves) but I didn't like stardust the book and loved stardust the movie. I think for me, the acting really helped bring the story to life in a way tbe book did not.
@@themarnacle my only issue is there is a level of fantasticalness that the movie sidesteps like the bazaar that happens each year and the weird people who show up for it and the whole relationship situation for Tristan's Dad and his behavior after the night. The movie cuts through the fat to be a far more trim and pointed story, but part of the fun with Gaiman is the fat... as for characters being fleshed out, I think that speaks more to what version speaks most to you... some like the illustrated one more, others might go with the book, and others still the audio book... I'll tell you, the audio book is read by Gaiman, and his choices make for a fun experience.
Hellbound heart is a novella. It's not hard to find a physical copy but it's easier to get his collection of short stories
I have one that I feel the movie is better than the book, the book is "Shoeless Joe" and the film is "Field Of Dreams". Here is my take I saw the film and loved it so much that I searched out the book. I don't want to give too much away, but when I read the book it just didn't have a heart like the movie.
Yeah. I knew the author personally through tournament Scrabble, and his ideas were large but his prose style lacking. It would have been interesting if J.D. Salinger hadn't sued himself out of the movie, but the stand-in was great.
I actually can’t make myself watch the movie because I love the book so much. And the changes I know were made cause me great apprehension..
The World According to Garp was what I was expecting to be #1.
What? The book was a masterpiece.
i was very disappointed by the movie at adaptation.
The movie was much better, because you reached the end in a bit over two hours.
To me the movie is a perfect example of how to adapt a novel into a film. Both are equally wonderful.
I'm surprised at your review of
'Cloud Atlas' I love that you enjoyed it. You got it! All I heard about the movie from everywhere, including friends, was that it was terrible. But I usually don't listen to that kind of noise. I LOVED IT! If it was presented in chronological order, it would have been boring. It was a total ride and I got it! I don't think many people did. I loved 'Amelie' I spoke about it with a couple of people. And then I stopped. I would mention just how impactful the movie is and I was then hearing how amazing movies like I😂'Independence Day' and 'Armageddon' are. I stopped talking about movies I like.
Thank you.
"Total Recall" is better than the short story.
Completely different story.
And yet the book of the movie still manages to be better than the movie 😂
@@steffannicholson9959 i didn't even know somebody novelized the movie
That has been the problem with a lot of Philip K. Dick source material, why mainstream success eluded him. Like i read once, "Dick was a great Sci-fi writer's writer." Stories full of great ideas that are mostly appreciated by other writers.
The Woman in black. book is quite short and not great. The film version with Daniel Radcliff far superior, captured the creepy horror element much better. The sequal film was awful though .
The book for Hellraiser, The Helbound Heart, was excellent, but it was a novella, not a full-length book. Barker expanded upon the novella. As far as the Shining...I have to say the movie was fantastic. The book was fantastic. They aren't the same though. S.K. changed so, many things in the movie, that I don't think it's fair to say that one is better than the other. The family in the movie, other than the names, isn't the same family as in the book. Jack Torrence is scary almost from the beginning of the movie, and I never get the feeling that he is really in love with his family. The Jack in the book, however, is all in, when it comes to Wendy and Danny, and loves them to death. Read/listen to the book/audiobook. You will learn so much about the hotel that you never knew. You will find out why King was so pissed at Kubrik for what he did to his book. Then, if you can find it, watch the Shining miniseries. With the exception of the appearance of Tony from time to time, the performances are incredible, and it's a much truer adaptation of the novel.
I agree with you about almost everything except the mini-series. I didn't like Stephen Weber. He's always been lifeless to me. I don't know who should have been cast instead, but not him.
Hah, I never noticed before that the book and the movie were both the work of S.K.
While the miniseries was true to the book (little wonder with King's heavy involvement), it was boring as hell. No, it redefined the meaning of the word boring. Did I mention how remarkably boring it was? The only good thing that's come of this miniseries was the Nostalgia Critic's hilarious in-depth crucifixion of it.
Stardust is a good example where the movie is sooo much better than the book.
Three Days of the Condor was a much better movie than its source novel Six Days of the Condor.
LOL. The book had to be bloated if they were able to shrink the story down from 6 days to 3.
@@luddite4change449 The protagonist was ill and bedridden with the flu for 3 days. Yeah, really.
Absolutely about Blade Runner; I've read the book but the movie blew my mind, became my cult movie instantly.
The opening of the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is just hilarious. As is the scene with the robotic pet technician treating the live cat.
Me before watching the video: "If one of this will be the shining I'm going to grow up."
Me after the warning: Subscribed!
Kubrick did a brilliant job filming it, but he saw Jack Torrence as a man who ALREADY hated his wife and son, and just needed a nudge by the Overlook ghosts to do WHAT HE SECRETLY ALREADY WANTED TO DO. This is RADICALLY different from the book, and considering that King based the Jack Torrence character on himself, I can't blame him for being offended. My biggest problem is the abuse that Kubrick heaped on Shelley Duvall during filming which I believe either contributed to or caused her mental health problems afterwards. He had no faith in Duvall's ability to portray a traumatized woman, so he had to traumatize her for real.
Yep, read the book first. Liked the movie but was disappointed while waiting for events that were in the book that weren’t there. PS I was a teenager and saw The Shining in a theatre…was so looking forward to it.
I think Kubrick’s The Shining is a masterpiece, but it’s less of an adaptation of the book and more of a reconceptualization. I personally prefer the movie, but I also get why people who really connect with the book would have a distaste for it, including King himself.
Sully sent Boo to grow up as well.
Same here!
How is Jaws not included?
maybe he didn't read jaws...
@@alicepbg2042I read Jaws - mainly for the sex scene
Then he'd have to change the title to 6 times the movie was better.
@@Ken19700 Or include it on a follow-up, "5 MORE Times the Movie Was Better."
He probably didnt read it.
The fact that Jaws isn’t on here is wild to me. The book is disgustingly pessimistic, and the characters are just not interesting at all, and are just horrible people. Also, the ending isn’t anywhere near as interesting.
Doctor sleep is a better movie than the book for sure.
@calebperrin8270 Agreed! The movie was really good, the book.... not so much, as much as I love King!
Amazing cast, especially Rebecca Ferguson as Rose the Hat. Really tight story telling that somehow managed to bring together the Kubrick version of the Shining with both novels, in a way that didn't feel forced or outside of the story. WhennDanny says "I'm waking it up," it was such a chilling delivery! Ewan MacGregor is one of my favourite actors.
And finally, it left out all the stupidest parts of the book, including the worst of the "battle of the minds" and the "twist" at the end, which was no better than Carrie 2 could do. I mean, Carrie 2 was a bad ripoff of King, which King turned around and ripped off, wtf?
Liked the book better. Didn't think Danny deserved the movie ending he got.
@benjalucian1515 agreed, I loved the movie, but the book was much more satisfying to me.
@@silvercross1024 👌
Hard to argue against, friggin fantastic movie and book.
Greetings, fellow Buckeye! Here are 5 more films I think are better than the book:
The Silence of the Lambs
Psycho
Jaws
Goldfinger
Jurassic Park
Honorable mention goes to "50 Shades of Grey" - because that book was neither sexually stimulating, informative, nor well-written!
and the film version of "The Shinning" was not superior to the book, but Brian DePalma's "Carrie" definitely was!
Second person who picks Goldfinger. I mean, pretty much every Bond movie is better than the book, but Goldfinger? An epic title song making one of the silliest Bond movies seem way better than it actually is.
Also, Jurassic Park as a book is way more interesting and informative than the movie, it's a book I keep coming back to and quoting. The movie just has live action dinos.
@@danguillou713 I would say "From Russia With Love" was better as a book. Also, I'm glad you mined such treasures from the book "Jurassic Park". I did not, but that's okay. Literature is, ultimately, subjective.
Great topic! This is my first time visiting your channel (I believe) and I'm not sure if you are specific to a select few genres (maybe fantasy, sci-fi, and horror), but if not, I have a couple you didn't cover:
- The Heiress (1949), which is based on the stage play of the same name by Ruth & Augustus Goetz, which itself is based on the novel "Washington Square" by Henry James. William Wyler directs one of the best performances I have seen in Olivia de Havilland, and really the entire film is loaded with outstanding performances, including from Ralph Richardson (from 1981's Dragonslayer, which landed him a deserved Oscar nomination btw) and Montgomery Clift. The premise: in 1840's NYC, a wealthy heiress (from posh Washington Square in Manhattan!) is being courted by a handsome young man, and her father suspects the man is a gold digger. It's a drama, obviously, but for film lovers, it's an absolute lineup of quality - the score is by famed composer Aaron Copland, Edna Mode herself (Edith Head) did the costumes, the B&W deep focus cinematography is gorgeous, and the dialogue is killer. I consider it impressive that is arguably better than the book considering who wrote it! The film hasn't aged a day and its themes appear timeless.
- Rebecca (1940), based on the novel of the same name from Daphne DuMaurier. This a classic directed Alfred Hitchcock and produced by David O. Selznick - it's probably correct to say this is equal parts of both men as Selznick was famously involved during filming, and something Hitchcock didn't have to really "put up with" in his later career. Selznick had just finished producing Gone with the Wind and wanted Hitch to stay faithful to the source material, which he mostly did. This is so very different than the work Hitchcock did in 1950's and 1960's, but still a masterpiece of his. If this film isn't better than book, then it's just as good.
Anyways, I'm going to get to watching some of your other videos - good stuff!
Rosemary's Baby. (The movie is better than the book.)
Stardust movie was better then the book.
I wonder if "Shawshank" movie is better than the book, but have never read the book.
Don't read King's novella; it is nowhere near as good as the movie.
I agree with Stardust. Can’t comment on Stephen King as I’ve not read the book nor seen the movie
Stardust. Yes. The dead brothers in the movie are a gas.
Shamelessly complete in my agreement with your choices.
It’s not a full book, just a short story, but The Shawshank Redemption is the first one that comes to my mind. And King is one of my favorite authors as well.